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 The issue to be determined is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the Site Certification Application ("Application") submitted by Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL"), pursuant to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act ("PPSA"), sections 403.501 through 403.518, for the construction and operation of a new electrical power generation facility, Dania Beach Energy Center ("DBEC") at FPL's existing Lauderdale Site in Broward County, Florida; and, if so, the Conditions of Certification that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FPL is the applicant for site certification for the DBEC electrical power plant5/ at issue in this proceeding. FPL is the largest electric utility in Florida, serving approximately 4.9 million customer accounts. Its service territory covers approximately 28,000 square miles, in all or part of 35 counties in Florida, and in Georgia. Its 53 existing electrical power generating units are located at power plants throughout its service territory, and consist of diverse generation technologies, including nuclear units, coal-burning units, combined cycle units, oil/gas steam units, combustion turbines, gas turbines, and solar facilities. As of December 2016, FPL had a total system electrical power generation capacity of 26,267 megawatts ("MW"). DEP is the state agency charged with administering the PPSA, which is codified at chapter 403, part II. Specifically, the SCO administers the PPSA and coordinates the site certification process, including receiving comments from the affected agencies and preparing the PAR, which contains the proposed Conditions of Certification.6/ Sierra is a national non-profit environmental advocacy organization. A key component of Sierra's mission is to advocate for the use of clean energy sources. As discussed below, Sierra was granted intervenor status pursuant to section 403.508(3)(e), subject to proving that its substantial interests are affected in this proceeding. The DBEC Electrical Power Plant FPL's Lauderdale Site FPL owns and operates the Lauderdale Site, an existing electrical power generating facility site located on approximately 392 acres in the City of Dania Beach and the City of Hollywood, in Broward County, Florida. The Site is approximately one mile west of Interstate 95 and approximately 1/4 mile south of Interstate 595. It has served as an operating power plant site for more than 90 years, and has existing infrastructure consisting of a transmission switch yard, a gas yard, an existing gas transmission pipeline, an existing electrical transmission system, water lines, fuel storage tanks, and a sewer line. Currently, the Lauderdale Site features five electrical power generation units: Units 4 and 5, which consist of four combined cycle units comprised of four 1990s-vintage combustion turbines ("CTs"), four heat recovery steam generators ("HRSGs"), and two 1950s-vintage steam turbines; Unit 6, which consists of five 200-MW single cycle CTs used as "peakers" to generate additional electrical power during periods of peak demand; and two 35 MW units. Location of DBEC DBEC is proposed to be constructed on the portion of the Lauderdale Site that is located within the City of Dania Beach. The City of Dania Beach recently amended its Comprehensive Plan to add the Electrical Generation Facilities use category to the Future Land Use Element and to so designate, on its Future Land Use Map, the portion of the Lauderdale Site on which DBEC will be constructed. DBEC is proposed to be constructed and operated on the portion of the Lauderdale Site on which Units 4 and 5 currently are located. These units will be completely dismantled and removed before construction of DBEC commences.7/ DBEC will use much of the existing infrastructure that currently serves Units 4 and 5. This infrastructure includes existing fuel and storage tanks, an existing gas transmission pipeline, existing electrical transmission lines, existing cooling water intake at the Dania Cutoff Canal, and existing cooling water discharge structures. The major new components of DBEC will be constructed at an elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level. The existing infrastructure that will be used by DBEC will not be raised above its current elevation above mean sea level. Unit 7 Technology Unit 7, as proposed, will consist of a new two-on-one combined cycle electrical power generation unit with a nominal rating of 1,200 MW. A combined cycle electrical generation system generates electrical power in two cycles. In the first cycle, ambient air is drawn into the multistage compressor, where it is compressed, then directed to the combustor section, where fuel——in this case, natural gas——is introduced, ignited, and burned. The hot combustion gases are diluted with additional cool air and directed to the turbine section, where they expand, causing the CT, which is connected to a generator, to rotate, producing electricity. The captured gases are then routed to a HRSG, which begins the second cycle. In this cycle, the heat from the captured gases is used to convert water to steam, which drives a steam turbine generator ("STG"), producing additional electricity. Each CT/HRSG combination is termed a "train." Unit 7 will have two CT/HRSG trains, each having a gross generation capacity of 400 MW at an inlet air temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit. These two CT/HRSG trains will be connected to one STG having a generation capacity of 400 MW. The combination of the two CT/HRSG trains with one STG gives rise to the "two-on-one combined cycle" label for this type of power generation unit. Combined cycle systems, such as the one that will constitute Unit 7, are significantly more efficient than single cycle units that involve only combustion turbines. This increased efficiency is due to the addition of the second cycle, which uses captured exhaust heat from the first cycle to create steam, which is then used to turn a steam turbine, thereby generating an additional 400 MW of electricity per total amount of fuel burned. Operating efficiency for combined cycle units is measured in terms of "heat rate," which is an expression of how efficiently the fuel is converted to electrical energy. The lower the heat rate, the more efficient the electrical power generation unit. Unit 7 is a modern combined cycle plant and is expected to achieve a heat rate of approximately 6,119 British Thermal Units ("BTUs") per kilowatt hour. By contrast, Units 4 and 5——which are also combined cycle units but use older, less efficient equipment——have an average heat rate of approximately 7,800 BTUs per kilowatt hour. As noted above, Unit 7 will use natural gas as its primary fuel. The natural gas will be delivered to the DBEC site through an existing natural gas pipeline, which originates offsite and is not part of this site certification proceeding.8/ Ultra-low sulfur distillate ("ULSD") oil will be used as the back-up fuel. Unit 7 Effect on FPL System-wide Natural Gas Consumption As noted above, Unit 7 will use the most modern combined cycle technology. Dr. Steven Sim, FPL's director of Integrated Resource Planning, prepared a projection of the effect Unit 7 will have on natural gas consumption by FPL's electrical power generation units on a system-wide basis. Using a model that simulates the operation of all electrical generating units on FPL's system, FPL compared, for natural gas fuel consumption on a system-wide basis, two scenarios: one in which Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely and Unit 7 is not constructed and operated; and one in which Units 4 and 5 are retired in the fourth quarter of 2018, and Unit 7 is constructed and commences operation in mid-2022. The inputs to the model included a range of information, including the electrical load that FPL will serve in the future, on an hourly, monthly, and yearly basis, for a period of 30 years; information, for each of FPL's 53 electrical power generation units regarding individual generating capacity, fuel use efficiency, scheduled maintenance outages, and forced outages; fuel costs; environmental compliance costs; and the addition of other power-generation resources to meet future forecasted demand. The model was used to determine which of FPL's generating units operate during each hour, in order to determine how to most economically generate electrical power. The model projected a significant reduction in natural gas consumption by FPL on a system-wide basis over a 30-year horizon if Units 4 and 5 are retired in late 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022. Conversely, if Units 4 and 5 are not retired and continue to operate9/——which will be the case if Unit 7 is not certified——the model showed that FPL will consume substantially more natural gas on a system-wide basis over a 30- year horizon, from 2018 through 2047, than if Unit 7 is certified, constructed, and begins operating in 2022. Assuming Units 4 and 5 are retired in 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022, the model-generated comparative natural gas consumption amounts shows a consistent system-wide decrease in natural gas consumption in amounts ranging from slightly over two million cubic feet per year to slightly over six million cubic feet per year, for a projected total decrease in system-wide natural gas consumption of nearly 134 million cubic feet over the 30-year horizon. This is because the operation of Unit 7 will displace less-efficient gas burning units that otherwise would be used if Unit 7 does not operate. Further, because the model-generated projected natural gas consumption amounts simply compared the "with Units 4 and 5 and without Unit 7" scenario to the "without Units 4 and 5 and with Unit 7" scenario, with all other variables being held constant, the projected natural gas consumption differential between the two scenarios would not change, regardless of whether, and which, additional types of energy-generation resources were added to FPL's system. Dr. Sim acknowledged that the social costs of carbon were not considered as part of the modeling of FPL's system-wide projected natural gas consumption. However, he noted that as a practical matter, because Unit 7 will operate more efficiently, FPL will demand less natural gas on a system-wide basis to fuel its electrical power generating units. As a result of reduced demand, less natural gas will need to be produced and transported by pipeline to fuel FPL's electrical power plant generating system. Public Service Commission Need Determination Pursuant to section 403.519, FPL filed a petition for determination of need for DBEC with the PSC in October 2017. Sierra intervened into the need determination proceeding. The final hearing was held on January 17, 2018. The PSC issued the Need Determination for DBEC Unit 7 on March 19, 2018. This Order, which constitutes final agency action, was not appealed. During the need determination proceeding, Sierra contended, and presented evidence in an effort to show, that renewal energy sources and technologies, such as solar facilities, could be deployed incrementally to delay or potentially entirely forestall the need for Unit 7. Thus, as part of the need analysis, the PSC specifically considered the feasibility of using renewable generation options and sources, including solar facilities. The PSC specifically determined that the use of such generation options and sources, including solar facilities, was less cost-effective than DBEC. The PSC found that: "[n]o additional cost-effective renewable resource has been identified in this proceeding that can mitigate the need for new generation. Similarly, no additional cost-effective [Demand Side Management] has been identified in this proceeding that can mitigate the need for new generation." Based on the evidence and argument presented in the need determination proceeding, the PSC granted the Need Determination for DBEC Unit 7, specifically finding and concluding that "the Dania Beach Clean Energy Center Unit 7 is the most cost-effective alternative that maintains Florida Power & Light Company's system and Southeastern Florida area reliability compared to other alternatives[.]" Section 403.519(3) states: The commission shall be the sole forum for the determination of [need], which accordingly shall not be raised in any other forum or in the review of proceedings in such other forum. In making its determination, the commission shall take into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability, whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative available, and whether renewable energy sources and technologies, as well as conservation measures, are utilized to the extent reasonably available. The commission shall also expressly consider the conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to the applicant or its members which might mitigate the need for the proposed plant and other matters within its jurisdiction which it deems relevant. The commission's determination of need for an electrical power plant shall create a presumption of public need and necessity and shall serve as the commission's report required by s. 403.507(4). An order entered pursuant to this section constitutes final agency action. § 403.519, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Pursuant to this statute, the PSC is the only entity authorized to determine whether an electrical power plant is needed, and whether, given the need for the power plant, the applicant should be required to implement renewable energy sources and technologies, including the use of solar generation facilities. Here, the PSC determined that DBEC is needed, and further determined that the use of renewable energy sources and technologies, such as solar technology, was not cost-effective, and, therefore, was not reasonably available. Pursuant to the plain language of section 403.519(3), it is beyond the scope of this proceeding for the undersigned or the Siting Board to require, as a condition of site certification for DBEC, the use of alternative energy sources or technologies, such as solar or other forms of renewable energy, or to deny DBEC's site certification on the basis that such technologies are not proposed as part of the project. DBEC Emissions and Air Construction/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Florida's Air Quality Regulatory Program In Florida, DEP implements the federal air regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act, subject to approval and oversight by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). Under this system, DEP is the permitting authority, while EPA retains commenting authority. DEP rules implementing the Clean Air Act consist of several air quality regulatory programs. Pertinent to this proceeding are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") programs. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to promulgate NAAQS for certain air pollutants called "criteria" pollutants. The primary NAAQS establish levels of air quality that are necessary to protect the public health, with an adequate margin of safety to protect sensitive populations. Secondary NAAQS also may be established to protect the public welfare, which can include environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 50.2(b). NAAQS have been developed for six air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, certain sizes of particulate matter, and lead. NAAQS have not been established for greenhouse gases ("GHGs"). For each of the six criteria air pollutants for which NAAQS have been developed, EPA has designated areas within each state that either meet or do not meet the NAAQS for that specific pollutant. Areas in which the NAAQS for a specific criteria air pollutant is met are termed "attainment" areas for that pollutant, while areas in which the NAAQS is not met for a specific criteria pollutant are termed "nonattainment" areas for that pollutant. Attainment areas are classified as Class I, which need special air quality protection; or Class II, which do not need special air quality protection. Everglades National Park and designated national wilderness areas are the only Class I attainment areas in Florida. All other attainment areas in Florida are designated as Class II. Broward County, including the DBEC site, is in a Class II attainment area for all NAAQS. The PSD program applies in attainment areas to limit the air quality impacts that may result from new or modified major sources of air pollution. Its purpose is to assure that the air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS does not significantly deteriorate below an established baseline. Under the PSD program, all major new sources of air pollution are subject to preconstruction review to determine whether significant air quality deterioration will result from the facility. As part of the PSD review, the new source is required to demonstrate compliance with PSD increments, which effectively constitute small amounts of air quality impacts that new or modified major sources of air pollution cannot exceed. PSD increments are more stringent than NAAQS, and, as such, they protect against air quality degradation in attainment areas. If an area meets the NAAQS for a specific criteria pollutant, PSD increments prevent the addition of that pollutant in greater than that incremental amount over an established baseline concentration for that pollutant. No PSD increments have been established for GHGs. The PSD program also requires demonstration that the air pollution source will use the Best Available Control Technology ("BACT"). BACT is defined, in pertinent part, as: an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from or which results from any major emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant. 40 U.S.C. § 7479(3). More simply stated, BACT is the maximum degree of emission reduction that is available and feasible for the source, taking into account environmental, energy, economic impacts, and other costs. BACT requires a "top-down" analysis, which starts with the most stringent emission limits demonstrated feasible for a specific air pollution source category, as applied throughout the country. EPA has created a software tool accessible on its website, that enables a review of different source categories to determine the most stringent applicable control technology that meets the definition of BACT for that particular source type. BACT also must be at least as stringent as new source performance standards ("NSPS"), which are EPA-developed emissions limits for specific pollutants emitted by new or modified air pollution sources within a particular source category. The NSPS applicable to combined cycle combustion turbines, such as those that will comprise Unit 7, are nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and GHGs. DBEC Emissions DBEC will have several sources of air emissions. These consist of the two CTs that are part of the CT/HRSG trains discussed above; an auxiliary boiler; two emergency diesel generators, two natural gas heaters; a fire water pump diesel engine; a 14-cell auxiliary cooling system; and circuit breakers containing sulfur hexafluoride located in the Unit 7 power block. Of these, the CTs constitute the most significant air emissions source. DBEC's air emissions sources will emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, particulate matter ("PM") 10 and PM2.5, and GHGs. The GHGs emitted by DBEC will consist primarily10/ of carbon dioxide, with small amounts of methane.11/ DBEC's Air Construction/PSD Permit FPL applied to DEP for an air construction/PSD permit for DBEC in July 2017. DEP issued the air construction/PSD permit for DBEC ("Air Permit") in December 2017. The Air Permit was not challenged and became final agency action on December 24, 2017. It is valid through December 31, 2027. Pursuant to section 403.509(5), the Air Permit is not subject to revision or modification in this proceeding.12/ Because DBEC will emit 100 tons per year or more of regulated pollutants and is included in a source category to which the 100-tons-per-year threshold applies, it constitutes a major stationary source of air pollution. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-210.200(154)(a)1. Therefore, under Florida and federal law, FPL was required to obtain an air construction/PSD permit for DBEC. As part of the PSD review, FPL was required to perform a control technology review; to demonstrate that all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards would be met; and to determine and implement BACT to control the emissions. Projected emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, PM10 and PM2.5, and GHGs underwent PSD review. Initial PSD modeling for projected carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide emissions showed that these emissions would not exceed "significant impact levels," so no further review beyond the modeling was required. Initial modeling showed that PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the "significant impact level," so the modeling results were compared to the Class I and Class II PSD increments. This comparison showed that neither PM10 emissions nor PM2.5 emissions would exceed the increments for these pollutants. Accordingly, FPL demonstrated that DBEC would comply with the incremental standards for these pollutants. DBEC also meets BACT for volatile organic compounds emissions. The primary BACT for GHG emissions for Unit 7, as a combined cycle unit, is the efficiency of the unit itself in producing electrical power using low-GHG emitting fuels, such as natural gas. As previously discussed, Unit 7 will be an extremely efficient combined cycle unit that will use natural gas as its primary fuel. The Air Permit limits the emissions rates for, and amounts of, GHG emissions. These are consistent with BACT, as determined comparing DBEC's control technology to all other types of GHG control technology for CTs throughout the country. The Air Permit also imposes an extremely stringent methane monitoring requirement. Pursuant to these measures, DBEC was determined to meet the BACT requirement applicable to GHGs.13/ Additionally, DBEC will meet the NSPS applicable to CTs.14/ Specifically, DBEC emissions of nitrogen oxides will be 7.5 times lower than the NSPS limit for that pollutant, and DBEC emissions of sulfur dioxide will be ten times lower than the NSPS standard for that pollutant. Accordingly, DBEC will meet the NSPS for these pollutants. DBEC also will meet the applicable NSPS for GHGs.15/ The NSPS for GHG emissions applicable to combined cycle CTs is 1,000 pounds per MW hour ("lbs/MWh"). DBEC is projected to produce 727 lbs/MWh of GHGs when burning natural gas——well below the 1,000 lbs/MWh NSPS limit. The Air Permit also imposes emissions standards for carbon monoxide, PM10 and PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid mist, volatile organic compounds, and GHGs. The competent, credible evidence established that replacing Units 4 and 5 with Unit 7 will reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides, PM10 and PM2.5, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide by approximately 6.6 million pounds for the period from 2018 to 2047. The evidence also established that replacing Units 4 and 5 with Unit 7 is projected to result in an approximately 22-percent reduction in GHGs generated, measured in lbs/MWh, assuming Unit 7 is operated at the same frequency as Units 4 and 5. This comparative reduction in GHG emissions on a lbs/MWh basis underscores the efficiency of Unit 7 compared to Units 4 and 5. Additionally, the credible evidence established that the operation Unit 7 will result in a system-wide reduction of GHG emissions for the period from 2018 to 2047.16/ The retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and commencement of operation of Unit 7 in 2022 may not result in reduced total amounts of GHG emissions generated at the Lauderdale Site. This is because even though Unit 7 is substantially more efficient than Units 4 and 5——so will burn substantially less natural gas——it may operate more often because it will be the most efficient electrical power generating unit in FPL's electrical power generation system. However, the competent, credible evidence showed that the operation of Unit 7 will reduce GHG emissions across FPL's electrical power generating system because it will be operated more often than other, less efficient units, thereby displacing the use of those units across FPL's electrical power generation system. Stated another way, because Unit 7 will be a significantly more efficient electrical power generating unit—— meaning that it will produce more electricity per cubic foot of natural gas than FPL's less efficient units——it will be operated more frequently than FPL's less efficient units, resulting in reduced consumption of natural gas on a system-wide basis. Reduced natural gas consumption on a system-wide basis will result in a reduced total amount of GHGs generated on a system-wide basis from FPL's electrical power generating plants. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and the addition of Unit 7 in 2022 will result in a total reduction of approximately 8.1 million tons17/ of GHG emissions in the form of carbon dioxide18/ across FPL's electrical power generation system for the period from 2018 to 2047.19/ Sierra contends that DBEC will "[e]mit millions of tons more [GHGs] every year than the units it replaces." As discussed above, the evidence shows that the operation of Unit 7 in conjunction with the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 may not result in reduced GHG emissions at the Lauderdale Site because, due to its efficiency, Unit 7 may be operated more frequently and at higher capacity. However, the competent, credible, and persuasive evidence establishes that the total GHG emissions from FPL's electrical power plant generating units will be reduced on a system-wide basis by approximately 8,123,624 tons over the period between 2018 and 2047. Further, Sierra's position that retiring Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and operating Unit 7 beginning in 2022 will result in a greater total amount of GHGs being emitted appears grounded in the assumption that if Unit 7 does not go into operation, FPL will retire Units 4 and 5 by 2033. However, this assumption is not supported by any competent substantial evidence in the record,20/ and was directly contradicted by Dr. Sim, who testified that Units 4 and 5 realistically could operate indefinitely. In sum, the competent, credible, and persuasive evidence shows that if DBEC does not commence operation in 2022, and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely, FPL's GHG emissions on a system-wide basis will be approximately 8,123,624 tons more for the period between 2018 and 2047 than if Units 4 and 5 are retired in 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022. In sum, FPL demonstrated that DBEC meets all applicable state and federal air regulatory and permitting requirements for DBEC and, specifically, for Unit 7. As discussed above, FPL demonstrated that DBEC will meet the applicable BACT requirement——which literally means the best available control technology——for GHG emissions, as well as other emissions from Unit 7 and other emissions sources. Additionally, the air construction/PSD permit establishes emissions limits for DBEC, and, specifically, for Unit 7, and FPL demonstrated, to DEP's satisfaction, that its emissions control technology will meet the applicable standards, which are more stringent than applicable NSPS limits. Thus, FPL demonstrated that DBEC will meet state and federal law regarding emissions limitations for GHGs and other pollutants emitted by DBEC. Sierra's Contentions Regarding GHG Emissions from DBEC Notwithstanding that FPL demonstrated that DBEC meet all applicable air rules and regulations, Sierra contends that the Siting Board should either deny the site certification for DBEC or approve it with conditions (addressed below) because, it alleges, FPL and/or DEP failed to consider or address numerous environmental issues regarding projected GHG emissions for DBEC. These alleged deficiencies are: failure of FPL and/or DEP to perform modeling of the "the environmental impact" of DBEC's GHG emissions; failure of FPL and/or DEP to analyze the "social costs of carbon" emitted by DBEC; failure of FPL and/or DEP to perform a "life-cycle analysis" to analyze DBEC's GHG emissions "from start to finish, . . . from gas generation to gas burn"; failure of FPL and/or DEP to consider the cumulative impacts of DBEC's emissions combined with GHG emissions "from other existing and foreseeable permitted sources in Florida and elsewhere"; and failure of FPL and/or DEP to consider the use of solar electrical power generation.21/ Each of these challenges is addressed below. Failure to Model Endpoint Environmental Impact With respect to FPL's and/or DEP's alleged failure to perform modeling of "the environmental impact" of DBEC's GHG emissions, the evidence establishes that FPL and DEP complied with the applicable state rules and federal regulatory requirements in addressing GHG emissions from DBEC. To that point, Syed Arif, who performed the air construction/PSD permit application review, testified that modeling of the environmental impacts of DBEC's projected GHG emissions offsite was not performed because it is not required by the applicable state rules and federal regulations. Indeed, EPA's PSD Guidance document22/ specifically states that "[w]hen conducting a BACT analysis for GHG's, the environmental impact analysis should continue to concentrate on impacts other than direct impacts due to emissions of the regulated pollutant in question." This document further states, in pertinent part: When weighing any trade-offs between emissions of GHGs and emissions of other regulated NSR pollutants, EPA recommends that permitting authorities focus on the relative levels of GHG emissions rather than the endpoint impacts of GHGs. As a general matter, GHG emissions contribute to global warming and other climate changes that result in impacts on the environment and society. However, due to the global scope of the problem, climate change modeling and evaluations of risks and impacts of GHG emissions currently is typically conducted for changes in emissions orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects that might be analyzed in PSD permit reviews. Quantifying these exact impacts attributable to the specific GHG source obtaining a permit in specific places is not currently possible with climate change modeling. Given these considerations, an assessment of the potential increase or decrease in the overall level of GHG emissions from a source would serve as the more appropriate and credible metric for assessing the relative environmental impact of a given control strategy. EPA PSD Guidance, at pp. 41-42 (emphasis added). In sum, state and federal PSD permitting law does not require an analysis of endpoint impacts of GHGs, and, further, expressly recognizes that due to the global scope of GHG emissions' contribution to climate change, climate change modeling and risk/impact evaluation of GHG emissions is conducted on a scale orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects. Additionally, the guidance expressly recognizes that determining the exact climate change impacts due to GHGs emitted on a source-specific basis is not currently possible with climate change modeling. Sierra's contention that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed due to project-specific environmental endpoint impacts is not persuasive, because it is not grounded in applicable law and, as discussed above, is not possible using current climate change modeling. Failure to Consider and Address Social Costs of Carbon Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP failed to analyze the social costs of carbon emitted by DBEC, particularly by Unit 7, and failed to mitigate or minimize those costs. The social cost of carbon is defined as the present monetary value of the additional damages caused by emitting one more ton of carbon dioxide. In general terms, the social cost of carbon is the economic cost per ton of emissions. For each incremental ton of carbon emissions, there is an incremental amount of harm. There are different methods, or models, for determining the social cost of carbon. They vary depending on the types of data used in the model, as well as how the models address issues such as the rate of climate change; whether the models adequately and accurately address catastrophic risk; and whether the models address "tipping points" at which climate change becomes abruptly and irreversibly worse. Sierra's expert on the social cost of carbon, Dr. Frank Ackerman,23/ presented the results of integrated assessment models used to estimate the social cost of carbon.24/ These types of models have been applied in various studies to estimate, in 2017 dollars, the cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide. These studies generated estimates of the social cost of carbon ranging from as low as $39 per metric ton in 2020 to as high as $1,821 in 2050, with each study generating a range of projected values for the first year modeled——either 2020 or 2025——through the last year modeled——either 2050 or 2055. These widely-ranging values for the modeled years over these 30-year periods are due to the substantial uncertainty and disagreement regarding the rate and extent of climate change, and whether there are tipping points that must be taken into consideration. Ackerman estimated the social cost of carbon, as of 2012, as ranging from $33 to $1,048 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2020, to $75 to $1,821 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2050. Ackerman prepared a report analyzing the social cost of carbon from DBEC's projected GHG emissions. He attempted to compare the costs of DBEC's emissions with the benefits of DBEC's operation. In assessing the social cost of carbon emitted by DBEC, Ackerman considered the damage to tourism; human health; unique wildlife and ecosystems, including the Everglades; and property loss due to sea level rise and exacerbated king tides. He acknowledged that while it can be very difficult to estimate the true monetary value of the social cost of carbon for a project due to the aforementioned uncertainties, it is possible to arrive at estimates that represent a "floor," or minimum value, of damage due to GHG emissions from a specific project. Ackerman used the federal government's estimated social cost of carbon of $70 per ton of carbon dioxide25/——which, in Ackerman's view, underestimates the value of damages due to carbon dioxide emissions——and multiplied it by the GHG emissions, in tons, for each year of the DBEC project's projected life. Using two different annual GHGs emissions projections for DBEC—— 4.13 million metric tons or 3.04 million metric tons——he determined that the value of damages due to carbon dioxide emitted by DBEC would range from $213 million to $289 million on an annual basis.26/ Ackerman testified that, according to a research project conducted by Columbia University and the Rhodium Group, out of the 48 contiguous states, Florida will experience the greatest damage from climate change——which is projected to negatively impact the state's gross domestic product ("GDP") by between 10 and 24 percent by 2100. Using this study's projected GDP impacts and assuming that Florida experiences, to the year 2100, the same growth rate it has experienced over the past 20 years, Ackerman estimated that the monetary impact to Florida's economy from climate change may be between $500 million to $1.1 trillion annually by 2100. Ackerman also attempted to quantify DBEC's proportion of that impact on Florida. Using the two values of projected carbon dioxide emissions from DBEC and comparing them to global carbon dioxide emissions projections, Ackerman estimated that DBEC accounts for approximately 1/115,000th to 1/120,000th of total global carbon dioxide emissions on an annual basis. Using those proportions and the valued damage of global climate change to Florida, he estimated that the present value of the damages resulting from DBEC's annual carbon dioxide emissions would range from $8.4 million and $27 million per year. Ackerman also compared these annual projected social costs of carbon dioxide to the assumed $8.29 million annual benefits of the DBEC project to FPL's ratepayers. Based on this comparison, he concluded that the damages from DBEC's carbon emissions greatly outweigh DBEC's benefits to FPL ratepayers. Ackerman did not perform any analysis of DBEC's economic effects on the local community. He also did not take in account the effect that the increased efficiency of Unit 7 would have on FPL's system-wide emissions of GHGs through 2040. He acknowledged that if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced as a result of Unit 7, then the overall harm and damage from the social costs of carbon would also be reduced. As he put it: "[t]he social cost is a per ton harm, so if fewer tons, smaller harm. . . . A reduction in emissions is a reduction in harm." Ackerman testified that emitting any amount of GHGs has a social cost, but that "[a] smaller amount of emission is better. A smaller amount of emissions represents a smaller harm." While the evidence shows that GHG emissions from DBEC will result in increased social costs of carbon on a per-ton basis compared to a zero emissions baseline, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the operation of Unit 7 will reduce FPL's GHG emissions on a system- wide basis by approximately 8.1 million tons by 2047, due to the retirement of older, less-efficient Units 4 and 5 and the reduced use of older, less-efficient generating units that produce greater quantities of GHG emissions.27/ Based on the foregoing, it is determined that retiring Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and operating Unit 7 commencing in 2022 will result in a net total reduction in the amount of GHG emissions from FPL's electrical power generating units on a system-wide basis——which, in turn, will result in lower social costs of carbon than if Unit 7 is not operated and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely into the future.28/ Failure to Perform Life-Cycle Analysis Additionally, Sierra contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional conditional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP failed to perform a "life-cycle analysis" to analyze DBEC's GHG emissions "from start to finish, . . . from gas generation to gas burn," which would include GHGs emitted by natural gas production and transport by pipeline to the DBEC site. This contention disregards that such an analysis is beyond the scope of this proceeding. This proceeding specifically applies only to "electrical power plants" as that term is defined in section 403.503(14). Pursuant to that definition, the scope of this proceeding is limited only to considering the impacts of, and imposing conditions on, facilities that fall within that definition. By this statute's plain terms, associated facilities that are directly or indirectly connected to the electrical power plant are to be considered only if they are owned by the applicant. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that Florida Gas Transmission Company owns the pipeline that transports natural gas to the DBEC site. No evidence was presented showing that FPL has any ownership interest in this pipeline, or that FPL has any ownership in sources which may produce gas that is ultimately transported to DBEC for use as fuel for Unit 7. Therefore, any GHG impacts associated with the operation of the pipeline to transport natural gas to DBEC are beyond the scope of this proceeding.29/ Failure to Consider Cumulative Impact of GHG Emissions Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP did not consider the cumulative impacts of DBEC's GHG emissions combined with those from "other existing and foreseeable permitted sources in Florida and elsewhere." As previously discussed, Florida and federal air statutes and rules do not impose cumulative impacts assessment in the PSD permitting process. Further, EPA's PSD Guidance expressly recognizes that climate change modeling and impacts evaluation of GHG emissions is conducted for changes in GHG emissions that are orders of magnitude larger than those from individual projects, and that determining the exact impacts attributable to a specific GHG source is not possible under current climate change modeling. Failure to Consider Using Solar Power Generation Technology Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP "did not consider using solar generation." As discussed above, the PSC's Need Determination for Unit 7 considered and specifically rejected the use of photovoltaic (solar) facilities as a cost-effective alternative to Unit 7 as proposed. As discussed above, the PSC is the sole forum for determining need for electrical power plants subject to the PPSA. § 403.519, Fla. Stat. The PSC's need determination considers, among other things, the need for electric system reliability, the need for fuel diversity, whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative, and whether renewable energy resources may mitigate the need for the proposed electrical power plant. Thus, section 403.519 vests sole jurisdiction in the PSC to determine, as part of the need determination process, whether solar facilities should be required to be implemented as part of an electrical power plant's need determination. Therefore, the decision whether to impose a requirement for DBEC to implement solar facilities is beyond the scope of this proceeding. DBEC Stormwater Management System and Flooding Issues The stormwater management system for DBEC was designed to ensure that stormwater received onsite does not flood onsite facilities and to ensure that stormwater leaving the site does not cause offsite flooding or pollution. The stormwater management system for DBEC consists of a system of culverts, catch basins, ditches, storm sewer inlets, an underground storm sewer system, and ponds. The collection and conveyance structures collect the stormwater onsite and convey it to the ponds, which collect and store the water, then release it offsite at a controlled rate. Compliance with Applicable Stormwater Management Requirements The DBEC stormwater management system is designed in accordance with, and meets, all applicable stormwater management requirements of the City of Dania Beach, the City of Hollywood, Broward County, and the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"), including regulations specifically directed toward protecting land uses against flooding. Broward County's land development code regulations require the floor elevation of the power plant facilities to be elevated to at least 5.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ("NAVD88"), or approximately 6.5 feet above mean sea level, to withstand flooding from a 100-year, 72-hour storm event. The City of Dania Beach requires new or substantially improved power generation structures to be elevated three feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ("FEMA") 100-year Base Flood Elevation established on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FEMA Map"). FEMA's 100-year Base Flood Elevation is three feet NAVD88; thus, the City of Dania Beach requires DBEC's power generation structures to be elevated to six feet NAVD88, which is approximately seven feet above mean sea level. To be conservative, FPL proposes to elevate the minimum floor elevation of DBEC's power generation structures to 10.5 feet NAVD88, or 11.5 feet above mean sea level——an additional five feet above Broward County's flood elevation requirement. This far exceeds both Broward County's and the City of Dania Beach's minimum flood elevation requirements. Broward County also required FPL to compare the base elevation of the stormwater management ponds to future groundwater elevation established on the Broward County Future Conditions Average Wet Season Groundwater Map ("Groundwater Map"), to ensure that the ponds would be sufficiently elevated to hold enough water to prevent flooding during storm events. The Groundwater Map depicts a projected future average wet season groundwater elevation of 2.5 feet above mean sea level——i.e., 1.5 feet NAVD88——in the year 2060. The base of the onsite stormwater storage ponds will be constructed one to two feet above this elevation. Additionally, the stormwater management system ponds have been designed to provide adequate storage to accommodate a 100-year, 72-hour storm event, so that the project does not have stormwater offsite impacts. Projected Sea Level Rise and DBEC Design The design elevation of DBEC's power block and stormwater management ponds adequately accounts for sea level rise. At Broward County's request, FPL compared the base flood elevation of the DBEC power block to the 2015 Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida ("USLRP") document. This document, which was prepared by a technical working group on behalf of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, projects future sea level rise in South Florida, including Broward County. The USLRP contains a graph30/ consisting of four curves31/ depicting projected sea level rise from 1992 (the baseline year) to 2100 for the southeast Florida region.32/ The table below summarizes the projected sea level rise corresponding to each curve on the USLRP graph for the year 206033/. Name of Sea Level Rise Projection Predicted Sea Level Rise by 2060 (inches) NOAA High Curve 34 USACE High Curve 26 IPCC AR5 Curve 14 NOAA Intermediate/Low Curve 10.5 The area between the IPCC AR5 Curve and the USACE High Curve is recommended in planning design elevation for most projects that fall within a short-term planning horizon, and applies to "most infrastructure projects, especially those with a design life expectancy of less than 50 years."34/ Additionally, the USLRP states that "[p]rojects in need of a greater factor of safety related to potential inundation should consider designing for the [USACE High Curve]. Examples of such projects may include evacuation routes planned for reconstruction, communications and energy infrastructure, and critical government and financial facilities."35/ DBEC has a design life of 40 years and constitutes energy infrastructure. Therefore, the USACE High Curve is appropriate to use in designing the DBEC project to account for projected sea level rise by 2060. By contrast, the NOAA High Curve is used to plan high- risk projects that will be constructed after 2060; projects that are not easily replaceable or removable, have a long design life— —i.e., more than 50 years; or are critically interdependent with other infrastructure of services. Examples of infrastructure expressly identified in the USLRP document to which the NOAA High Curve is appropriately applied include nuclear power plants,36/ wastewater treatment facilities, levees or impoundments, bridges along major evacuation routes, airports, seaports, railroads, and major highways. DBEC does not fall within any of these categories; accordingly, the NOAA High Curve is not recommended for use in designing the DBEC project to account for projected sea level rise by 2060. Nonetheless, FPL took a conservative approach in determining the appropriate design elevation for the project over its projected design-life. Specifically, FPL added one inch to the USACE High Curve projection to account for two additional years of sea level rise beyond the end of DBEC's design-life in 2060. This resulted in a projected 27 inches of sea level rise by 2062. FPL then added this projection to the Broward County existing flood level requirement of 6.5 feet above mean sea level to determine potential flood levels in 2062. This calculation showed that an elevation of 8.75 feet above mean sea level is necessary to protect against sea level rise by 2062, using the USACE High Curve as the design benchmark. Because the minimum concrete base on which the power block will be elevated to 11.5 feet above mean sea level, it will be sufficiently elevated to protect against projected sea level rise by 2062. To further ensure that the design elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level is adequate to protect against a realistic, reasonably-projected "worst case" scenario, FPL compared the design elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level to the 34-inch sea level rise projected by the NOAA High Curve by 2060. Adding the 34 inches to Broward County's existing flood level requirement of 6.5 feet above mean sea level results in a design elevation of approximately 9.5 feet above mean sea level needed to address the NOAA High Curve projection by 2062. Thus, DBEC's minimum floor elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level exceeds the recommended design elevation, even when compared to sea level rise projected by the NOAA High Curve in 2062. FPL also used the NOAA Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes ("SLOSH") model to address potential storm surge in determining the design elevation for DBEC's power block. This model projects storm surges for different categories of hurricanes and tidal events. FPL applied the SLOSH model to sea level rise projected by the USACE High Curve to predict storm surge height at the DBEC site by 2060, and then compared those results to the FEMA Map. The SLOSH model indicated lower elevations than the FEMA Map, which takes storm surge into account in determining the 100-year flood elevation. Accordingly, the 11.5 foot above mean sea level design elevation on which the DBEC power block will be constructed is more conservative than, and, thus, more protective than, a design based on the SLOSH model. As discussed above, FPL used the Groundwater Map to establish the bottom elevation of DBEC's stormwater ponds. The Groundwater Map, which relies on the USACE High Curve, projects groundwater levels at the DBEC site will be at approximately 1.5 feet NAVD88 by 2060. Because the bottom elevation of the stormwater ponds will be one to two feet above this projected level, they will adequately account for projected sea level rise by 2060. As noted above, certain existing infrastructure is not being replaced, so will not be elevated. These structures, which were constructed in compliance with the regulatory requirements in effect at the time they were approved, are constructed at six to seven feet NAVD88 above mean sea level. The highest flood elevation on the FEMA Map is at elevation 5.5 feet NAVD88 in 2060. Thus, it is unlikely that these structures will be subject to flooding by 2060. In designing DBEC, FPL reasonably relied on the sea level rise projections in the USLRP. That document, which was developed specifically for use in structural design and land use planning to address projected sea level rise, was created by the local governments in south Florida and provides the best scientific consensus view of future sea level rise.37/ FPL's expert, Dr. George Maul,38/ concurred that FPL reasonably relied on the USACE High Curve in designing the floor of DBEC's power block at 11.5 feet above mean sea level. In Maul's opinion, the USACE High Curve's projection for sea level rise is reasonable and appropriate for use in southeast Florida over the next 60 years.39/ Maul questioned the reliability of the NOAA High Curve, which predicts a rate of sea level rise twice as high as that experienced exiting the last Ice Age. He further noted that, in any event, the USACE High Curve and the NOAA High Curve differ by only a few inches in projected sea level rise by 2060. Dr. Harold Wanless40/ testified on behalf of Sierra regarding the relationship between climate change and sea level rise, hurricanes, and their effects on coastal marine environments. Specifically, Wanless testified regarding a range of factors that may cause the rate of sea level rise to accelerate. According to Wanless, research shows that sea level rise began to accelerate in approximately 1993 due to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.41/ Based on this research, Wanless disputes the accuracy of government predictions that do not take this phenomenon into account. In his testimony regarding the projected rate and extent of sea level rise over time, Wanless presented a graphic adapted from a January 2017 NOAA publication showing three global sea level curves——the "intermediate/high," "high," and "extreme" curves——projecting sea level rise through the year 2100. All of these curves on Wanless' adapted graphic assume Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet loss. Based on the extreme curve, Wanless projected that global sea level rise "could be" three feet by 2059. Notably, no evidence was presented regarding the probability of this projected sea level rise scenario. To depict local sea level rise in southeast Florida through 2100, Wanless added "local influences" to the 2017 NOAA curves, which consisted of higher water levels on the western side of the Gulf Stream due to its deceleration, and the gravitational redistribution of water due to decreasing ice sheet mass in Antarctica and Greenland. Specifically, Wanless added to the 2017 NOAA extreme curve sea level rise projection of three feet by 2062, 15 percent additional sea level rise to account for deceleration of the Gulf Stream, and 52 percent additional sea level rise to account for redistribution of water due to decreased gravitational pull by Greenland and Antarctica. Applying these local influences, Wanless projected that there "could be" an approximate 5.2 feet of local sea level rise by 2062. Again, no evidence was presented regarding the probability with which this projected local sea level rise scenario may occur. Upon full consideration of the testimony by Maul and Wanless, the undersigned concludes, based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, that the USACE High Curve, rather than Wanless's local influence sea level projection curve, is the more reasonable benchmark to apply in determining the appropriate design elevation for the DBEC power block. Wanless's local sea level rise projection is substantially based on the assumption that redistribution of the Earth's mass will significantly contribute to local sea level rise; however, Wanless himself noted that this phenomenon only recently has become the focus of research, and that "we're still learning."42/ Maul counseled against attempting to project long-term sea level rise using short periods of record data. To that point, he testified that trends derived from short records are less reliable as projections because they are affected by inter- annual and decadal climate and oceanographic patterns that are superimposed on the long-term rise of global sea level. Maul's research of historical 19-year periods43/ over which sea level rise rates have been observed by use of tidal gauges shows significant variability between 19-year periods. He testified, credibly, that in his recent review of tidal and sea level records for Key West, "I found we can pick a 19-year period where that particular 19 years is twice the long-term [sea level] range and other times where it's half the long-term range." He also testified that in looking at 19-year records a year at a time, "I find times when that short time scale is much, much higher than a long-term average and other times when it's much less than the long-term average. So you can either overestimate or underestimate what's happening when choosing short records." On that basis, Maul disputes that "since the year 2000, there has been a rapid acceleration in sea level rise." He testified, credibly, that he has not observed any statistically significant increase in sea level at Key West since 2000. Maul also opined, based on his own research, that there is no statistically significant slowing of the Gulf Stream. Sierra did not present persuasive evidence specifically refuting Maul's conclusion regarding slowing of the Gulf Stream.44/ In any event, the DBEC power block minimum floor elevation has been set at 11.5 feet above minimum sea level—— well above the 34- to 37-inch global sea level rise projected by the 2015 NOAA High Curve and the 2017 NOAA Extreme Curve, and also well above Wanless' projected local 5.2-foot local sea level rise by 2060. Sierra also contends that the minimum design elevation for the DBEC power block does not adequately consider storm surges associated with hurricanes. In support, Wanless presented graphics generated using LiDar, a light-detection and ranging technology, showing the elevation above mean sea level of Broward County, including the DBEC site. One graphic shows the current elevation of the DBEC site as approximately two feet above mean sea level. Other graphics assume a two-foot global mean sea level rise by 2060; a four-foot rise by 2089; a six-foot rise by 2110; an 8-foot rise by 2127; and a ten-foot rise in 2142. Each of these graphics shows the DBEC site as being inundated by sea level rise by 2060. Wanless also presented graphics for the period from 2018 to 2060, depicting the effect of adding storm surges of four feet and nine feet to regional sea level influences, king tides, and global mean sea level. According to these graphics, adding a four-foot storm surge may result in water heights of as much as 11 feet above present global mean sea level on the DBEC site by 2060, and adding a storm surge of nine feet may result in water heights of as much as 15 feet above present global mean sea level on the DBEC site by 2060. Wanless's storm surge scenarios entail layering contingencies on top of contingencies——each contingency fraught with uncertainty. Stated another way, each assumed condition on which Wanless relies to project storm surge heights of 11 and 15 feet has its own inherent uncertainty. To that point, the evidence showed that while it is well-accepted that climate change is occurring and that, as a result, global sea levels are rising, there is substantial lack of consensus in the scientific community and regulatory agencies regarding the extent and rate of global sea level rise in the future. Further, as discussed above, currently there is not a consensus that the Gulf Stream is slowing or that water mass is being redistributed due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets——two contingencies that substantially contributed to Wanless' projection of a 5.2-foot local sea level rise by 2060. Additionally, as with Wanless's other projections, no evidence was presented regarding the probability that his projected water height scenarios on the DBEC site, assuming four- and nine-foot storm surges, would occur. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the 11.5 foot above mean sea level design elevation for DBEC adequately addresses future storm surges. As previously discussed, certain existing infrastructure will be used for DBEC. These components were built years ago, complied with code requirements for elevation at the time they were constructed, and currently comply with those code requirements.45/ In sum, the competent substantial evidence establishes that the DBEC site design, as currently proposed, complies with all applicable state and local regulatory requirements. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence further establishes that DBEC site design elevation, which exceeds all applicable regulatory requirements, will adequately protect against flooding and inundation due to global and local sea level rise and storm surges. Other Impacts Water Resource Impacts The construction and operation of DBEC will not adversely impact water resources. The primary water uses for DBEC consist of cooling water, process water, service water, irrigation, and potable water. The cooling system for DBEC will use cooling water withdrawn from the Dania Cutoff Canal, which currently serves, and since 1927 has served, as the cooling water source for the electrical power generating facilities on the Lauderdale Site. DBEC will not require an increase in the rate or amount of cooling water withdrawn from the canal. Because the withdrawal rate will not increase, the through-screen velocity through the cooling water intake structure will not increase. This helps ensure that the project will not adversely impact fish or shellfish by impingement or entrainment. Additionally, no increase in the authorized quantity of industrial wastewater discharge will be required. The cooling system has been designed to ensure that DBEC will meet existing permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") thermal discharge limits. The average amount of process water used is anticipated to decrease. DBEC will continue to receive potable water from the City of Hollywood, and potable water use is not anticipated to increase. Sanitary Waste Disposal and Solid and Hazardous Waste The City of Hollywood will provide sanitary waste disposal services to DBEC. The operation of DBEC will generate small amounts of solid waste, which will be recycled, reused, disposed onsite, disposed in licensed offsite landfills, or otherwise appropriately disposed via approved disposal methods. The Lauderdale Site is a conditionally-exempt small quantity generator of hazardous waste and is anticipated to remain so during the construction and operation of DBEC. Hazardous waste generation by DBEC is anticipated to be less than 100 kilograms per month. FPL will contract with an approved and licensed hazardous waste disposal entity to handle and dispose of any hazardous waste generated by DBEC in a manner that complies with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Terrestrial Impacts The DBEC project will affect approximately 134 acres of the 392-acre Lauderdale site, which has continuously been used for industrial activities for the past 90 years. As such, the Lauderdale site is disturbed and does not constitute prime wildlife habitat for unique wildlife species. The upland and wetland habitat onsite is low-quality, and consists of a mixture of nuisance exotic and native species. Due to the disturbed nature of the site and the lack of significant wildlife habitat, no change in floral or faunal populations, including commercially- or recreationally-important species, is anticipated due to DBEC. Additionally, the site does not contain significant areas of preferred habitat for nesting, roosting, or foraging by state and/or federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Approximately 18.67 acres of low-quality wetlands, 0.12 acres of disturbed exotic and native hardwood systems, and a small area of low-quality isolated freshwater marsh will be impacted by dredging and filling. These wetland impacts will be mitigated through purchase of mitigation credits from the Everglades Mitigation Bank. Impacts on Aquatic Species DBEC project will continue to withdraw water from the existing Dania Cutoff Canal and to discharge cooling water into ponds and, ultimately, offsite. Proximate aquatic systems are subject to tidal influences and fresh water discharges through SFWMD canals. The waters in the vicinity of the DBEC site are designated Class III marine waters. Existing stresses on aquatic systems in the vicinity of DBEC include altered hydrology, altered salinity, elevated nutrient and organic loads, power plant intake/discharge, physical alterations, and pressures from fishing and boating. DBEC will address impacts to these aquatic systems, as appropriate, through obtaining an NPDES permit for the cooling water discharge. Additionally, FPL will use best management practices during construction to control erosion, sedimentation, and runoff to prevent water quality degradation. Significant impacts to aquatic resources and biological communities are not anticipated. During DBEC construction, FPL will continue to discharge warm water consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan established under the NPDES permit for the existing electrical power plant facility. The Lauderdale Site will continue to provide a warm water refuge for manatees during and after DBEC is constructed. Transportation Impacts A traffic analysis for construction and operation of DBEC was performed and provided in the site certification application. During peak construction, approximately 500 vehicles per day are anticipated to enter and exit the DBEC site. A traffic impact analysis showed that additional construction-related traffic will not degrade roadway system operating conditions. FPL will develop a traffic management plan to minimize level of service deficiencies due to construction traffic. FPL has agreed, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification, to work with the City of Hollywood to improve roadway operations at site access locations. No adverse impacts to traffic flow are anticipated from DBEC operation. Archaeological and Historical Site Impacts A cultural resource assessment of the DBEC site determined that no archaeological or historical structures that are listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, are present. Noise A computer program predicted environmental noise impacts from DBEC. Most of the noise sources, which consist of the steam turbine, the gas turbines, the electric generators, and the compressors, are located in enclosed structures, which helps mitigate impacts. The DBEC sound profile will not be significantly different than that for Units 4 and 5. The Lauderdale Site is in a highly-developed area having other proximate industrial and urban uses, including a waste-to-energy center, a shipping center, a recycling center, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, and several major highways. DBEC is projected to comply with the Broward County and City of Hollywood noise ordinances. DBEC's normal operation is not anticipated to exceed the City of Dania Beach's maximum permissible noise levels. However, as part of the site certification application, FPL has requested a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance, chapter 17, article IV, sections 17-79 through 17-90, for noise levels that may occur on an infrequent and short-term basis during startup, shutdown, and upset conditions. The City of Dania Beach does not object to FPL's request for the variance. The undersigned recommends approval of FPL's request for a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance, chapter 17, article IV, sections 17-79 through 17-90. Climate Change "Climate change" is a term used to describe changes in global temperature, global sea level rise, and other conditions associated with those effects, including changes in precipitation, winds, waves, and climates. Climate change is occurring globally and locally, including in southeast Florida. Climate change is caused, in substantial part, by the emission of GHGs. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane are the most significant GHG contributors to climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of gaseous carbon dioxide and methane are increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has dramatically increased, from 280 parts per million ("ppm") to 410 ppm at present——almost 100 times faster than historical increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during previous interglacial periods. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has occurred since World War II and is primarily due to human population increase, global industrialization, and increased burning of fossil fuels on a global basis. GHGs cause climate change by trapping solar radiation in the Earth's atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere. Once carbon dioxide is emitted, it persists in the atmosphere for approximately 4,000 years. Climate change is responsible for causing sea level to rise on a global and local basis. The main drivers of sea level rise are atmospheric and ocean warming, which increase the ocean's mass through melting land and sea ice and increase the ocean's volume through thermal expansion. Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the rate of climate change, which, in turn, accelerates sea level rise. The last time atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were at or above 400 ppm, sea level was approximately 20 meters, or 70 feet, higher than current level. At that level, a substantial portion of the land mass that constitutes the state of Florida was inundated. The evidence shows that global sea level does not rise in a gradual linear manner, but instead rises in rapid pulses followed by pauses. Although it is well-established that sea level is rising on a global and local basis, there currently is little consensus regarding the rate of sea level rise. Due to its low elevation, southeast Florida is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Many urban areas in southeast Florida experience substantial flooding during rainfall events. The evidence shows that sea level rise is likely a contributing cause. Sea level rise causes substantial coastal hazards, including inundation of land, higher storm surges, higher king tides, increased flood height and frequency, coastal erosion and destruction of coastal mangroves and other ecosystems, erosion and destruction of coastal barrier islands, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers and ecosystems. These impacts will worsen or accelerate with sea level rise. The cumulative addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is warming the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing ocean temperatures to rise on a global basis. In particular, the upper ocean has warmed substantially on a global basis since 1997, due to increasing human population and the corresponding increased burning of fossil fuels. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being transferred to the oceans, causing them to acidify. Some scientific studies indicate that climate change will cause more severe storm and weather events. Some scientific studies indicate that climate change will result in threats to human health, native wildlife and ecosystems, agriculture, and the tourism industry. In sum, the competent, persuasive evidence establishes that climate change is occurring, that it is primarily caused by GHGs emissions, and that every ton of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere contributes to climate change. The competent, persuasive evidence also establishes that as a result of climate change, sea level is rising globally, and, to a certain extent, locally,46/ and that sea level rise already is causing environmental adverse impacts.47/ SCO and Affected Agencies' Review of Application The PPSA establishes a centralized, coordinated process for licensing electrical power plants that generate 75 MW or more of electrical power. §§ 403.502, 403.503(14), Fla. Stat. Site certification for an electrical power plant constitutes a license that addresses and encompasses the regulatory requirements of the agencies that are involved in the site certification application review process. The SCO is an office within DEP's Division of Air Resource Management. It is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the electrical power plant site certification application review process. The SCO also serves as administrative staff for the Siting Board. The SCO's responsibilities include receiving site certification applications, preparing a schedule of deadlines and milestones applicable to the site certification application review process, determining completeness48/ of the application based on the recommendations of affected agencies,49/ receiving each affected agency's preliminary statement of issues, receiving each affected agency's report, and preparing the PAR.50/ §§ 403.5064, 403.5066, and 403.507, Fla. Stat. The PAR addresses the proposed electrical power plant's compliance with all applicable non-procedural requirements of the affected agencies51/ and contains copies of the affected agencies' reports; comments from other agencies or persons; any variances and waivers from applicable regulatory requirements that have been requested and the SCO's recommendation regarding the request; the SCO's recommendation regarding whether site certification should be approved, denied, or approved with conditions; and proposed conditions of certification. § 403.507(5)(a), Fla. Stat. The affected agencies' reports provide the agencies' specialized knowledge on matters within their jurisdiction and expertise, so are a crucial component of the PAR. Each affected agency conducts a substantive review of the site certification application to determine whether the electrical power plant complies with that particular agency's applicable substantive rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, and criteria. The affected agency's report must specifically address these topics and must state whether, based on its substantive review, the agency recommends that the electrical power plant be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. The report also must include any conditions of certification that the agency recommends be imposed regarding matters within that agency's jurisdiction. § 403.507(3), Fla. Stat. Conditions of certification are regulatory requirements imposed to minimize and mitigate the potential adverse effects of the construction and operation of the electrical power plant with respect to the environment and public health. Because the conditions of certification are regulatory requirements, each affected agency that recommends a specific condition of certification must possess the legal authority to impose that condition. § 403.507(3)(c), Fla. Stat. To that end, the affected agency is required to cite the specific statute, rule, or ordinance that authorizes the imposition of that specific condition. Because each affected agency possesses legislatively or constitutionally delegated regulatory authority over specific matters, the SCO does not conduct an independent review as to whether the proposed electrical power plant meets those affected agencies' nonprocedural requirements, and instead relies on each affected agency's specific regulatory knowledge and expertise regarding matters that are within its substantive regulatory jurisdiction. FPL submitted the Application for DBEC to the SCO on July 27, 2017. The Application was referred to DOAH and was distributed to the affected agencies for review and comment regarding completeness of the Application. The affected agencies needed additional information, so the Application was determined incomplete. After FPL provided the requested information, the Application was deemed complete on October 27, 2017. Pursuant to section 403.507(3), the SFWMD; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWC"); Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"); Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ("DEO"); Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"); DEP; Broward County; the City of Dania Beach; and the City of Hollywood reviewed the Application and submitted agency reports to the SCO. Each of these affected agencies submitted recommended conditions of certification to be included in the site certification as conditions specifically designed to address matters within that particular agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Each agency concluded that if DBEC complies with the conditions of certification recommended by that agency, it will meet all applicable non-procedural requirements, rules, and ordinances within that agency's jurisdiction. Each affected agency recommended that DBEC be approved, subject to the conditions of certification recommended by that agency. Each agency report is briefly discussed below. PSC Need Determination As previously noted, the PSC issued the Need Determination for DBEC on March 19, 2018. Pursuant to section 403.507(4)(a), the Need Determination constitutes the PSC's agency report for DBEC. In determining the need for DBEC, the PSC considered critical components of need, including forecasted load, necessary reserve margin, projected load generation and imbalance, and area reliability margin. The PSC determined that FPL demonstrated the need for DBEC Unit 7 in the 2024-to-2026 timeframe, in order to maintain its electrical system reliability and integrity. The PSC found that: No cost-effective [Demand Side Management] or renewable resources have been identified that could mitigate the need for DBEC Unit 7. DBEC Unit 7 is expected to provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost to FPL's customers. DBEC Unit 7 is projected to reduce overall natural gas consumption and reduce emissions compared to maintaining the existing Lauderdale units. DBEC Unit 7 is the most cost-effective alternative that maintains FPL's system and Southeastern Florida area reliability compared to other alternatives. South Florida Water Management District SFWMD determined that there will be no increase in water use for DBEC, and that the cooling water, potable water, and process water sources will remain the same as for the units currently existing at the Lauderdale Site. SFWMD determined that if DBEC complies with SFWMD's recommended conditions of certification, it can be constructed and operated in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules within SFWMD's jurisdiction. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FFWCC's report noted that several listed wildlife species were observed onsite or have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence onsite. Additionally, the West Indian Manatee will be affected by ceasing operation of Units 4 and 5 before the construction of DBEC. FFWCC recommended conditions of certification requiring biological surveys, monitoring for impacts to listed species, and also recommended a condition of certification to require temporary heaters to be used during DBEC construction to maintain a warm water refuge for manatees. Department of Transportation DOT determined that, with the exception of construction-related traffic, DBEC is not anticipated to adversely affect the State Highway System in the vicinity of the plant. DOT recommended certification of DBEC, contingent on DBEC's compliance with its recommended conditions of certification. Department of Economic Opportunity DEO anticipates that DBEC will provide economic and fiscal benefits to the City of Dania Beach, Broward County, and the surrounding area. DEO recommended approval without any recommended conditions of certification. Division of Historical Resources DHR did not object to DBEC, noting that all current matters pertaining to historical resources were addressed. Department of Environmental Protection DEP reviewed solid waste and hazardous waste, environmental resource permitting, industrial wastewater, and stormwater management issues within its jurisdiction and determined that DBEC will meet all applicable regulatory requirements, provided it complies with the proposed conditions of certification. DEP recommended conditions of certification to address solid waste and hazardous waste, environmental resource permitting, industrial wastewater, and stormwater management issues within its jurisdiction. Local Governments Broward County, the City of Dania Beach, and the City of Hollywood each recommended approval of DBEC, subject to recommended conditions of certification regarding matters within its regulatory jurisdiction. The City of Dania Beach did not object to the variance sought by FPL related to noise limits in the City of Dania Beach's Code of Ordinances for transient and infrequent noises associated with unit startup, shutdown, and upset conditions. Preliminary Analysis Report and Recommended Approval with Conditions of Certification On April 2, 2018, the SCO issued the PAR for DBEC. The PAR describes the project and summarizes the affected agencies' substantive review of DBEC. Based on the agencies' reports, recommended conditions of certification, and unanimous approval recommendation, the SCO determined that FPL has provided reasonable assurance that, considering and balancing the factors in section 403.509(3)(a) through (g), DBEC can be certified. The PAR recommends approval of the site certification for DBEC, subject to the proposed Conditions of Certification ("COC") attached thereto, which were compiled from the affected agencies' recommended conditions of certification submitted as part of their agency reports. Sierra contends that because the SCO did not conduct an independent review of whether DBEC meets the nonprocedural requirements of the affected agencies, it was not able to determine whether FPL provided reasonable assurance that the site certification complies with the agencies' applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and other requirements. This contention is rejected. The purpose of the affected agency's review and report submittal requirement in section 403.507 is to ensure that the agency legally and factually vested with the substantive jurisdiction and expertise over a specific regulated area is an integral part of the site application review process. To that end, each agency is charged with submitting recommended conditions of certification that are specifically keyed to addressing issues within that agency's substantive jurisdiction and expertise. The purpose of affected agency involvement in the site certification process would be defeated if the SCO——which is not an expert over the matters within the various affected agencies' substantive jurisdiction—— was authorized to second-guess these agencies' determinations and to modify or reject their recommended conditions of certification. Further, and fundamentally, the SCO is not statutorily authorized to conduct such an independent review. Notably, Sierra has not cited any statutory, rule, or case law authority to support its position.52/ Notice, Public Outreach, and Public Hearing All public notices required by the PPSA were provided. FPL timely published the notice of filing of the Application, as required by section 430.5115(1)(a), and notice of the certification hearing, as required by section 403.5115(1)(e). DEP published notice of the filing of the Application and the certification hearing in the Florida Administrative Register, as required by section 403.5115(4). Additionally, FPL provided direct written notice that the Application had been filed to property owners and residents within three miles of the project area, as required by section 403.5115(6)(a). FPL also engaged in public outreach for the project, including providing a toll-free phone number at which information regarding the project could be obtained, a website containing information about the project, and electronic mail contact information. Additionally, FPL sent 310 letters to residents of the neighborhood closest to the project and sent 1,600 mailers to residents and property owners in the vicinity of the site, inviting them to an open house that was held on May 24, 2017. FPL hosted another open house in June 2017 for residents of the neighborhood immediately south of the project site. A public hearing was held on May 15, 2018, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:03 p.m. Many members of the public provided comments on the DBEC project,53/ and were able to ask questions of representatives from FPL and DEP. The public hearing comments were recorded and transcribed as part of the Transcript of the certification hearing.54/ Federal Permits As discussed above, an air construction/PSD permit has been issued for DBEC. FPL has applied for an NPDES permit and a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These permits and approvals are not part of, or subject to revision, modification, or revocation in, this proceeding. Variance As discussed above, FPL has requested a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance in Chapter 17-86 of the City's Code of Ordinances, which establishes the permissible sound levels for receiving land use categories. Specifically, FPL requested a variance from the City's maximum permissible sound levels for: Noise due to emergency or upset conditions for all time periods and all receiving land use categories; Noise due to transient conditions associated with unit startup and shutdown shall be limited to 70 dB(A) for all time periods and all receiving land use categories, except for Industrial land use which shall retain a limit of 75 dB(A). Currently, the area in which the Lauderdale Site is located experiences significant noise from the combined effect of a range of industrial and urban activities, including the operation of Units 4 and 5 at the Lauderdale Site. DBEC's projected noise profile is not materially different than that of the existing power plant operation at the Lauderdale Site. Transient and infrequent conditions at the Lauderdale Site, including unit startup, shutdown, and upset conditions occasionally occur for short periods of time. These conditions also are expected to occasionally occur at DBEC. The variance is limited in nature, and the noise levels necessitating a variance are expected to be infrequent and short-lived during unit startup, shutdown, or upset conditions. The City of Dania Beach does not oppose the variance. Given the limited nature of the variance, lack of opposition, and that similar noise levels currently occur at the Lauderdale Site, it is determined that the requested variance is reasonable, and, therefore, should be granted. The Siting Board's Role and Authority Section 403.509(3) sets forth the Siting Board's authority and duty under the PPSA. In considering whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a power plant site certification license, the Siting Board must consider all factors in section 403.509(3)(a) through (g). The Siting Board possesses broad authority under the PPSA in considering whether to certify an electrical power plant. With the exception of the need determination and federal permits, the Siting Board is not bound by the conditions of certification proposed by the SCO or the affected agencies, and may modify, remove, or add conditions of certification, as authorized, to protect the broad interests of the public and minimize adverse impacts of the electrical power plant on the environment and human health. See § 403.502(2), Fla. Stat. Comparative Impacts and Benefits of DBEC As discussed above, DBEC will emit GHGs into the atmosphere. Therefore, DBEC's emissions will increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when compared to a zero emissions scenario——i.e., no GHG emissions at all. However, the alternatives in this proceeding do not entail a zero GHG emissions alternative to DBEC. As discussed above, the PSC found and concluded, in the Need Determination, that with the retirement of Units 4 and 5, DBEC is needed to meet a projected future electrical power demand. As part of the Need Determination, the PSC concluded that no additional cost-effective renewal resource——such as solar or wind generation technology——could mitigate the need for DBEC. The PSC also concluded that no new demand side management——i.e., conservation——could mitigate the need for DBEC. In so determining, the PSC established, as a baseline condition to this proceeding, that DBEC, a natural gas-fueled facility, is the most cost-effective means of meeting projected future electrical power demands if Units 4 and 5 are retired. Thus, given the Need Determination, the only alternative available to constructing DBEC is to continue operating Units 4 and 5 indefinitely.55/ As previously discussed, Units 4 and 5 are less efficient units that burn substantially more natural gas than will Unit 7. Therefore, if Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely——as will be the case if DBEC is not certified——they will burn more natural gas, resulting in the emission of greater amounts of GHGs over their operation life than would the construction and operation of Unit 7, combined with FPL's reduction of the use of less-efficient units in its system. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018, along with the construction and operation of DBEC in 2022 and FPL's concomitant reduction in the use of other less-efficient, more- polluting units in its system, will result in the emission of approximately 8.1 million tons less GHGs into the atmosphere over a 30-year period than if DBEC is not approved and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely. Because DBEC will, through system-wide reduced GHG emissions, result in a net environmental benefit as compared to the alternative of continuing to operate Units 4 and 5 indefinitely into the future, DBEC should be weighed as a net positive in considering and balancing the site certification criteria in section 403.509(3). Other measures, discussed above, that DBEC will include and implement to minimize offsite impacts include using the existing transmission line system, existing natural gas pipeline, existing site access, and using a previously-developed power generation site. DBEC will not require new water sources, will not result in a new or expanded surface water discharge, and will reduce the use of processed water by approximately 22 percent. Additionally, upon its operation, DBEC will provide a warm water refuge for manatees.56/ In sum, the undersigned finds that DBEC's benefits, discussed at length above, outweigh its adverse impacts. This determination is more fully addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Sierra's Standing Sierra has intervened in this proceeding pursuant to section 403.508(3)(e), which confers party status on persons or entities who demonstrate that their substantial interests will be affected by this proceeding. Sierra is a national non-profit organization. Sierra and its members are committed to protecting the environment. Sierra focuses extensive effort and resources toward combating climate change through advocating the displacement of fossil-fuel energy sources, which emit GHGs, in favor of renewable energy sources and energy sources, such as solar power, wind power, and energy storage and batteries. Consistent with that mission, Sierra's members are concerned about climate change resulting from GHG emissions and the adverse impacts of climate change on human health, property, wildlife, and sensitive ecological systems, and many are actively involved in efforts aimed at reducing GHG emissions on a global and local basis. Several Sierra members testified at the certification hearing regarding the environmental and personal harms they allege they will suffer due to climate change——to which, Sierra alleges, DBEC will contribute. These alleged harms include rising sea level, saltwater intrusion, contamination of drinking water aquifers, property damage due to flooding and increased storm intensity, adverse impacts on recreational activities due to degradation of coral reef and mangrove ecosystems, algal blooms, and human health impacts. Sierra has nearly 38,000 members who live in Florida. Approximately 18,000 Sierra members live in FPL's service territory.57/ The relief Sierra requests in this proceeding is set forth below. Generally, Sierra requests either that the site certification for DBEC be approved, subject to additional conditions that Sierra proposes, or be denied. Relief Requested by Sierra On May 2, 2018, Sierra filed Sierra's Statement on Relief ("Statement on Relief"), identifying the relief it seeks in this proceeding. That relief was set forth in nine sequentially-numbered paragraphs. On May 8, 2018, FPL filed Florida Power & Light Company's Motion to Strike paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Statement on Relief. On May 11, 2018, Sierra filed Sierra Club's Opposition to Florida Power & Light Company's Motion to Strike. At the commencement of the certification hearing, the undersigned struck paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement on Relief and reserved ruling on the other forms of relief requested in paragraphs 1 through 5, 8 and 9, pending development of the evidentiary record in this proceeding. The undersigned has ruled on these paragraphs in the Conclusions of Law, below. Sierra requests the following relief in paragraphs 1 through 5, 8, and 9 of its Statement on Relief, which remain at issue in this proceeding: Paragraph 1 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to limit the annual emission of GHGs from DBEC to the existing annual GHG emission levels from Units 4 and 5, and require FPL to terminate GHG emissions from DBEC at the same date that FPL planned to retire Units 4 and 5, in 2033, subject to any required operation to meet electric reliability needs. Paragraph 2 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to comply with FPL's stated system- wide GHG commitment to DEP and the PSC, and upon which FPL relies in seeking approval for DBEC——specifically, that DBEC's operation reduces FPL's system-wide annual emissions of GHGs from its current baseline by at least the amount committed to by FPL. As part of this requirement, approval of DBEC should be conditioned on FPL's system-wide annual emissions of GHGs being lower than its current baseline by at least the amount committed to by FPL, and never exceeding that reduced level of GHGs during each year of the lifespan of DBEC. Paragraph 3 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to develop a locally-sited public stakeholder process that provides municipalities and other governmental entities that have adopted, or that in the future adopt, carbon reduction or clean energy commitments, a means to work with FPL to develop a binding plan to meet the commitments of the municipalities and other governmental entities, subject to any governmental approvals required by law, and that such processes allow interested persons, including non-governmental organizations, a meaningful opportunity to participate. Paragraph 4 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to evaluate, every five years, in a detailed, transparent process with opportunity for meaningful public participation, the Climate Change Damages resulting from 40 years of GHG pollution from building and operating DBEC as proposed, and approve DBEC subject to the opportunity for the Siting Board to reevaluate the approval of DBEC, including whether there are additional reasonable and available methods that should be adopted to minimize the Climate Change Damages caused by DBEC, and to impose further conditions, including future emissions reductions of DBEC. The impacts of DBEC must be evaluated individually, as well as in the context of cumulative impacts from other GHG emissions. In this evaluation, FPL must examine reasonable and alternative methods to minimize the adverse effects of DBEC's emissions, including sequestration of GHGs and the ability to avoid the emissions. Paragraph 5 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL and DEP to reevaluate, on a five-year basis, and in a detailed, transparent process with opportunity for meaningful public participation, the Climate Change Damages which pose a risk to the DBEC facility specifically, and approve DBEC subject to the opportunity for the Siting Board to reevaluate the approval of DBEC, including whether there are additional reasonable and available methods that should be adopted to minimize the Climate Change Damages to the DBEC facility, and to impose further conditions, including future emissions reductions of DBEC. Paragraph 8 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to deny DBEC's site certification. Paragraph 9 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests that the ALJ and the Siting Board provide such relief as is just and reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Siting Board enter a final order approving DBEC, subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in the PAR, and approving the variance to the City of Dania Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17, Article IV, Noise, Section 17-86, as set forth in the PAR. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 30th day of July, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of locating a 500 kV transmission line to provide dispersion of the additional power generated at the Crystal River Electric Power Plant when Unit 5 becomes operational in the fourth quarter of 1984. The northern terminus of the corridor is in Sumter County at the Central Florida Substation, located immediately south of State Road 44 in Section 24, Township 19 South, Range 23 East. The southern terminus of the corridor is in Polk County at the proposed Kathleen Substation, to be located north of U.S. Highway 98 in either Section 8 or 17, Township 26 South, Range 23 East. The length of the corridor is approximately 43 miles. The purpose of the corridor is to provide a 190 foot wide right-of-way for a 500 kV transmission line constructed upon steel lattice guyed V structures and four-legged, self-supporting steel lattice tower structures, with an approximate span between the structures of 1,200 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated July 21, 1981, concluded that: The construction of the proposed transmission line will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The proposed transmission line will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The Central Florida Substation and the proposed Kathleen Substation are the appropriate starting and ending points of the transmission line. The Public Service Commission then determined that the proposed transmission line is needed. Notice of the final certification hearing was published on October 9, 1981, in the Leesburg Commercial, a daily newspaper published at Leesburg in Lake County, Florida, and on October 11, 1981, in The Ledger, a daily newspaper published at Lakeland in Polk County, Florida. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, the corridor for which FPC seeks certification will be broken down into three segments -- the North Corridor Segment, the Central Corridor Segment, and the South Corridor Segment. The entire corridor for which FPC seeks certification is depicted on Attachment 1 hereto. The segments are generally described as follows: The North Corridor Segment begins at the Central Florida Substation and continues to the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and is 2,600 feet wide; The Central Corridor Segment begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and goes to a point which is the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, which is generally 2 miles east of State Road 471 and south of the Withlacoochee River; and The South Corridor Segment begins at the termination of the Central Corridor Segment and continues to the proposed Kathleen Substation north of U.S. Highway 98. The three segments are described in detail in the application (Applicant's Exhibit No. 22). Parties to this proceeding agree that the North Corridor Segment and the South Corridor Segment, with certain Conditions of Certification about which the parties also agree, meet the requirements for site certification under the Transmission Line Site Certification Act. However, a dispute exists between the parties with regard to the certification of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Applicant, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Transportation and C. M. Overstreet, et ux., argue in favor of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Department of Environmental Regulation has proposed an alternative alignment to the Central Corridor Segment for which FPC seeks site certification. For purposes of this Recommended Order, this proposal by DER shall be referred to as the "DER Proposed Corridor." The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs argue in favor of the DER Proposed Corridor. The DER Proposed Corridor begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and, proceeding in a westerly direction, the corridor parallels the northern boundary of the Withlacoochee State Forest and crosses North Grade Road. After approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers), the corridor crosses SR 471 and the Little Withlacoochee River, enters Hernando County, and turns due south, entering the Withlacoochee State Forest. Proceeding south on the west side of Route 471, the corridor crosses an unnamed dirt road in Section 1 (Hernando County), Richloam Clay Sink Road, and Center Grade Road, enters Pasco County 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) south of the Little Withlacoochee River crossing, and crosses unnamed roads in Section 25 (Pasco County), and exits the State Forest on the north side of Section 36, Township 23 South, Range 22 East. This alignment continues south along the west side of SR 471 to the west southern boundary of the State Forest and crosses SR 471 to the east side at the northwest corner of Section 7, Township 24 South, Range 23, East. It continues south along the east side of SR 471 to the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, where it turns east southeasterly to go along the northeasterly side of a straight line connecting the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East and the northeast corner of Section 17, Township 25 South, Range 23 East where it joins the southern segment. This southeastern diagonal alignment crosses the Withlacoochee River in the vicinity of Trail Ford Bridge and enters Polk County. This corridor is 1,000 feet wide. The Department of Environmental Regulation has also proposed, as a second alternative to the Central Corridor Segment, deflections of that Central Corridor Segment in the area of Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp. For the purposes of this Recommended Order this proposal will be referred to as the "DER Preferred Alternate Corridor." The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor is the same as the Central Corridor Segment proposed by FPC except that the Central Corridor Segment is routed around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp as follows: The Bayroot Slough bypass begins at the northeastern corner of Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the south of a line from that point to the southwest corner at the same section, hence it parallels on the east a line from that point to the northeast corner of Section 24. This bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The Cross Creek Swamp bypass begins at the northeast corner of the southeastern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 32, Township 24 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the northern side of a southwesterly line from that point to the northeast corner of the southwestern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 5, Township 25 South, Range 23 East; and then parallels on the west a due south line to the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 and then parallels on the southern side of a southeasterly line to the southeast corner of Section 5 and joins the FPC preferred corridor. The bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The land uses in the North Corridor Segment consist primarily of agricultural uses, improved pasture, orange groves, row crops and some hardwood hammocks. The prevalent land uses in that part of the Central Florida Segment within the Withlacoochee State Forest are timber management and game management. The prevalent land uses within that part of the Central Florida Segment south of the Withlacoochee State Forest are private timber management and cattle operations. The DER Proposed Corridor and the Central Corridor Segment, south of the Withlacoochee State Forest, are composed of approximately the same types and amounts of wet land and forested areas. The proposed corridor in the Central Corridor Segment crosses two large wetland systems, Cross Creek Swamp and Bayroot Slough. The entire corridor proposed by the Applicant contains approximately 1,100 acres of cypress wetland. Altering the FPC corridor in the manner suggested by DER in the DER Proposed Corridor would increase the cypress wetland acreage encompassed by the corridor to 1,300 acres. A similar comparison of the two corridors with regard to fresh water marsh indicates that the DER Proposed Corridor would reduce the acreage of fresh water marsh encompassed by the corridor from 800 acres in the FPC corridor to 600 acres. Both corridors contain similar amounts of fresh water swamp. There are three large wetland systems in the FPC Proposed Corridor. They are Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp, and Cross Creek Swamp. Bayroot Slough is approximately 3,600 acres in area, Devils Creek Swamp is 8,800 acres in area and Cross Creek Swamp, 1,145 acres in area. The Applicant proposes to build an access/maintenance road completely through Devils Creek Swamp on the eastern most 20 feet of its right-of-way. This access/maintenance road would be used as a partial base for a levee proposed to be constructed in the area by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This access/maintenance road would require the filling of approximately 9 acres, or one-tenth of one percent, of Devils Creek Swamp. In Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, as well as all other major wetland areas, with the exception of Devils Creek Swamp, the Applicant proposes to use keyhold fills for the placement of its towers and to leave the span between towers open with no placement of fill. These construction techniques are designed to permit sheet flow to continue in a near natural state, thus minimizing adverse impact on those wetland areas. In Bayroot Slough, approximately six acres, or less than two-tenths of one percent, are proposed to be filled in connection with construction of the subject line. In Cross Creek Swamp, approximately four acres, or less than four-tenths of one percent of the total swamp area, will be filled for the construction of an access/maintenance road. The DER Proposed Corridor would require approximately four additional miles of transmission line than would the corridor proposed by FPC. That would increase the cost of construction of the transmission line from approximately $23,174,000.00 to $25,824,000.00 Thus, the DER Proposed Corridor would cost $2,650,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor, which contains deflections around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, would require approximately .87 miles more transmission line than would the FPC Proposed Corridor and because of that additional length and the number of turning angles necessary,, would cost approximately $1,344,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor as proposed by FPC. The wetland systems in the region which contain Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp and Cross Creek Swamp are interrelated with regard to wildlife. This region is approximately 25,000 acres in size. Approximately 96 acres would be cleared and 19 acres filled with the construction of a transmission line along the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The right-of-way required for the proposed 500 kV transmission line will measure 190 feet in width. The transmission line will consist of one single circuit 500 kV line. The basic structure type selected for the proposed transmission line is a steel lattice guyed V. This structure will be used to support the conductors on straight portions of the line. At angles in the transmission line, the conductors will be supported by a four-legged, self- supporting steel lattice tower. These angle structures are significantly more expensive than the steel lattice guyed V structures. The structures will be constructed of steel angle sections and will be galvanized. The guy wires for the guyed V structure will be either aluminum coated steel cable or an aluminum cable with an approximate diameter of 1.0 to 2.0 inches. A four-legged self- supporting steel lattice structure may be used on some straight portions of the transmission line where required, due to soil conditions, clearances, or other engineering or environmental considerations. The structures will support a single three-phase alternating current, 500,000 volt circuit. Three conductors will be included in each phase, resulting in a total of nine conductors for the circuit. The structure also supports two overhead ground wires which protect the circuit from lightning strikes. The conductor will be supported in the structure by insulator and hardware assemblies. A typical foundation for the guyed V structure will be a cast-in-place reinforced concrete foundation. Guy wires will be attached. The angle structure will be supported on cast-in-place reinforced concrete cylinder foundations. The structures will be electrically grounded. The minimum conductor to ground clearance will be 37 feet at 120 degrees Fahrenheit. A typical span between structures is 1,200 feet. The transmission line will be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code, 1973 and 1981 Editions. Construction of the transmission line will be done in three phases. The first phase will consist of clearing the right-of-way and access/maintenance road construction. The second phase will consist of construction of the towers, and the third phase will consist of the actual stringing of the conductors. Because of the very small amount of the total aquifer recharge area proposed to be filled by the Applicant, there will be no significant adverse impact to aquifer recharge capabilities because of the construction of the transmission line. If constructed with an adequate amount of culverting, the access/maintenance roads proposed to be constructed by the Applicant will not significantly affect the surface regime in the areas within the FPC Proposed Corridor. Outside of the 190 foot transmission line right-of-way there will be essentially no change in-existing vegetation. Within the 190 foot right-of-way, only the inside 150 feet will be cleared with the outer 20 feet on each side being cleared only of "danger" trees; that is, trees that might fall on to the line because they are diseased, dead or leaning toward the line. Benthic organisms (microscopic, microinvertebrates, which are aquatic organisms on the lower levels of the food chain) could be adversely impacted if the wetland they inhabit is relatively small compared to the amount of fill required in that wetland for the construction activities associated with the transmission line. If the wetland is relatively large, however, there will be no discernible impact on the standing crop of benthic organisms because they can migrate to other portions of the wetland which are not filled. The DER Proposed Corridor has a greater number of relatively small wetland areas than does the FPC Proposed Corridor. No evidence was presented to establish any adverse impact by construction of a transmission line to upland wildlife habitat or upland wildlife species with the exception of the American wood stork. Although the evidence did establish that construction of a transmission line through wetland wildlife habitat could adversely affect some wildlife species within that habitat, the evidence did not establish that the extent of such an impact on any species would be significant in either the FPC Proposed Corridor, the DER Proposed Corridor or the DER Preferred Alternate Corridor. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission expressed a concern that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor will allow increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor. The evidence considered overall, however, does not establish that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor" will in fact result in any significant increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor or that such access per se would result in some significant adverse environmental impact. In order to attenuate potential flood damage along the Withlacoochee River, the Southwest Florida Water Management District proposes the construction of a levee to capture and hold 25-year and greater storm events in head-water areas of the Withlacoochee River. This is an ongoing project of SWFWMD which, at best, is several years from construction. In the area of Devils Creek Swamp, the Central Corridor Segment proposed by the Applicant would co-locate the transmission line with the SWFWMD proposed levee, thus minimizing the amount of fill to be placed in that area by the two projects and minimizing the adverse impact of the wetland system by the transmission line. Should such co-location occur, it would have the minimizing effect outlined above. However, because of the prospective nature of the SWFWMD project, the ultimate co-location of the transmission line and the SWFWMD levee is too speculative to assign much weight to its significance. Should a transmission line be placed adjacent to Highway 471 as proposed as an alternative by the Department of Environmental Regulation, some of that transmission line would cross property which is intended for residential development by its owners. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Division of Forestry, has indicated its hope that the alignment of the transmission corridor as proposed by the Applicant in the area of the Withlacoochee State Forest would provide a fire break beneficial to the Division for forest management purposes. There are three endangered species to which special attention should be paid with regard to the construction of a transmission line and associated faciliti es. These are the scrub jay, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and the wood stork. The scrub jay is found in vegetation typically less than 25 feet tall so that except for tower placement, scrub jay habitat will be essentially unaffected. The Applicant has agreed to a Condition of Certification to further protect the scrub jay and its habitat by avoiding colonies where found or by leaving the oak scrub in place under the wires. The red-cockaded woodpecker nests and roosts in mature and over-mature pines. Such trees may occur within the proposed corridor. To protect colonies that may exist, a survey needs to be performed prior to final right-of-way selection and if a colony is found, a right-of-way should be chosen to avoid that colony if at all possible. It could be very costly to divert the transmission line around such a colony by angles in the line. None of the proposed corridors cross a known wood stork rookery. However, a former rookery exists at Clay Sink wading bird site and will probably again become a rookery in the future when favorable conditions again exist. The FPC Proposed Corridor is more than a mile from any known wood stork rookery which should eliminate any significant adverse impact on such a site. A 500 kV transmission line is an extra high voltage line. The highest electrical field strength directly underneath the proposed Central Florida-to- Kathleen 500 kV transmission line at ground level will be less than 10,000 volts per meter, and the field strength will diminish with distance from the line. The magnetic field associated with the proposed transmission line will be less than 0.5 gauss. Testimony and evidence establishes that the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. Because of the size of the conductors to be used on the proposed transmission line, the ozone produced by that line will be negligible and will be well below the maximum ozone concentration level (0.12 ppm) recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. During fair weather, the line will be virtually silent. During wet weather, when the conductors are wet, the noise level will be approximately 38 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. This is a low noise level. At locations near the edge of the right-of-way, some interference with the reception of AM radio signals will experienced, particularly during wet conductor conditions. No interference to reception of FM radio broadcasts is expected from the proposed transmission line at any time. Television reception may be affected similarly-to that of AM radio signals. No hazardous induced currents are expected to occur in structures or vehicles beneath the line. Except as otherwise noticed in the Findings of Fact herein, the testimony and evidence in this cause establishes that the proposed transmission line, if constructed along a right-of-way in the corridor as proposed by the Applicant, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. Similarly, neither the DER Proposed Corridor nor the DER preferred Alternate Corridor would have any significant adverse effect on the environment, public health safety or welfare. The evidence does not establish that the two alternative corridors proposed by DER would have an appreciably reduced effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. The evidence does establish, as set forth in Paragraph 13 above, that the two DER alternatives would be significantly more expensive to construct than would the FPC proposed corridor. The corridor as proposed by FPC and depicted on Appendix 1 is 2,600 feet wide from its starting point at the existing Central Florida Substation to the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 23 South, Range 23 East, also the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest. At that point, the corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and continues to proceed southerly immediately west of the Sumter/Lake County line. At a point identified as the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor narrows to 500 feet and proceeds in a southwesterly direction with 250 feet-on either side of a line running from the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, to the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East. At a point identified as the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor turns due south, expands to 1,020 feet with the eastern 20 feet inside the SWFWMD west property line, and proceeds directly south paralleling the SWFWMD proposed levee for approximately one and one-half miles through "Devils Creek Swamp" to a point where the transmission line corridor end the SF4D proposed levee diverge. The corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and proceeds directly south immediately west of the SWFWMD west property line to the proposed Kathleen Substation site.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue certification to Progress Energy Florida ("PEF"), to construct and operate a new 530 megawatt ("MW") natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida. The proposed site for the Project is located at Progress Energy Florida's existing Hines Energy Complex, southwest of Bartow, Florida.
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida (formerly known as Florida Power Corporation): Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 For Polk County: Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant full and final certification to Progress Energy Florida to construct and operate a new 530 MW natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida, subject to the conditions of certification contained in FDEP Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 10th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James McGee, Esquire Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Harold Mclean, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33930 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue certification to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) to construct and operate a 2,200 megawatt (MW) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines, to be located in Miami-Dade County (County), and if so, what conditions should be imposed; (2) whether the Siting Board should direct the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to grant FPL three separate easements over state-owned lands for certain Project features; and (3) whether the Siting Board should approve FPL's request for a variance from section 24-43.1(6), Miami-Dade County Code (MDC), to allow use of the on-site package sanitary treatment 4 plant and other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County.
Findings Of Fact An Overview of the Project FPL is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. As a regulated utility, FPL is granted an exclusive franchise by the PSC to provide reliable and cost-effective electric service to customers within its service territory in Florida. FPL's service territory covers all or parts of 35 Florida counties and serves approximately nine million customers. It has 14 electrical generation sites in Florida and an electrical transmission line system of approximately 6,500 miles. FPL proposes to construct, operate, and maintain two new 1,100 MW (net) nuclear electrical generating units (Units 6 12 and 7) and supporting facilities on an approximately 300-acre site (site) within its existing Turkey Point plant property, as well as new transmission lines and other off-site associated linear and non-linear facilities (the Project). This is FPL’s single largest project of this magnitude in over 40 years. The Project includes the following proposed non- transmission line associated facilities: a laydown area; a nuclear administration building; a training building; a parking area; a FPL reclaimed water treatment facility; a reclaimed water pipeline corridor; radial collector well system and associated pipelines; an equipment barge unloading area; corridors for construction access roads and bridges; and a potable water pipeline corridor. The Project also includes the on-Site Clear Sky electrical substation, expansion of the Levee electrical substation, two access-only transmission line corridors, and proposed corridors for the following transmission lines: Clear Sky-Turkey Point transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Turkey Point substation on the Turkey Point plant property; Clear Sky-Davis and Davis-Miami transmission lines: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Davis substation in southeast Miami-Dade County, and another 230-kV line from the Davis substation to the existing 13 Miami substation in downtown Miami, just north of the Miami River, in FPL's East Preferred Corridor; Clear Sky-Levee No. 1 and No. 2 transmission lines: two 500-kV lines from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Levee substation in west Miami-Dade County in the West Consensus Corridor or, as a back-up, in FPL's West Preferred Corridor; and Clear Sky-Pennsuco transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Pennsuco substation in northwest Miami-Dade County, also in the West Consensus Corridor or, as a back-up, in FPL's West Preferred Corridor. FPL has proposed to locate these transmission lines in approximately 88.7 miles of transmission line corridors: 52 miles in the West Preferred Corridor (or 51 miles in the West Secondary Corridor) and 36.7 miles in the East Preferred Corridor. FPL is now seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor -- a combination of an alternate corridor proposed by MDLPA and FPL's West Preferred Corridor -— as its preferred western corridor. FPL is also seeking certification of the original West Preferred Corridor to serve as a back-up to the West Consensus Corridor should a contiguous right-of-way (ROW) be unable to be timely achieved within that West Consensus Corridor or if a right-of-way cannot be obtained in a cost- 14 effective manner. FPL is no longer seeking certification of the West Secondary Corridor. On April 11, 2008, the PSC issued its affirmative need determination for the Project in Final Order No. PSC-08-0237- FOF-EI. That Order was not appealed and is now final. By that Order, the PSC found that there is a need for the Project taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity; the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability; the need for base load generating capacity; the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost; and whether the Project is the most cost-effective alternative available. In making its determination of need, the PSC also found that there are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures reasonably available to FPL which might mitigate the need for Units 6 and 7. The PSC's need determination remains in legal effect and requires annual monitoring of the feasibility of construction of the Project. Reconsideration of that determination is neither permissible nor appropriate in this proceeding. Section 366.93 allows for the PSC's annual reviews and cost recovery for nuclear plant construction. The nuclear cost recovery process includes an annual hearing to review past, current, and subsequent year costs for the Project. The PSC's annual review considers "a detailed analysis of the long-term 15 feasibility of completing the power plant." Fla. Admin. Code R. 25-6.0423(5)(c)5. The PSC has annually approved FPL's requested nuclear cost recovery, and it has recognized and accepted the projected in-service dates for Units 6 and 7 of 2022 and 2023, respectively. In association with the Project, FPL has obtained from the Department an Air Construction/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit; Exploratory Well and Dual Zone Monitoring Well Permit; an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well construction and operational testing permit; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals for the Units 6 and 7 containment buildings; County Unusual Use Approval for a nuclear power plant and ancillary structures and equipment; an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) to allow roadway improvements to accommodate construction traffic; and a County zoning approval for the Radial Collector Well System, Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility (RWRF), and other various requests. Pending approvals for the Project include the Combined Operating License (COL) from the NRC; a Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and an Industrial Wastewater Permit modification from the Department. FPL has submitted three amendments to its application. The first amendment primarily removed the proposed FPL-owned 16 fill source from the application. The second amendment updated information presented in the original submittal of the application and completeness responses; it did not materially affect the environmental impact analysis or the conclusions presented. The third amendment related to two minor revisions in the previously-submitted groundwater model and corresponding groundwater modeling report. FPL also submitted errata to the second amendment, correcting page and appendix numbering issues. FPL has engaged in an extensive public outreach program for the Project, including among other things, direct mailings, newspaper notices, nine open houses, agency workshops, numerous presentations and meetings, a public survey, periodic e-mail updates to local and state agencies, a website, and toll free telephone number. The public outreach program activities provided the public and agency representatives opportunities to informally voice preferences on transmission line corridor selection and Project concerns. The application was available for public review at seven public libraries and at FPL and Department offices. All notices required by law were timely published by FPL, the Department, and the proponents of alternate transmission line corridors in accordance with section 403.5115 and rule 62-17.281. Proofs of publication were timely provided to the Department in accordance with rule 62-17.281(12). All 17 direct written notices required by law were timely mailed, and lists of landowners and residences notified were timely submitted to the Department in accordance with subsections 403.5115(6) and (7). The Department sent direct mailings for the sovereign submerged lands easements for the radial collector well laterals and Miami River crossing in accord with section 253.115 and rule 18-21.005(3). Plant and Non-Transmission Line Associated Facilities Generally FPL's Turkey Point plant property is located in unincorporated southeast Miami-Dade County, east of Florida City and the City of Homestead, and bordered by Biscayne Bay to the east. The existing 9,400-acre plant site consists of two nominal 400-MW natural gas/oil-fired steam electric generating units (Units 1 and 2), two nominal 800-MW nuclear units (Units 3 and 4), and a nominal 1,150-MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit (Unit 5). Units 3, 4, and 5 are certified under the PPSA. Units 1 and 2 pre-date the PPSA and are not certified. The Site for Units 6 and 7 is south of Units 3 and 4 and occupies approximately 300 acres within the existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. Proposed Units 6 and 7 are two 1,100-MW nuclear electric generating units. The principal structures are the nuclear reactors, a containment building, a shield building, an 18 auxiliary building, a turbine building, an annex building, a diesel generator building, and other related buildings. Each unit will include two standby diesel generators, two ancillary diesel generators, and one diesel-driven fire pump. FPL has selected the Westinghouse AP1000 as the plant design for Units 6 and 7. The Westinghouse design has been certified by the NRC as complying with federal regulations. This design incorporates the latest technology and advanced safety features. The NRC oversees the construction, safety, and operation of all nuclear units in the United States, including the transport and handling of nuclear fuel. Construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 require separate approval by the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, FPL submitted a COL application to the NRC. The NRC is currently reviewing that application. As least one party in this case, the NPCA, has intervened in the NRC proceeding and opposes federal approval. The process for obtaining the state site certification under the PPSA is separate from the NRC approval process. Certification is not dependent upon prior issuance of the NRC's approval. In addition to the two reactor units, other Project facilities include six cooling towers with a makeup water reservoir, a blowdown sump, tanks, a sanitary wastewater 19 treatment plant, electrical transformers, and various buildings. A new electrical switchyard/substation, named Clear Sky, will also be located on the Site, and a laydown area will be located on the far western portion of the Site. New nuclear administration and training buildings, along with a parking area, will be located just north of the Units 6 and 7 Site. Other Project-related features to be located within the existing FPL Turkey Point plant property include the RWTF, a portion of the reclaimed water pipeline, radial collector well caissons and delivery pipelines, portions of new access roads to be used during Project construction, a portion of the potable water pipeline, and an equipment barge unloading area. The new units will use reclaimed water supplied by the County as the primary source of cooling water. This water will be supplied by a reclaimed water pipeline and will receive further treatment in the RWTF. That treatment facility will be located northwest of the Units 6 and 7 Site. When reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the Project's water needs, cooling water will be supplied from a radial collector well system to be installed northeast of the Units 6 and 7 Site. The laterals for that well system will extend from the FPL plant property out beneath Biscayne Bay. 20 In accordance with Condition 4 of County Resolution Z- 56-07, as amended by Resolution Z-1-13, FPL will not use the Biscayne Aquifer as a primary source of cooling water for Units 6 and 7. The foundation for the nuclear units will include engineered fill and reinforced concrete that supports the containment building and auxiliary building. Site preparation will require removing the existing muck (organic layer) down to the initial rock layer. This muck is unsuitable for use in the foundation. The Site will then be backfilled with approximately 7.8 million cubic yards of structural fill (aggregate) to a finished grade of approximately 25.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) above mean sea level that will support power plant and ancillary facility construction. The design elevation of the plant floor is 26 feet NAVD 88. An additional three million cubic yards of fill will be required for other plant facilities, including the administration and training buildings and the RWTF. Material from excavation for the Site will be deposited on designated berms within the existing industrial wastewater facility or stock-piled on the Turkey Point plant property for other future uses. FPL will utilize best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts during placement of the spoil materials on the berms to 21 protect nearby wetlands and surface waters. FPL will obtain the majority of fill from certified vendors. In accordance with Condition 14 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 17 of County Resolution Z-1-13, all fill used on the two units and onsite facilities will be "clean fill" as defined in section 24-5, MDC. All fill material will comply with section 24-48.3(4), MDC. FPL has prepared and submitted an earthwork and materials disposal plan to the reviewing agencies, including the County. FPL's earthwork and materials disposal plan is consistent with Condition 7 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 16 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of those two conditions. In accordance with Condition 21 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL has designed the Project to accommodate water level increases on the order of one foot or more to accommodate potential physical modifications and operational changes to County and State drainage canals. Relative sea level is measured using tide or water level gauges to measure water levels with respect to tidal benchmarks. The hourly water level heights from the tide gauge are averaged to get a monthly or annual average. Using that information, the long-term change in the annual or monthly mean is determined over a period of decades or centuries. Relative 22 sea level is affected by vertical land motion; tectonic uplift; thermal expansion; glacial melt; ocean circulation; wind effects; changes in barometric pressure; and tides and tidal currents. The Project has been designed to accommodate potential sea level rise during the life of the Project. The proposed finish floor elevation at the Units 6 and 7 plant area was selected by FPL based on the calculation of probable maximum storm surge and coincident wind-wave effects. FPL input a conservative estimate of one foot of sea level rise over the life of the plant to the "Sea, Lakes and Overland Surge from Hurricanes" (SLOSH) Biscayne Bay Basin model. The SLOSH model was used to predict a maximum storm surge elevation of 21 feet during a probable maximum hurricane near the Site. The maximum water level at the safety-related structures, including predicted maximum storm surge elevation and estimated storm- related wave run-up, is calculated to be 24.8 feet. The design elevation of the plant floor is 26 feet NAVD 88. Facilities to be located at this elevation include, among other Project components, the reactors, the electrical turbines, and the emergency diesel generators. Impacts on support facilities and services for the Project will be managed through final design and by pre-planning for storm effects. In addition, plant procedures will be focused on nuclear and personnel safety 23 during a hurricane and post-storm recovery. Plant safety- related functions will not be adversely affected by sea level change or storm events. Based on available records from stations throughout the state -- Cedar Key, Fernandina Beach, Key West, Mayport, Miami Beach, Pensacola, and St. Petersburg -— sea level rise throughout Florida is tightly grouped around the level of 0.74 feet per century, with a very small standard deviation of plus or minus 0.07 feet per century. The nearest station with the longest (from 1913 to 2012) continuous sea level record to the Turkey Point Site is the Key West station; relative sea level rise there is 0.75 feet per century. Mathematically, the best explanation for the Key West relative sea level rise is a linear trend. There is no statistically significant evidence of acceleration in relative sea level rise at Key West. Given the available records in the area and the close grouping of values for sea level rise throughout the state, use of Key West records to project sea level rise at Turkey Point is appropriate. FPL used a linear trend method in assessing the relative sea level change for the Project. The linear trend is generally accepted by the scientific community as an appropriate method for evaluating relative sea level change. The sea level rise projections used by FPL are reasonable and conservative. FPL's projection appropriately responds to various assessments 24 on sea level rise. The plant design elevation accounts for more than maximum storm surge plus sea level rise. FPL has provided reasonable assurance that the Project is not contrary to the public interest as it relates to sea level rise. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be built above the 100-year flood level, and will not increase erosion or create a flood hazard to others. The Project will be constructed outside of the coastal high hazard area to comply with applicable flood protection requirements. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project has sufficient operational safeguards to protect the public welfare. The Project will meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Water and Use Treatment Construction Dewatering Excavation is required to construct the foundations of Units 6 and 7. Concrete diaphragm walls around each foundation excavation will minimize horizontal flow of groundwater into the excavation. In addition, a horizontal grouted barrier constructed below the bottom of each unit to the bottom of the 25 diaphragm walls will minimize vertical flow of groundwater into the excavation. Grout will be injected in a series of "primary" borings. Subsequent borings will then be drilled in between the primary borings. Three sets of borings are possible after the primary set –- secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. Each set is drilled and grout is injected until refusal occurs. Quaternary borings may not be required at all locations, only where continuing seepage is observed as the excavation progresses. The diaphragm walls and grouting will minimize groundwater flow during construction to less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) per unit, which will be controlled by sump pumps at the bottom of the foundation excavations. Dewatering effluent from construction of these facilities will be routed to the existing industrial wastewater facility or disposed in the underground injection wells. During the three-month grouting process, short-term maximum groundwater withdrawals from each unit will not exceed 1,000 gpm and average withdrawals will be 230 gpm. During the three-month excavation phase, the maximum groundwater withdrawals per unit will not exceed 1,000 gpm and average withdrawals will be about 400 gpm. These short-term withdrawals will be sequential, not simultaneous. During the 24-month foundation construction phase, the groundwater withdrawal rate for each unit will not exceed 100 gpm, and the maximum combined groundwater withdrawal rate (construction of 26 Unit 6 combined with grouting/excavation of Unit 7) will average about 430 gpm. Construction dewatering will not cause adverse impacts to ground or surface water resources. The projected inland groundwater impacts, expressed as drawdown, will not extend beyond the cooling canal system that surrounds the Units 6 and 7 Site or cause a water resource concern. No large-scale or area-wide dewatering is anticipated to be associated with construction of the cooling tower foundations, RWTF, the nuclear administration and training buildings, or parking area. However, local small-scale dewatering of these facilities and onsite pipelines may be required. Dewatering during construction of the radial collector wells will be limited to the caissons, which will be dewatered to allow for horizontal drilling of the well laterals. Construction dewatering will not cause saltwater intrusion into areas where saltwater is not already present. Hydrologic Evaluations and Water Conservation FPL submitted to the County an extensive and comprehensive hydrologic study for the Project as required by Condition 15 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of that condition. FPL submitted a complete description of all surface and groundwater practices at the existing Turkey Point Plant to 27 the County as required by Condition 16 of County Resolution Z- 56-07. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of that condition. FPL has submitted a water conservation plan for the Project. FPL will implement the County's water use efficiency manual. FPL Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility and Reclaimed Water Pipeline Corridor The Project includes a RWTF. The proposed location for the RWTF is approximately 44 acres in size located northwest of the Site on the Turkey Point plant property. Pipelines will convey the treated reclaimed water from the RWTF to the cooling water makeup reservoir. The RWTF will polish the reclaimed water to remove dissolved solids, nutrients, and mineral content that would otherwise negatively impact the efficient and reliable operation of the cooling reservoir, the cooling towers, and the circulating water system. The treatment provided by the RWTF will allow FPL to utilize reclaimed water to the maximum extent possible. The treated water from the RWTF will comply with applicable Department requirements for use of reclaimed water in cooling towers. Operation of the RWTF and the use of reclaimed water will comply with applicable local government non-procedural requirements. 28 FPL has fulfilled the requirements of Condition 5 of County Resolution Z-56-07 through utilization of reclaimed water to the maximum extent possible and by conducting an evaluation of alternative water sources for the Project. FPL and the County have entered into an agreement for the County to provide the reclaimed water. This reclaimed water use is a beneficial and cost-effective means of maximizing the use of reclaimed water from the County and helps the County meet its reclaimed water compliance requirements. In the absence of reuse opportunities, this treated domestic wastewater would likely continue to be discharged to the ocean or deep injection wells. The County is required to eliminate ocean outfalls and increase the amount of water that is reclaimed for environmental benefit and other beneficial uses. The RWTF will be constructed at an elevation of 14 feet. This elevation is above the 100-year flood elevation of ten feet; will accommodate an additional one foot of increased water levels due to regional hydrologic restoration projects that affect the RWTF site; and will account for one foot of sea level rise. There will be a two-foot reserve capacity above any predicted water levels at the RWTF location. FPL has proposed an approximately nine-mile reclaimed water pipeline corridor for delivery of reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department's (MDWSD) South District 29 Wastewater Treatment Plant to the FPL RWTF. FPL selected the reclaimed water pipeline corridor to utilize, to the greatest extent practicable, existing infrastructure in order to minimize environmental impacts. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor is also co-located with an existing FPL overhead transmission line right-of-way (ROW) for most of its route. The pipeline corridor varies in width from 500 feet to one mile. The pipeline will be installed below ground level the entire length with subaqueous canal crossings. Open cutting or trenching will be utilized for the majority of the reclaimed water pipeline installation. Trenchless technologies will be used when crossing canals. The reclaimed water pipeline will cross several SFWMD canals. When constructing the pipeline, FPL will avoid as much as practicable Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland parcels, avoid longitudinal runs in the L-31 E canal right-of-way, and will use subaqueous crossings of SFWMD canals. All reclaimed water pipeline canal crossings will be located, designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. Radial Collector Well System The radial collector wells will be used as a backup source of cooling water. Radial collector wells have been used since the 1920s in commercial, industrial, and power plant 30 facilities, including another nuclear power plant. The wells will consist of four central caissons located on the Turkey Point peninsula. Up to 12 laterals will be directionally drilled from within each of the caissons horizontally at a distance of up to 900 feet beneath Biscayne Bay and at a depth of approximately 25 to 40 feet below the Bay bottom. The laterals will not extend beneath Biscayne National Park (BNP). The wells will be designed, sited, constructed, and operated to induce groundwater recharge from Biscayne Bay. FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that would limit operation of the radial collector wells to 60 days in any consecutive 12-month period. When using 100 percent salt water or saline water (based on 1.5 cycles of concentration in the cooling water system's cooling towers), Units 6 and 7 will use a maximum of 124.4 mgd. Each of the four wells will have a design capacity of 43.2 mgd. Operation of three wells will meet the plant make- up requirements, with the fourth well acting as a back-up. The caissons for the radial collector wells will be installed within previously-filled upland areas of the Turkey Point peninsula. Construction of the radial collector wells will not result in any discharges to Biscayne Bay, other than construction-period stormwater run-off. Sedimentation barriers 31 or other best management practices will be implemented to limit potential impacts to surface water bodies. The radial collector well laterals will be constructed using conventional rotary-type horizontal drilling with the drilling fluid consisting of formation water. The drilling will occur from inside the concrete caisson. The directional drilling for the laterals is designed to avoid "frac out," a situation where drilling mud enters a surface water body via a fracture or solution channel. Construction of the radial collector wells will not require dredging in Biscayne Bay. The radial collector wells will be constructed and operated in accordance with all Department, SFWMD, and local government applicable non-procedural requirements related to well construction and monitoring. No explosives will be used during construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project, including during construction of the radial collector wells. The radial collector well easement area is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The radial collector well area includes the portion of the radial collector well system that will extend beneath State-owned submerged lands in Biscayne Bay. The Department's Division of State Lands reviewed the information submitted by FPL regarding the radial collector well sovereign submerged lands easement and concluded that the 32 Project is in the public interest. The Division of State Lands recommended that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to issue the sovereign submerged lands easement for the radial collector well system. FPL owns the upland area adjacent to the requested easement for the radial collector wells. The radial collector wells will be designed and constructed to avoid restriction or infringement on riparian rights of adjacent upland landowners. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells is a water-dependent activity. By the nature of the design and location, the radial collector well laterals cannot be reasonably constructed without going under the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The radial collector wells are "structures required for the installation or expansion of public utilities" and "reasonable improvements for public utility expansion," and are therefore specifically allowed by the Act that created the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. See § 258.397, Fla. Stat. Construction and operation of the Project, including the radial collector well system, is consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan and is in the public interest. 33 Groundwater Modeling FPL has conducted extensive groundwater modeling of the predicted impacts of the groundwater withdrawals associated with operation of the radial collector wells to supply cooling water. That modeling utilized the MODFLOW 2000 computational system. To support this modeling effort, FPL undertook an aquifer performance test (APT) at the Turkey Point peninsula to provide information on the potential yield from the water bearing units and to identify changes in existing water levels and water quality during pumping in the shallow aquifer at the location of the radial collector wells. The APT was undertaken in accordance with professional standards. MODFLOW 2000 was developed by the United States Geological Survey. It is a widely accepted computer code for groundwater modeling. The groundwater modeling was conducted consistent with the applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements. The steady-state, constant-density, and three- dimensional groundwater model used conservative assumptions to produce an environmentally conservative assessment of potential environmental impacts. In assessing the potential impacts associated with operation of the radial collector wells, the model considered water levels prior to radial collector well operation, water 34 level changes as a result of operating the radial collector wells, seabed approach velocity, and a breakdown of the sources of water that will be withdrawn by the radial collector wells. Seabed approach velocity is the velocity of the water just prior to entering the seabed above the radial collector wells. The results of the groundwater model predict that the radial collector wells will withdraw water from a saltwater or saline aquifer that will be recharged from Biscayne Bay. FPL's model predicted that: (1) approximately 97.8 percent of the aquifer recharge will originate from boundaries representing Biscayne Bay; (2) approximately two percent will originate from boundaries representing the cooling canal system; and (3) approximately 0.2 percent will be from boundaries representing precipitation onshore. The modeling indicated that operation of the radial collector wells will not cause water from the existing cooling canal system to enter Biscayne Bay. The seabed approach velocity is predicted to be a maximum rate of 0.00002 feet per second overlying the laterals. To put this in perspective, a one-foot, wind-driven wave on Biscayne Bay in five to six feet of water can induce a velocity of approximately one foot per second near the Bay bottom. This wave velocity is about five orders of magnitude greater than the velocity predicted to be induced by the radial collector wells. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection 35 Agency's (EPA) benchmark for regulating potential impingement of species from intake structures that draw directly from the water column is 0.5 feet per second. This is 25,000 times higher than the seabed approach velocity predicted for the radial collector wells. In terms of the predicted effect of operation of the radial collector wells, the maximum drawdown in groundwater levels of three feet occurs near the radial collector well laterals, located 25 to 40 feet below the Bay bottom. This drawdown reduces to one foot at a distance of 1,500 feet from the radial collector well caissons, and this level of drawdown is confined to off-shore of the Site. The 0.1 foot drawdown contour extends on-shore a maximum of 3,000 feet. Radial Collector Well Potential Impacts FPL's proposed water uses will not cause harm to wetlands or other surface waters or cause pollution of water resources or degradation of surface or ground water quality. Some of the areas contributing precipitation recharge to groundwater west of the radial collector wells contain wetlands. Water contributed to the radial collector wells from these areas is captured as it flows under natural conditions toward the coast. This water is not induced to flow from these areas by the operation of the radial collector wells; it would flow from these areas regardless of whether the radial collector 36 wells were pumping or not. The operation of the radial collector wells will not have an adverse impact to these wetlands. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact the ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, including the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and BNP. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not cause saltwater intrusion into areas where saltwater is not already present. FPL conducted extensive simulation modeling of the potential salinity impact to Biscayne Bay from operation of the radial collector wells using a regional hydrodynamic model. The model used a bounding approach, simulating operation of the radial collector wells at drawdown rates both below and well above the design flow rate as sensitivity analyses. At the design flow rate, the model predicted that any changes to salinity in Biscayne Bay caused by operation of the radial collector wells would be immeasurable and imperceptible. Even at a simulated rate of 850 mgd, or nearly seven times the design flow rate of the radial collector wells, the predicted change in salinity in Biscayne Bay would be very slight. Operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact salinity levels in Biscayne Bay. 37 The design of the radial collector well system minimizes adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, including endangered and threatened species habitat, and other natural or cultural resources in Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Operation of the radial collector wells will not interfere with the ecology and aquatic life, regional fisheries, and recreational uses of Biscayne Bay. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, or their habitats. FPL evaluated the potential entrainment and impingement impacts of the radial collector well system using particle drift modeling. The modeling considered conservatively bounded scenarios to evaluate potential impacts under varying levels of drawdown and natural environmental conditions. The modeling predicted that at the design flow rate of the radial collector wells, the expectation of entrainment and impingement impacts associated with the radial collector wells is zero. Even at 350 mgd, or more than double the design flow rate, the model predicted no entrainment or impingement of organisms. Operation of the radial collector wells will not result in impingement or entrainment of larvae or other biological particles. 38 FPL conducted a six-month long replicated mesocosm study to determine the impacts, if any, to seagrasses associated with the operation of the radial collector well system by simulating the downward movement of water into seagrass sediments. Mesocosms are generally accepted by the scientific community as an appropriate and accurate method of evaluating impacts to seagrasses. The study conservatively tested the potential stress to seagrass for three months, or one month longer than FPL would normally be allowed to operate the radial collector wells in any 12-month period. The results of the mesocosm study showed that operation of the radial collector wells could result in a 95 percent reduction in porewater nutrient concentrations. Despite that potential reduction, there was no evidence of an adverse impact on seagrass productivity. Leaf turnover rates fell within the range of values expected for healthy seagrass meadows and cumulative biomass production rates showed that the seagrass continued to grow over the course of the entire experiment. There was no evidence of reduced cumulative biomass production rates. Results during the recovery period of the experiment showed that porewater nutrient concentrations were capable of increasing to the higher levels found prior to the imposition of the downward flux of waters into the bottom sediments. 39 Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact submerged land resources, including seagrasses and other benthic resources, and will not impact the County's potable water wellfields. Those wellfields are not within the area impacted by the withdrawals. The radial collector wells are compatible with and will not detract from or adversely affect the natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses of Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Because the radial collector wells will not have an adverse impact on Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, they will not contribute to a cumulative impact on the Preserve's natural system. FPL has a demonstrated need for the proposed water uses. FPL has provided reasonable projections of the Project's water needs, quantities, and sources. FPL has legal control over the Project site and facilities, and the proposed uses of water are compatible with the current land use at the Project site. FPL has a demonstrated demand for an alternative secondary or back-up cooling water source to be provided via the radial collector well system. FPL's proposed water uses are not inconsistent with SFWMD-established minimum flows and levels and will not withdraw 40 water reserved under chapter 40E-10. They will not be harmful to water resources. They are reasonable-beneficial uses, will not interfere with present existing legal users, and are consistent with the public interest. The water withdrawals will not harm off-site land uses. The Department, FWC, and SFWMD have proposed conditions of certification requiring monitoring of the impacts of the radial collector well system. FPL has agreed to those conditions as reflected in stipulations of the parties. FPL and the County have also stipulated to imposition of radial collector well system monitoring conditions. FPL's compliance with these agreed-upon conditions of certification fulfills its obligations under Conditions 3 through 12 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Potable Water and Potable Water Pipeline Potable water from the MDWSD will be used as makeup water for the service water system (SWS) cooling system. The SWS is a much smaller system that dissipates heat from reactor components. Unlike the collector well system that can be designed to use saltwater or freshwater, the SWS must use freshwater. Assuming four cycles of concentration, the normal amount of potable water needed for the SWS is 0.7 mgd. The SWS normal water use is approximately one percent of the total plant water use when the collector well system is using reclaimed 41 water and approximately 0.6 percent when using saltwater. Potable water will also be used for the potable water system, fire protection system, de-mineralized water treatment system, and other miscellaneous uses. The normal total amount of potable water needed for the Project is 1.3 mgd, including the water used in the SWS. The maximum amount of potable water needed is 3.7 mgd, including the SWS, potable water system, de-mineralized water system, equipment/floor washdown, and fire water system. It is highly unlikely that all of these streams will be at maximum capacity at the same time. Potable water will be delivered to the Site via an approximately nine-mile proposed pipeline that will connect to the County potable water supply system. The potable water pipeline ROW will be located within or adjacent to existing or planned roads and ROWs. Typically, pipe installation takes place by excavation and backfill techniques. SFWMD canals will be crossed by the potable water pipeline. Pipeline crossings of SFWMD canals will be located, designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non- procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. 42 Wastewater Disposal During the construction phase of the Project, wastewaters including dewatering effluent will be disposed by the injection wells or released to the cooling canal system. Construction site stormwater will be released to the cooling canal system. The cooling canal system is an existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. These releases will not cause adverse impacts to water quality. During operation, the major wastewater streams associated with the Project are the circulating water system blowdown, the service tower blowdown, and effluent from the de- mineralized water treatment system. These and other smaller wastewater streams, except stormwater, will be collected in a lined blowdown sump along with other Project waste streams and then will be discharged to the deep injection wells. Operation of Units 6 and 7 will not utilize the existing industrial wastewater facility for cooling or wastewater disposal, except that stormwater will be routed to this facility. The Project will not result in any discharge of industrial wastewaters to any jurisdictional surface waters during construction or operation. Construction and operation of the Project will not cause or contribute to violations of any applicable state and local surface or ground water quality standards. 43 It is not technically feasible to reuse Project wastewaters for discharge to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. In accordance with Condition 6 of County Resolution Z- 56-07, FPL has prepared and submitted documentation comprising a wastewater discharge plan to the reviewing agencies, including the County. Underground Injection Well System The proposed underground injection well system consists of 12 or 13 Class I industrial deep injection wells and six or seven dual zone monitoring wells. At least two of these injection wells will serve as back-up wells. These injection wells will be designed to meet applicable injection well design requirements, including incorporating measures to protect the wells against corrosion or damage resulting from native groundwater and the injected fluids. The wells will be periodically tested for mechanical integrity. The underground injection wells will dispose of Site wastewaters into the Boulder Zone, which is within a geologic formation known as the Oldsmar formation approximately 3,000 feet below land surface. The water in the Boulder Zone has salinity close to that of sea water. The Boulder Zone is used extensively to dispose of wastewaters in Florida. 44 The Boulder Zone is located deep underground and separated and confined from the shallower aquifers that are classified and used as underground sources of drinking water in South Florida. The Boulder Zone at the Turkey Point Plant is classified by the Department as a G-IV aquifer because it is a confined aquifer with no potable use and with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or greater. Except for a prohibition on injection of hazardous waste, no groundwater quality criteria, including thermal standards or limitations, apply to discharges into the Boulder Zone. FPL analyzed the geology at the Turkey Point property to determine if it was suitable for disposal of wastewater through underground injection by constructing a 3,230-foot deep exploratory well. This exploratory well was authorized by a Department-issued underground injection control (UIC) permit, and it was constructed to the standards for a Class I injection well. On July 29, 2013, the Department issued UIC permit number 293962-002-UC, authorizing FPL to convert this exploratory well to an injection well to dispose wastewaters associated with the construction of Units 6 and 7. This converted exploratory well could also be used to dispose of industrial wastewater after 45 Units 6 and 7 become operational, subject to authorization for this purpose by the Department through another UIC permit. FPL also constructed a dual zone monitoring well approximately 75 feet from the exploratory well, within the 150- foot maximum distance of the Department's UIC rules. The dual zone monitoring well allows for collection of groundwater samples from two separate subsurface intervals. Dual zone monitoring wells help determine whether there is adequate confinement of the injected fluid. Construction of the exploratory well and dual zone monitoring well was in accordance with applicable Department requirements and authorized by a permit. During construction of the exploratory well, FPL conducted testing to determine the appropriate well casing setting depths, confirm the presence of an injection zone, and evaluate the confining characteristics of intervals overlying the injection zone. A report documenting this testing was prepared and provided to Department staff who agreed with the report's information and conclusions. This testing determined that the top of the injection zone occurs at a depth of approximately 2,915 feet below pad level and there is a confining unit of approximately 985 feet above the top of the injection zone. The injection zone is over 1,400 feet below the deepest potential underground source of drinking water as 46 defined by the Department. The injection zone is a confined aquifer with a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 10,000 mg/L. This injection zone is capable of receiving water at the proposed injection rate. Before beginning operational use of the injection wells, FPL will be required to further test the ability of the injection zone to receive the injected fluid. The Department UIC rules required FPL to conduct an "area of review" analysis to ensure that there were no wells, springs, mines, faults, or other geological features that could provide a pathway to allow Turkey Point injected wastewater to migrate upwards into an underground source of drinking water. FPL's area of review analysis found no wells, springs, mines, faults, or other geological features that could provide a pathway to allow the Turkey Point injected wastewater to migrate upwards into a potential underground source of drinking water. The Department reviewed FPL's area of review analysis as part of the exploratory well permit. To further ensure that the geology above the Boulder Zone was sufficient to confine the injected wastewater to the Boulder Zone, FPL performed a confinement analysis by comparing hydrogeologic data collected during the exploratory well testing to data from other injection wells. This data comparison, particularly comparing the sonic logs, demonstrated that the geology above the Boulder Zone has little evidence of 47 fracturing. This is indicative of effective vertical confinement. Finally, although not required by the UIC rules, FPL performed a density-dependent groundwater flow modeling analysis to determine how the injected wastewater would move through the underground formations. This groundwater flow model considered the geology of the area, the differences in the density of the injected wastewater compared to the native groundwater, and simulated a period of 60 years of injection followed by 40 years of no injection for a total of 100 years. The groundwater flow model showed that even after 100 years the injected wastewater did not move out of the confining layer and did not move into any potential underground source of drinking water. Additionally, the injected wastewater will not affect the mechanical integrity of the injection wells, will not jeopardize the integrity of the confining zone, and will not alter the hydrologic characteristics of the injection zone to the point of endangering the underground source of drinking water. All of the testing, analysis, and modeling demonstrate that there is adequate confinement to prevent upward migration of the injected wastewater out of the injection zone. Also, the injection of this industrial wastewater will not modify the ambient water quality of other aquifers overlying the 48 injection zone, and the injection zone can receive wastewater at the rate proposed by FPL. Thus, injection of industrial wastewater from Units 6 and 7 will not cause or allow the movement of fluid into underground sources of drinking water that would cause a violation of drinking water standards or otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. Even after 100 years of plant operation, the injected wastewater will remain over 1,000 feet below the base of the underground source of drinking water. The injection wells will be operated consistent with applicable injection pressure and fluid velocity requirements. The injection wells will also comply with applicable emergency discharge requirements. Through the underground injection control permitting process, FPL will be required to continually monitor these injection wells and report that information to the Department. The wastewater discharged to the underground injection wells will not be hazardous as defined by chapter 62- 730. Thus, the wastewater complies with the Department's Boulder Zone's G-IV aquifer requirements. Additionally, the wastewater is not a radioactive waste as defined by rule 62- 528.200(54). Thus, the injection wells are considered Class I industrial injection wells under rule 62-528.300(1)(a)2. 49 Separate from this certification proceeding, FPL has obtained a permit to convert the Class V exploratory well to a Class I injection well. The permit to convert the exploratory well to a Class I injection well includes a requirement to operationally test the injection well for up to two years. The construction of the other underground injection wells will require a Class I UIC construction permit from the Department. That permit will contain a requirement to operationally test the injection wells for up to two years. This operational testing will allow FPL to further confirm that the underground injection control system operates as designed with no upward fluid migration. This operational testing period data will, in part, support FPL's application for one or more separate Class I UIC operating permits from the Department for the system. The operating permit must be renewed by the Department every five years. Class I UIC permits require periodic monitoring of the injection process and reporting of that monitoring information to the Department. Thus, the Department will continually oversee FPL's deep well injection system and will re-review the system every five years as part of the Class I operation permit renewal. Stormwater/Surface Water Management FPL has prepared and submitted to the reviewing agencies as part of its application a stormwater management plan 50 for construction and operation of the Project at the Site and for the associated non-linear facilities. During construction of the Site and associated non- linear facilities, erosion control measures such as silt fences and hay bales will be used to decrease velocity of sheet flow and to control small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas in runoff. Temporary basins or sediment traps will be constructed to control runoff from larger disturbed areas. Temporary fill diversions will be used for slope protection and to divert runoff to sediment basins and stabilized outlets. Construction stormwater requirements will be addressed through compliance with rule 62-621.300(4) and other applicable agency regulations. During operation, the stormwater management system is designed to release stormwater runoff from the Units 6 and 7 site into the existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. The stormwater runoff from the nuclear administration building, training building, and parking area will also be released to the industrial wastewater facility. The industrial wastewater facility currently has sufficient capacity and will not be impacted by stormwater runoff from the Project during operation. All stormwater associated with industrial activity from the RWTF equipment area will be captured, treated as necessary, and reused within the reclaimed water treatment 51 process. Runoff from non-equipment areas will be routed to stormwater management facilities and released to local drainage. Stormwater during construction and operation of the non-transmission linear facilities will be handled in accordance with applicable Department, SFWMD, and County non-procedural requirements. The proposed reclaimed water and potable water pipelines will be installed underground. The construction access roads will include stormwater management facilities designed to meet applicable Department standards. Runoff from the potentially oil-contaminated areas, such as the containment area for transformers and other oil-containing or handling equipment, will first be directed through an oil/water separator and then routed to the industrial wastewater facility. There will be no adverse impacts from stormwater during construction, operation, or maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the stormwater management systems for the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely affect the quality of any jurisdictional waters or result in a violation of any 52 water quality standards; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and will not cause adverse impacts to any SFWMD water resources. Domestic/Sanitary Wastewater Sanitary wastewater treatment for Units 6 and 7 will be provided by a new on-site package sanitary treatment plant. The sanitary treatment plant will be designed to process sanitary wastes from Units 1 through 7. This treatment plant will replace several existing septic tanks and an existing sanitary wastewater plant that serve Units 1 through 4 and that discharges to the surficial aquifer. Units 6 and 7 will have a sanitary drainage system that will collect sanitary waste from plant restrooms and locker room facilities and carry this waste to the sanitary treatment plant where it will be processed. Effluent from the proposed sanitary treatment plant will be disposed through the underground injection wells in compliance with applicable regulations. FPL is requesting that the final certification for the Project include approval for the use of the on-site package sanitary treatment plant and the other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County. FPL has 53 requested a variance from section 24-43.1(6), MDC. No reviewing agency, including the County, objected to the requested variance. With the exception of this one requested variance, the Project will comply with all applicable non-procedural standards and requirements of all reviewing agencies. A pipeline of the required length to connect to the MDWSD system for the flow generated by the Project would be below the desired minimum design velocity for the pipeline. The sanitary wastewater treatment plant will provide secondary waste treatment and high level disinfection; it will be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice; and the design, construction, and operation of the sanitary wastewater facilities will be consistent with applicable Department and County non-procedural requirements. Storage Tanks The Project will include some above-ground storage tanks for petroleum products and for the storage of chemicals. Above-ground storage tanks will be inside buildings or covered and will have required secondary containment. All storage tanks will be constructed, operated, and maintained according to the applicable requirements of chapters 62-761 and 62-762. 54 Air Emissions, Controls, Impacts, and Airspace The sources of air emissions associated with the Project will include circulating water cooling towers and service water system cooling towers, standby diesel generators, ancillary diesel generators, diesel fire pumps, diesel fuel storage tanks, and general purpose diesel engines. There will also be air emissions associated with Site preparation and construction. The Project will have six circulating water cooling towers to support the operation of the nuclear units, with three towers for each unit. The primary air emissions from Units 6 and 7 during operation are particulate matter (PM) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or less (PM10) in the form of atmospheric drift. The primary source of the PM and PM10 emissions is the circulating water cooling towers. There will also be small amounts of PM and PM10 from the service water system cooling towers. There will be emissions of PM and PM10, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and sulfur oxides from the use of emergency diesel generators. Cooling tower drift will be controlled through the use of state-of-the-art cooling tower design including drift eliminators designed to limit drift to 0.0005 percent of the amount of water circulating through the cooling towers. The use 55 of high efficiency drift eliminators represents Best Available Control Technology as required by the EPA and Department. The water treatment levels and location and the operation of the cooling towers will comply with the Department's regulations for the use of reclaimed water in cooling towers. The Department has issued Air Permit No. PSD-FL-409, Project No. 025003-013-AC. The Department found that the Project would not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standards. It also determined that the Project would comply with all applicable state and federal regulations. Construction and operation of the Project will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the vicinity, including air quality in the Everglades National Park, BNP, or Big Cypress National Preserve. There will be no adverse visibility, fogging, or icing impacts resulting from the operation of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 cooling towers. "Drift" is made up of various sized water droplets containing minerals. These water droplets fall out of the cooling tower plume at various distances from the cooling tower and deposit materials. Deposition results when the solution drift falls to a surface such as the ground or water. 56 The constituents in treated reclaimed water will not result in adverse environmental impacts as a result of cooling tower deposition. FPL's deposition analysis considered the quality of the treated reclaimed water and the areas that may be potentially impacted by deposition. The results demonstrate that, while deposition of the various constituents can be calculated, the resulting concentrations of the constituents will be negligible and immeasurable. The constituents in saltwater, when using the back-up cooling water source, will not result in adverse environmental impacts as a result of cooling tower deposition. FPL's deposition analysis considered the quality of water and the areas that may be potentially impacted. The results demonstrate that, while deposition of the various constituents can be estimated through modeling, the resulting concentrations of these constituents could not be measured since their concentrations are extremely small compared to natural variation, and concentrations of many constituents would be well below the detection limits of analytical methods. While the deposition of TDS is higher in the vicinity of the cooling towers than background deposition, that area consists of vegetation that is salt tolerant due to the close proximity to Biscayne Bay. Moreover, the resultant concentration from deposition is much lower than the levels found in the 57 environment and the use of saltwater would be short-term given the durational condition of certification to which FPL has agreed. When using either treated reclaimed water or saltwater, air emissions from the Project will not have an adverse effect on natural resources, including surface waters and wetlands, in the vicinity of the Project. Atmospheric deposition from the operation of cooling towers associated with the Project will not degrade or lower ambient water quality in Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and BNP. Operation of Units 6 and 7 will avoid a considerable amount of air pollution emissions and greenhouse gases. Over a 40-year period of operation, Units 6 and 7 will avoid approximately 21,300 to 49,200 tons of NOx, approximately 14,200 to 75,400 tons of sulfur dioxide, and at least 266 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Open burning during Project construction will be conducted in accordance with applicable non-procedural requirements of state and local agencies. FPL has complied with Condition 19 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL has obtained authorizations from the FAA for the Units 6 and 7 containment buildings. FPL will submit applications for FAA permits for the construction cranes prior to construction. 58 In accordance with Condition 18 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL has coordinated with the Homestead Air Reserve Base and is in compliance with Article XXXV, Homestead General Aviation Airport Zoning in sections 33-372 through 33-387, MDC. The County is currently designated as being in attainment for all Ambient Air Quality Standards for all pollutants. The non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with applicable state and local non-procedural requirements for control and protection of air quality. The Project complies with applicable County non- procedural requirements related to air quality and all provisions of the County's CDMP related to air quality and air space. The air emissions associated with the non-transmission line portion of the Project are consistent with all applicable environmental regulations. Equipment Barge Unloading Area FPL currently has a barge delivery facility at the Turkey Point plant that is used for fuel oil delivery. The barge delivery facility is located at the north bank of the barge turning basin, east of the existing Units 1 and 2. To allow for deliveries of Project components, equipment, and material during Project construction, the existing barge unloading area will be enlarged by excavation of uplands landward to approximately 90 feet by 150 feet, to a 59 depth of approximately nine feet. The excavation area will be isolated from surface waters with sheet piles or similar structures. FPL will implement other best management practices during this excavation to prevent impacts to surface waters. The maximum draft of the barges to be used for delivery during construction is 6.5 feet. Normal operation of Units 6 and 7 will not require regular barge traffic. Construction of the enlarged barge unloading area will not require any construction in Biscayne Bay or its natural tributaries. Construction Access Roadways and Traffic Impacts FPL is seeking certification for roadway improvements as associated linear facilities to the Project in order to accommodate peak construction traffic and provide access to Units 6 and 7 during construction. The roadways are those necessary to provide safe and secure access to the Project site. Improvements will be made to approximately 3.5 miles of existing paved roadways by widening those roads from two lanes to four lanes. In addition, improvements will be made to seven miles of unpaved roads by constructing three or four paved lanes. Improvements will also be made to six intersections by adding new turn lanes. The construction access roadway improvements include a new bridge over a SFWMD canal. This bridge will be located, 60 designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non- procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. In addition to roadway segment and intersection improvements, traffic control in the form of traffic signals or police control will be required at several intersections during the peak morning and afternoon periods. These traffic control measures are only required at times of high traffic volume entering and leaving the Site during Project construction. In addition, roadway improvements south of Southwest 344th Street will be patrolled by security personnel. The roadway and intersection improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state non-procedural requirements. The roadways will comply with the criteria established in the Traffic Circulation Element of the CDMP for the Project's construction access roads. The construction activities will involve the installation of silt fences, removal of vegetation, construction of drainage, removal of unsuitable soils, placement of road-base materials, laying asphalt, and striping. Typical road construction equipment will be used to construct the roadway improvements. The final design of the roadway improvements will maintain sheet flow across roadway alignments. The final design of the roadway improvements on the Turkey Point plant property 61 will account for increased water elevations of up to one foot planned as part of regional environmental restoration projects. FPL will pay all costs associated with construction and removal of the construction access roads. Construction of the roadway improvements will commence no sooner than two years prior to the commencement of construction of the Project. The roadway and intersection improvements are temporary and designed to accommodate traffic during the construction of the Project. Following construction, all temporary roadway improvements on publicly owned ROWs will be returned to the status of the roadway prior to the commencement of construction of the temporary roadways and roadway improvements. Any privately owned roadway will be returned to the minimum roadway width required to provide maintenance to FPL facilities and will not be more than two lanes. Roadway improvements on privately owned property will not be open to the general public. The County and other agencies with needed access will be granted access to these private roadways. Level of service standards and the County's reserve capacity standards will be met with the addition of Project- related traffic during construction and operation. The construction access roads and pipelines will not be located within local wellfields. 62 Land Use/Comprehensive Plan Land uses adjacent to the site and associated non- linear facilities comprise undeveloped land; electrical generating Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and transmission infrastructure. The industrial wastewater facility is located to the west and south of the Units 6 and 7 site. Canals that return cooling water to Units 1 through 4 surround that site. The BNP, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, and the FPL Everglades Wetland Mitigation Bank are adjacent to the larger Turkey Point plant property. The Homestead Air Reserve Base and the Homestead-Miami Speedway are northwest of the site. Most of the existing land uses in the vicinity of the larger FPL Turkey Point plant property are vacant land. The Project site and associated non-linear facilities are compatible with the existing proximate land uses. Existing land uses within and in the vicinity of the proposed corridors for the temporary construction access roads and the potable water pipeline are comprised of vacant land, agriculture, residential, electric power facilities, the Homestead Air Reserve Base, and the Homestead International Speedway. Most of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the southern portion of the temporary construction access roads are vacant land. 63 Land uses within the proposed corridor for the reclaimed water pipeline comprise a water treatment facility, a landfill, agricultural land, and transmission infrastructure. The BNP and Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve are located to the east of the proposed reclaimed pipeline corridor. The Homestead Air Reserve Base and the Homestead International Speedway are located approximately five miles northwest of the corridor. Most of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed corridor are vacant land. The proposed temporary construction access roads, the potable water pipeline, and the reclaimed water pipeline are compatible with the existing land uses within those proposed corridors. FPL will grant the MDWSD an unobstructed utility easement along Southwest 360th Street from Southwest 177th Avenue to the plant property as required by Condition 2 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL will also grant the County an easement along section line road ROW on the Southwest 344th Street alignment east of Levee L-31 in accordance with Condition 13 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL will design the construction access roads to avoid impacts to County-designated Environmentally Endangered Lands. 64 The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be consistent with local land development regulations (LDRs), including zoning ordinances. FPL intends to comply with all of the conditions of County Resolutions Z-56-07 and Z-1-13 and with all of the criteria of the CDMP amendment for the construction access roadways. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be consistent with the CDMP and the City of Homestead's comprehensive plan; consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the SFRPC; and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands and Wetlands Mitigation Construction of the Plant and non-linear associated facilities would permanently impact approximately 398 acres of wetlands. Approximately 250.2 acres are associated with construction on the site and are contained within the industrial wastewater treatment facility. The remaining permanent wetland impacts are associated with construction of the associated non- transmission line facilities. There will also be approximately 43.6 acres of temporary impacts associated with construction of the reclaimed water pipeline. Wetland impacts associated with the construction of the radial collector well system are limited to approximately 65 three acres of temporary wetland impacts during installation of the radial collector well delivery pipeline. The construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not impact wetland vegetation upon sovereign submerged lands. There will be no wetland impacts associated with construction of the equipment barge unloading area. FPL has made efforts to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetlands through a variety of engineering, design, and other measures, including for example, locating the site within the existing, previously impacted, permitted industrial wastewater facility; relocating the parking and laydown areas to locations within the existing Turkey Point plant property; reconfiguring the RWTF to reduce the footprint and relocating the RWTF; and restoration of roadways within the construction access improvements corridors. FPL conducted its wetlands assessment in accordance with the Department's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). A total of 262 UMAM credits of functional loss are associated with construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. This includes permanent, temporary, and secondary wetland impacts. FPL has proposed a wetland mitigation plan for the entire Project. FPL proposes to mitigate for wetland impacts associated with the plant and non-transmission line portion of 66 the Project through a combination of regional wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation initiatives furthering regional restoration goals, as well as the use of credits obtained from the Everglades Mitigation Bank and restoration of temporary wetland impacts associated with pipeline installation. The mitigation plan includes over 800 acres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Additional mitigation activities are proposed within the Model Lands Basin to the west and south of the Turkey Point plant, including creation of a crocodile nesting sanctuary and restoration of wetlands associated with the temporary construction access roadways. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan is appropriate to offset the expected wetland impacts. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will fully offset impacts to the functions of wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basins as the impacts and will avoid unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands or surface waters. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the plant and non-transmission line impacts of the Project will fully offset the effects, including functional wetland loss, caused by the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. 67 FPL is capable of successfully implementing the proposed mitigation plan. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan complies with Conditions 1 and 9 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 15 of County Resolution Z-1-13. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not contrary to the public interest. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is consistent with relevant requirements of the SFWMD. Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species FPL has submitted to all reviewing agencies a comprehensive threatened and endangered species management plan for all listed species for the Project. FPL has preserved, to the maximum extent practicable, all habitat that supports or is critical to listed species. The threatened and endangered species management plan addresses short-term measures to be taken during construction and permanent measures necessary to protect critical habitat. No nests of listed species will be destroyed without prior approval and relocation, if required. The plan includes permanent measures to prevent direct and indirect impacts to critical habitat sufficient to prevent disruption of sensitive behaviors such as breeding, nesting, and foraging within critical habitat. 68 FPL's threatened and endangered species management plan complies with Conditions 2 and 11 of County Resolution Z- 56-07 and Condition 18 of County Resolution Z-1-13. The threatened and endangered species management plan includes a comprehensive inventory of all threatened or endangered flora and fauna and identifies all habitat that supports these species. FPL has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife, including listed species, by locating the site and associated non-transmission line facilities within previously disturbed areas to the greatest extent practicable, avoidance of nesting habitat, commitment to conduct pre-clearing surveys, incorporation of wildlife protection features in the design of construction access roadway improvements, and requiring wildlife training of all construction employees. FPL's proposed wildlife protection features associated with the construction access roads include installing crocodile and wildlife underpasses on Southwest 359th Street east of the L-31E Canal; installing fencing (including fine mesh material along the base of the fencing) along Southwest 359th Street from the L-31E Canal to Southwest 137th Avenue and along portions of both Southwest 117th Avenue and Southwest 137th Avenue between Southwest 344th Street and Southwest 359th Street; providing a six-foot box culvert wildlife underpass 69 along Southwest 359th Street between Southwest 117th Avenue and Southwest 137th Avenue; providing a second wildlife underpass associated with the bridge on the west side of the L-31E along Southwest 359th Street; and installing enlarged arch culverts along Southwest 359th Street from the L-31E Canal Westward to Southwest 137th Avenue to replace existing culverts. FPL's proposed conservation and monitoring plans will protect listed species from adverse effects from construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portions of the Project. FPL's proposed mitigation plan offsets any potential impacts to listed species. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, or listed species. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish, wildlife, listed species, or their habitat; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, or aquatic or wetland-dependent fish or wildlife; and will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. In accordance with Condition 3 of County Resolution Z-56-07, prior to construction, FPL will obtain all permits and 70 assessments required by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the preservation and management of habitat for listed species in accordance with applicable state and federal law. Florida Panther The Florida panther is classified as an endangered species. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the Florida panther. USFWS has, however, designated a Panther Focus Area (PFA). Approximately 5.75 miles of the construction access roadway corridors are within the PFA. Where the potable water pipeline is co-located with the construction access roadway corridor, it is also within the PFA. The remainder of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is outside of the PFA. The roads and pipeline corridors within the PFA will result in an impact to approximately 69 acres on the fringe of the PFA. The 69 acres have a panther habitat value of 297 panther habitat units (PHUs). There is a very low likelihood that Florida panthers would occur in the area of the Turkey Point plant and the non- transmission line portion of the Project. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not 71 destroy, degrade, or result in a reduction of habitat that is critical to Florida panthers. Panthers do not use the area of the construction access roadway corridors, including for denning or as a travel corridor. FPL's proposed wildlife protection measures are appropriate and sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to Florida panthers from any traffic mortalities associated with the access roads, and are appropriate mechanisms to enhance protection for wildlife in the area. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the habitat of the Florida panther. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have an actual or potential negative impact on Florida panther habitat; will not have adverse impacts on Florida panthers, their habitat, or affect the conservation of the Florida panther and its habitat; will not have adverse secondary impacts on Florida panthers or their habitat; will not result in a reduction in the number of Florida panthers; will not destroy, degrade, or result in a reduction of habitat that is critical to Florida panthers; will comply with all applicable federal, 72 state, and local laws and regulations for protection of Florida panthers, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; is in compliance with all applicable agency non- procedural requirements related to Florida panthers; and will minimize adverse effects on Florida panthers. American Crocodiles The American crocodile is listed as a threatened species by USFWS and endangered by FWC. The American crocodile was first designated as endangered by the USFWS in 1975, and reclassified (downlisted) as threatened in 2007. In the 1980s, FPL developed a comprehensive crocodile management program for the crocodiles that are found in the existing cooling canal system at Turkey Point. These activities instituted at Turkey Point have largely been responsible for the increase in American crocodile population in South Florida over the last 25 years. USFWS has designated critical habitat for the American crocodile. The site, the radial collector well system area and delivery pipeline area, nuclear administration building, a small portion of the training building, a portion of the parking area, a portion of the potable water pipeline corridor, and a portion of the construction access roadways are within designated critical crocodile habitat. Historical 73 monitoring of the crocodile population indicates occasional observations of basking crocodiles on the Units 6 and 7 site. There has been no habitual utilization of any of those areas of the Site for foraging or nesting by crocodiles due to the lack of suitable nesting substrate, altered and highly variable hydrology, and limited food supply. The proposed facility locations outside of the designated critical habitat likewise do not provide significant basking, nesting, or foraging habitat for American crocodiles. American crocodiles do not use any of the Units 6 and 7 plant and non-transmission line facility proposed locations for nesting. The areas proposed for spoil disposal are not suitable for crocodile nesting. Placement of the spoil will not affect crocodile movement into and out of the cooling canal system or result in any adverse impacts to American crocodiles. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact American crocodile travel corridors. FPL will enhance and create crocodile habitat within and adjacent to the cooling canal system, including creation of additional juvenile low salinity refugia upon selected berms, vegetative restoration, substrate enhancement to create suitable nesting habitat upon selected berms that have not historically 74 supported crocodile nests, and construction of an additional American crocodile nesting and foraging sanctuary (the Sea Dade Canal Sanctuary) south of the cooling canal system within the Everglades Mitigation Bank. FPL's proposed constraints on traffic, maintenance, and construction within the cooling canal system and proposed wildlife protection measures, including crocodile underpasses, are appropriate and sufficient to enhance protection of American crocodiles. The measures proposed and agreed to by FPL are adequate to avoid adverse impacts to the size and health of the American crocodile population from construction and operation of the Project. The habitat that is being impacted by the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not critical to American crocodile viability or survival, is not suitable for American crocodile nesting or foraging, and is only occasionally used for basking. The habitat that is being created far outweighs the value of any habitat being impacted. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not compromise the viability or survival of the American crocodile or result in a net reduction in the number of American crocodiles. 75 Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance of the American crocodile; will not adversely affect the conservation of American crocodile habitat; will not have any adverse impacts, including secondary or cumulative impacts, on American crocodiles, their habitat, or affect the conservation of the American crocodile and its habitat; will not adversely impact nesting locations of American crocodiles; will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of American crocodiles; will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of American crocodiles, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to American crocodiles; and will minimize adverse effects on American crocodiles. Eastern Indigo Snakes Eastern indigo snakes are classified as threatened by USFWS and FWC. No critical habitat has been designated for Eastern indigo snakes. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed in the proposed locations for the Project Site or the construction 76 access roadways. The areas impacted by the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not compromise the viability or survival of Eastern indigo snakes or result in a reduction in the number of Eastern indigo snakes. FPL's proposed pre-clearing surveys and wildlife protection measures along the construction access roadways are appropriate and sufficient to enhance protection of Eastern indigo snakes. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the habitat of the Eastern indigo snake; will not have adverse secondary impacts on Eastern indigo snakes; will not have any adverse impacts on Eastern indigo snakes, or affect the conservation of Eastern indigo snakes and their habitat; will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance of Eastern indigo snakes; complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of Eastern indigo snakes, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to Eastern indigo snakes; and will minimize adverse effects on Eastern indigo snakes. 77 Manatees The Florida manatee is classified as endangered. The equipment barge unloading area, radial collector well system area, and the reclaimed water pipeline crossings of canals occur in or near areas that may be used by Florida manatees. The presence of the Florida manatee is known to occur in Biscayne Bay, but not within the site or the industrial wastewater facility, as the closed-loop cooling canals do not connect to the Bay. Manatees occasionally are found in some of the SFWMD canals connecting to Biscayne Bay north of the Turkey Point plant, some of which are contained within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor. Construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will involve minimal in-water work and will be limited to the equipment barge unloading area and temporary impacts associated with canal crossings of the reclaimed water pipeline. The equipment barge unloading area will be constructed through excavation of uplands adjacent to the Turkey Point plant turning basin. No dredging within Biscayne Bay will be required. The FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work will be followed for all in-water activity located where waters are accessible to manatees. FPL will comply with the Project's 78 Manatee Protection Plan to avoid any impacts to the manatees during the equipment barge unloading area expansion. FWC- approved manatee observers will be on-site during all in-water construction activities and will advise personnel to cease operation upon sighting a manatee within 50 feet of any in-water construction activity. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact manatees and is consistent with FWC requirements to conserve and protect manatees and will not have any adverse impacts on the Florida manatee. Avian Species FWC has not designated critical habitat for any of the listed avian species in the regional ecosystem of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. While some habitat used by listed species will be affected by the plant and non-transmission line facilities, the extent of this habitat impact is minimal and will be fully mitigated. No wood stork nesting colonies are located within the vicinity of the Site or associated non-transmission line facilities. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will have minimal impacts to wood storks, due to minimal loss of foraging habitat. Snail kites do not normally occur in the area of the plant and non-transmission line associated facilities. 79 Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact snail kites. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not result in a net loss of shorebirds or their habitat. FPL's proposed mitigation offsets any impacts to shorebird habitat. FPL will employ measures to deter Least Tern nesting on the gravel parking areas. There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the plant and non-transmission line facilities. FPL's planned activities are unlikely to have any impact on the bald eagle. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not result in a reduction in the number of listed avian species. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of avian species, including listed species; will not adversely impact the conservation of avian species, including threatened and endangered avian species or their habitats; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to avian species; and complies with 80 all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of avian species, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to avian species; and will utilize reasonable and available methods to minimize adverse impacts to avian species and their habitat. Plants/Exotics/Landscaping Botanical surveys were conducted within the Site and associated linear facilities, resulting in a total of 33 threatened or endangered plant taxa observed. Many of these listed plant species were observed on side-slopes of existing roadways, transmission structure pads, and pine rockland soils that are subject to routine vegetation management such as mowing. Impacts to listed plant species will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through pre- clearing surveys, relocation of individuals, if feasible, and/or modification of facility design, such as modification of access road or pipeline alignments so as to avoid impacting listed plants. FPL has prepared an exotic vegetation management plan. FPL will not plant listed exotic or nuisance species. If 81 encountered on the locations of the site and associated non- transmission line facilities or mitigation areas, they will be removed prior to construction in that location. FPL will maintain wetland mitigation lands free of exotic vegetation, as required by Condition 10 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL's exotic vegetation management plan complies with Condition 12 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL will undertake final tree surveys before commencement of construction of the plant and of the construction access roads and water pipelines. FPL will take measures to avoid impacts to protected trees during construction, in accordance with local requirements. FPL will provide mitigation for impacts to trees. All off-site landscaping, including for the construction access roadways, complies with the local non- procedural requirements for landscaping and with Condition 13 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 14 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Also, FPL will comply with Condition 19 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) The CERP was authorized by Congress in 2000 and provides a framework and guide to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including 82 the Everglades National Park. The plant and non-transmission line associated facilities are within the boundary of one CERP project; a small portion of the reclaimed water pipeline corridor falls within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. All plant and non-transmission line associated facilities, including the reclaimed water pipeline and construction and operation of the radial collector wells are not inconsistent with that CERP Project. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is consistent with CERP and its overall objectives. Archeological and Historic Sites FPL conducted cultural resources assessment surveys for the Site and associated non-linear facilities in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements. No historical or archaeological resources were identified. FPL also conducted a preliminary cultural resource assessment survey for the Project's associated linear facilities. It is typical practice when certifying corridors to conduct a review of known or previously-recorded resources, with the field surveys to be conducted after the final ROW location is finalized. No previously-recorded archaeological sites, archaeological zones, historic structures, historic districts, historic linear resources, historic cemeteries, or historic bridges were identified within or adjacent to the reclaimed 83 water pipeline corridor, the construction access roadway corridors, or the potable water pipeline corridor. The State Division of Historical Resources (DHR), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), reviewed the cultural resources assessment reports and agreed that the site and associated non-linear facilities will not have an effect on historic properties. The SHPO also concurred with the work plans submitted for the site and associated non-linear facilities and the linear facilities. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and applicable SHPO non-procedural requirements; all applicable County code non-procedural requirements related to cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; all CDMP provisions related to archaeological and historical resources; and all applicable non-procedural requirements of the City of Homestead code and comprehensive plan related to cultural, historical, and archaeological resources. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have adverse impacts, including secondary impacts, on cultural, historical, or archaeological resources. Solid and Hazardous Waste All solid waste from construction and operation will be stored, recycled, processed, and disposed of in accordance 84 with the applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. All solid waste will be disposed of at a permitted solid waste management facility. Used oil from construction vehicles and equipment will be collected in appropriate containers and transported off- site for recycling or disposal at an approved facility. Hazardous waste materials generated during construction and operation will be managed and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Noise and Lighting Impacts Noise associated with construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with the applicable County and City of Homestead non- procedural requirements. Construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have any adverse noise-related impacts. Units 6 and 7 will require outdoor lighting for security purposes and worker and plant safety, including lighted walkways, parking areas, and various equipment areas. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have adverse lighting-related impacts and will comply with NRC, United States Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration, and County non-procedural requirements. 85 Socioeconomic/Public Impacts and Benefits The Project will have a positive fiscal impact on the County, the County School Board, and the community. The Project is anticipated to result in payment of $1.4 to $2.0 billion in property taxes to the County over the Project's operating life; payment of $52.6 to $74.2 million in state sales taxes during the construction period; payment of $1.1 to $1.7 billion in property taxes to the County School Board over the Project's lifetime; and payment of $138.3 million to $202.9 million to other taxing authorities over the Project's lifetime. From an economic impact perspective, the Project is anticipated to result in creation of 806 permanent, onsite jobs for plant operations; creation of approximately 3,950 direct onsite jobs and 3,689 indirect jobs (annual average) at peak during the construction period; $28.3 billion in total economic output over the operating period; and $8.2 to $11.2 billion in total economic output during the construction period. Project construction will take approximately 123 months. Construction and operation of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not have an adverse population impact to the County. There will be adequate housing and school capacity in the County to accommodate the construction and operation workforce and their families. Police, fire, emergency management, and medical facilities in 86 the region will be sufficient to accommodate construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. Construction and operation of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not have an adverse impact on regional scenic, cultural, or natural landmarks or on residential, commercial, or recreational facilities and uses. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project likewise will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. The Project meets an identified need for electrical power and has substantial economic and fiscal benefits. The Project will ensure electrical reliability for FPL's customers. The Project will also have environmental benefits. The environmental benefits include use of reclaimed water as the primary source of cooling water. The encouragement and promotion of water conservation and use of reclaimed water are State objectives and considered to be in the public interest. FPL's use of reclaimed water is also consistent with the County's efforts to meet the requirements of Florida's 2008 ocean outfall legislation. As described earlier, the use of nuclear power will also avoid substantial emissions of greenhouse gases. The evidence also shows that the Project will 87 fully offset all impacts to wetlands and includes additional mitigation activities conducted without credit for the generation of functional lift. The Project is clearly in the public interest and will serve the broad interests of the public. The PSC has determined that there is a need for the Project, and it reaffirmed that need through annual review. The Project will not result in any unmitigated adverse impacts to air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, or other natural resources of the state. The Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for the facility 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 Project. Road Right-of-Way Dedications The County has proposed conditions of certification to require FPL to dedicate to the County approximately 131 parcels of land at locations identified by the County in Attachment 3 to its Plant Agency Report. The County's zoning code is found in chapter 33, MDC. Section 33-133 establishes "minimum right-of-way widths for streets, roads and public ways for the unincorporated area of the County . . . ." Section 33-46 provides that "[n]o permit shall be issued for a building or use on a lot, plot, tract, or 88 parcel in any district until that portion of the applicant's lot, plot, tract, or parcel lying within the required official zoned right-of-way has been dedicated to the public for road purposes . . . ." Dedications are only required where the applicant owns the land in fee. The list of 131 locations was identified by the County Public Works Department and Environmental Resources Department. The County has existing roads at some of these locations, but it does not have the full dedicated road ROW at other locations. The County does not currently have plans to construct roads at other locations identified for dedication. The County is aware that FPL does not own the land in fee at some of the identified locations but did not identify if FPL owned the land at the listed locations. The County witnesses were not aware of prior permitting by the County Works Department or Environmental Resources Department, including permitting of transmission lines, requiring dedication of road ROW. At some locations, the County is seeking dedications in areas identified for restoration of the Everglades or Biscayne Bay under CERP; however, the County might make the dedicated road ROW available for CERP features and not use them for public roads. The County also seeks dedications to obtain County access to environmentally endangered lands managed by the 89 County. Instead of dedications for public roads at several locations, the County would require FPL to close roads and convey the land to the County. If the County later decides to not build a road, the landowner can file a petition to request that the County Commission abandon the road ROW dedication through a public hearing. Many of these 131 parcels are along or across the corridors for the electrical transmission lines, the reclaimed and potable water pipelines, and the construction access roads. The County did not identify where these parcels are located within established ROWs. Several parcels identified by the County for dedications are not located in areas proposed for Project-related facilities Transmission Facilities Overview Transmission Facilities As noted above, the transmission facilities associated with the Project proposed by FPL include the on-site Clear Sky electrical substation, expansion of the existing Levee electrical substation, two access-only transmission line corridors, and two transmission line corridors containing a total of five transmission lines. "Transmission facilities" refers to the proposed transmission lines in the application, as defined in sections 90 403.503(14) and 403.522(22), including the Clear Sky-Turkey Point 230-kV transmission line and the Clear Sky-Davis and Davis-Miami 230-kV transmission line (the eastern transmission lines); Clear Sky-Levee No. 1 and No. 2 500-kV transmission lines and Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line (the western transmission lines); and the Clear Sky substation and Levee substation expansion. FPL originally proposed to locate the transmission lines in approximately 88.7 miles of transmission line corridors: 52 miles in the FPL West Preferred Corridor and 36.7 miles in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. For its western transmission lines, FPL is now seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 -- a combination of an alternate corridor proposed by MDLPA and FPL West Preferred Corridor -— as its favored western corridor. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor are both approximately 52 miles in length. FPL is concurrently seeking certification of its original FPL West Preferred Corridor as a back-up, to be used only in the event a ROW for the western transmission lines in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. The proposed transmission lines are necessary to safely and reliably connect the new power generation from the Project to FPL's existing electrical transmission network. 91 Certification of the eastern and western transmission lines, as conditioned, serves the broad interests of the public by ensuring reliable electric service at a reasonable cost. An electrical transmission line is a high voltage system that is used to transfer power, typically from power plants or other generation facilities, to one or more substations that may be connected by the transmission line. A substation is a facility where the voltage of electricity carried on a transmission line can be increased or reduced by the use of transformers and other related electrical equipment for safe and practical transmission to other substations or distribution directly to customers. The general components of a transmission line are structures (single or multiple poles), insulators, conductors (wires that carry the electricity) and overhead ground wires (OHGW) that protect the conductors from lightning strikes and also provide for relay protection and telecommunications, other communications wires, various hardware, and access roads. In wet areas, a transmission line may also include structure pads. An access road is an integral part of a transmission line. It allows access to each structure location for construction purposes and also provides ongoing access for routine and emergency maintenance. The transmission line access 92 roads and structure pads required for the lines, if not already existing, will be unpaved. A structure pad is an unpaved area of compacted and stabilized fill that is of sufficient size to accommodate necessary access for construction and for subsequent maintenance, restoration, and emergency operation activities. Transmission line siting involves identifying a route for the transmission lines, selecting a corridor that encompasses that route, and ultimately acquiring the ROW within the corridor in which the transmission lines will be built, operated, and maintained. The route or route alignment is the line between the endpoints for the transmission lines. The corridor is the area within which the transmission ROW will be located. At a minimum, it must be wide enough to accommodate a ROW that in turn is wide enough for the planned transmission facilities; the corridor can be up to a mile wide. Once the ROW is acquired, the corridor boundaries narrow to include only the ROW. The ROW for the transmission line is established through the acquisition of property rights or through use of existing property rights. Including the alternate transmission line corridors proposed by other parties, there are a total of two corridors 93 proper for certification in the east study area and five corridors proper for certification in the west study area. 2. FPL's Siting and Corridor Selection Process FPL utilized a multidisciplinary transmission line siting team consisting of experts in land use, engineering, the environment, and public outreach to select its preferred corridors for both the eastern and western transmission lines. For the following reasons, the corridor selection process used by FPL is found to be reasonable, is consistent with the methodology, guidelines, and criteria used in prior corridor projects throughout the State, and therefore is appropriate for use in this proceeding. The fact that population data and/or density information, house-by-house or parcel-by-parcel, were not specifically used by FPL, does not detract from the validity of the selection process. The objective of FPL's corridor selection study was to select a certifiable corridor that balances land use, environmental, engineering, and cost considerations. Corridor selection methods were designed to be integrative of multidisciplinary siting criteria; rational and objective in decision-making; sensitive to social and environmental conditions; responsive to regulatory requirements; reflective of community concerns and issues; and capable of accurate documentation and verification. 94 The process sought to maximize collocation opportunities and minimize intrusion into siting constraints to the extent practicable. Collocation is the ability to follow (within or adjacent to) an existing linear feature, easement, or ROW, providing the opportunity to reduce the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. It may include siting a utility within or adjacent to an existing vacant but established ROW. Collocation provides a way to minimize impacts in several ways. With an existing structure, the vegetation, wildlife habitat, and surrounding land uses have already been affected by the existing facility. Adding a new transmission line in such areas will add very little, if any, additional impact. In addition, positioning a corridor along existing roads where feasible to provide access often offers an opportunity to reduce wetland impacts. FPL uses existing access roads where available to minimize wetland impacts. Also, the transmission lines can be designed to avoid clusters of roadside canopy trees. The corridor selection process consisted of multiple steps, including project and study area definition, public outreach, resource mapping and alternative route delineation, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of alternate routes, and selection of a preferred corridor. 95 First, for both the eastern and western transmission lines, FPL defined the project and study area by specifying the voltages and typical ROW widths of the transmission lines to be built, the substation endpoints for the route to connect, the types of typical structures, and existing transmission line ROWs in the area. For the eastern transmission lines, FPL specified transmission structures for a single circuit, 230-kV transmission line to connect the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Turkey Point substation, and a single circuit, 230-kV transmission line to connect the Clear Sky, Davis, and Miami substations. The study area was developed to include those four substations and FPL's existing transmission line ROWs connecting them. The west study area included the Clear Sky, Levee, and Pennsuco substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. For the western transmission lines, FPL specified two 500-kV lines extending from the on-site Clear Sky substation, extending west and then north to the existing Levee substation. From the proposed Clear Sky substation, FPL also specified a 230-kV transmission line from the on-site Clear Sky substation to the existing Pennsuco substation. 96 For the next corridor selection step, FPL evaluated collocation opportunities and siting constraints within the study areas in a regional screening mapping exercise. Public outreach was initiated to solicit information for the regional screening exercise. Resource mapping information was obtained from available information sources, including local, regional, state, and federal agency geographic information systems data. FPL used a technique of overlay mapping software programs to allow flexibility in adding new information as it became available and modifying layers to analyze certain constraints or opportunities. For all transmission line routes, the types of resources mapped included base map information, including: highways, roads, and streets; county and city boundaries; railroads, airports, and heliports; existing and proposed FPL substations; existing FPL transmission lines; existing FPL properties, ROWs, and easements; water bodies, rivers, streams, and canals; land use information (existing and proposed development for which local approvals are pending); planned unit developments and developments of regional impact; property boundaries; existing schools and County School Board lands; cemeteries and historical structures and districts; national parks, wildlife refuges, estuarine sanctuaries, landmarks, or historical sites; state parks, preserves, proposed and existing 97 Florida Forever lands, Areas of Critical State Concern, Save Our Rivers lands, and aquatic preserves; SFWMD-owned lands; County lands, parks, recreation areas, and mitigation lands; Native American lands; privately-designated wetland mitigation areas; privately-owned environmental preserves/sanctuaries; military properties; and environmental information, i.e., listed federal and state-protected species and unique habitats; USFWS- designated critical habitats; and wetlands as delineated on USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps. Once those resources were mapped, the team used the study area regional screening maps as a visual tool, along with aerial photography, ground reconnaissance, and helicopter fly- overs, to develop alternative routes. The team identified routes designed to best avoid or minimize siting constraints and maximize use of collocation opportunities with existing linear features/ROWs. Using route selection guidelines developed by the multidisciplinary team and based on similar guidelines used in previous projects in Florida, several alternative route segments were developed that, when combined, could connect the Project substations. The route selection guidelines used were designed to: Maximize collocation with certain linear features (existing FPL transmission lines, easements, or ROW; roads; canals; etc.). 98 Follow parcel or section lines where practicable and when other linear collocation opportunities do not exist. Minimize crossing of constraints identified as a result of regional screening (e.g., environmentally sensitive lands, existing development, and proposed development for which local approvals are pending). Avoid known airports and private airstrips consistent with FAA and other applicable regulations. Follow disturbed alignments (ditches, roads) through wetlands, where practicable. Minimize crossing of existing transmission lines. Applying the route selection guidelines to the study area regional screening maps, FPL's multidisciplinary team identified 35 route segments that combined to form 134 eastern alternative routes and 34 route segments that combined to form 99 western alternative routes. Once alternative routes were identified, evaluation of these alternative routes involved a systematic, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of each route using environmental, land use, cost, and engineering criteria, integrating information received from the public and other stakeholders through FPL's outreach program. For all transmission line routes, the quantitative criteria used were: number of non-FPL parcels/lots crossed; 99 length of route not following FPL-owned ROW or other transmission line easements; length of route not following other linear features; length of route through existing parks/ recreation areas/designated conservation lands; length of forested wetlands crossed; length of non-forested wetlands crossed; number of eagle nests/wading bird colonies within one- half mile; and engineering/construction cost estimates. These criteria are based on the application of accepted transmission line siting factors used on previous projects across Florida. In addition, the quantitative route evaluation criteria included the number of buildings and schools/school properties within 200 feet of eastern route centerlines and within 500 feet of western route centerlines. The use of these measures of separation was not unreasonable. The proximity distance for this relative comparison among eastern routes was shorter than for the western routes due to the much higher density of development within the east study area. Data for quantitative route evaluation criteria came from the regional screening map data, recent digital aerial photography for the study area, input from agencies and local governments, ground and aerial surveys of routes, and input from the community outreach program. Each segment was analyzed for each quantitative criterion, and the value for each criterion was recorded by segment. The relative weight (importance) of 100 each criterion to be used in the alternative route evaluation was then established by the siting team. These criteria and weights were validated through input from the community obtained as part of the community outreach program. The weighting of criteria in this manner was not shown to be unreasonable. The next step of the integrated alternative route evaluation process involved performing a qualitative assessment of more localized conditions. This evaluation included analyses of siting issues and opportunities; siting constraints; additional ground and aerial surveys; and feedback, additional public input, and comments received at agency workshops and meetings, nine community open houses, and numerous individual and small group meetings with area residents, property owners, and local governments. Qualitative criteria evaluated for all transmission line routes included: available space within existing FPL ROW, easements, or fee-owned property; available ROW along roads, transmission lines, and railroads; road plans; proposed development plans; proximity of existing development; types of development in proximity; proximity and orientation of public airports and private airstrips; ingress/egress at substations; bridge crossings; constructability; acquisition status of existing and proposed conservation lands and/or greenways; ability to avoid or minimize wetland impacts; ability to avoid 101 or minimize impacts to parks, recreation, and conservation lands; proximity to historical districts, roads, and/or structures; review of potential underground scenarios where an overhead transmission line design is not feasible; potential listed species presence; crossing of Native American lands; potential use of local access roads/trails; proximity to known archaeological locations; and vegetative landscapes along streets (tall trees). Qualitative criteria for western transmission line routes also included the significance of the Everglades National Park and the ability to utilize or cross government-owned parcels. Environmental considerations and land ownership were key considerations in the west. FPL's corridor selection process took into account proposed development in the corridor areas, while avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to the extent practicable. It reflected a reasoned balancing of the need for the transmission lines against the potential impact on both the public and the environment. After quantitative and qualitative evaluation of all identified route alignments and consideration of public input throughout the corridor selection process, FPL selected preferred corridors and delineated corridor boundaries. 102 290. The PPSA requires a balancing analysis of "whether, and the extent to which" a number of considerations are satisfied. § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat.; In re: Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, LLC, Case No. 09-6641EPP, 2010 Fla. ENV LEXIS 174 (Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2010), 2010 Fla. ENV LEXIS 173 at *11 (Fla. Siting Bd. Dec. 15, 2010)(PPSA statutory scheme is one of balancing and reasonableness). Although the route selection criteria and process employed by FPL's team are not expressly enumerated in the PPSA, the criteria were used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the balance of statutory factors that the various routes would achieve. Similar criteria were used to evaluate multiple proposed routes in numerous other successful transmission line certification proceedings for projects throughout Florida. In those proceedings, the criteria were vetted by agency review, local government review, and public input. Post-Certification Planning and Design, All Corridors Proper for Certification ROW Selection and Delineation 291. Once a corridor has been selected for a transmission line and certified, FPL establishes a ROW through multiple means, including (1) purchasing easement rights over the affected parcels; (2) purchasing the property in fee simple if necessary; and/or (3) acquiring longitudinal use permits and 103 licenses for public lands, where transmission lines cross or are longitudinally located within public properties or public rights-of-way. A combination of these three methods can take place over the length of a transmission line in order to establish a ROW for that line. FPL cannot construct transmission lines on ROWs for which it has not acquired the necessary property rights. Unless the transmission line is located on available public ROW, based on a review of recently completed projects, it costs FPL approximately four times the market value of land to actually acquire and assemble a ROW within a certified corridor. This is called the "acquisition factor." After certification, FPL will be required to submit its proposed transmission line ROW alignments to the Department, with copies to DOT, SFWMD, SFRPC, the County, and the affected municipalities delineating the proposed ROW for the areas within each agency's jurisdiction. Each agency will then have the opportunity to notify the Department of any apparent conflicts with the requirements of the Conditions of Certification. The final transmission line alignment will take into account approved development to be constructed in the area. For example, upon FPL's request, the County will identify the location of approved but not yet constructed development within the County's jurisdiction so FPL can plan to avoid or minimize 104 conflicts with any such development. Further, to address any concerns by local governments regarding future development, FPL is willing to comply with a condition of certification to accommodate approved but not yet constructed development in the design of the transmission line. Selection of a ROW within a corridor and optimal placement of structures within the ROW can also avoid potential obstructions and minimize wetland impacts. For example, the ROW can be positioned along existing roads to provide access, which can reduce wetland impacts. Transmission Line Design Standards FPL's transmission lines are designed to conform to applicable codes, guidelines, and industry standards, including: National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) standards, such as those for clearances, loading, strength, and extreme wind event design; Department standards for electromagnetic fields (EMF); DOT Utility Accommodation Manual specifications; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers standards; American Society of Testing Material (ASTM) standards; American Concrete Institute (ACI) standards for the design of concrete transmission poles; United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for safe minimum approach distances; 105 applicable noise ordinances of local governments, and FPL's own design and hardening standards for transmission lines. The NESC is the standard adopted by the PSC with which FPL's transmission lines must comply to protect public safety. The NESC, rather than local building codes, is the national industry standard for construction and public safety that is most applicable for transmission lines. FPL presented evidence demonstrating that many of its internal design standards exceed those of the national standards. These internal design standards may require minimization of impacts even beyond regulatory requirements, where practical. For example, FPL may reverse phase on double circuit lines to minimize the magnetic field or may vary the span between structures to avoid significant environmental, historical, or archaeological resources or conflicts with existing land uses like driveways. Overhead design for its transmission lines constitutes FPL's current standard and customary practice where there is no engineering constraint requiring an underground installation. About 98 percent of FPL's transmission system is overhead in design. Undergrounding of FPL's proposed transmission lines is not justified by any asserted concern about their structural integrity. The concrete monopole structures are specifically 106 engineered to withstand extreme wind events, which meet or exceed NESC requirements. Extreme weather can affect both underground and overhead transmission lines. In some cases, restoration of an underground circuit can take significantly longer than for an overhead circuit. The Coral Gables/Pinecrest transmission line expert agreed that undergrounding transmission lines can involve reliability problems, and it could take weeks or months to repair a fault on an underground transmission line. FPL's overhead transmission lines such as those proposed for this Project have performed very well in extreme weather events over their operating history. The PSC, not local governments, has regulatory authority over undergrounding of electric utility lines. The incremental costs of undergrounding transmission lines, where overhead transmission lines are feasible, but undergrounding is requested for aesthetic reasons, are typically paid by the requesting entity. This cost allocation principle has been recognized by the PSC, the Florida Legislature, and the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that entities that benefit from extraordinary costs will bear those costs when other means are technically feasible. See § 366.03, Fla. Stat. ("No public utility shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or locality, or subject the same to 107 any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect."); Fla. Power Corp. v. Seminole Cnty., 579 So. 2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1991)("Permitting cities or counties to unilaterally mandate the conversion of overhead lines to underground would clearly run contrary to the legislative intent that the [PSC] have regulatory authority over this subject."). Transmission Line Construction and Maintenance Process The first step in transmission line construction is to survey the land to locate property lines, property corners, section corners, and road ROW lines to prepare the easement descriptions for ROW acquisition or to establish the boundaries of an existing transmission ROW. After any necessary acquisition, additional surveying is undertaken to stake out ROW lines and stake locations for poles, anchors, structure pads, and access roads for ROW preparation. The second step in transmission line construction is ROW preparation. ROW preparation requires trimming or removal of vegetation in conflict with safe construction and operation of the transmission line. Where clearing is required in uplands or wetlands, trees and shrubs whose mature height could exceed 14 feet and which are very close to the transmission line will be evaluated for pruning or clearing to ground consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Stumps may be removed or grubbed and treated with approved herbicides. 108 FPL will implement tree protection, replacement, and relocation measures in compliance with applicable non-procedural requirements of the local government within which the work is being conducted. In wetland areas, selective clearing of vegetation by hand may be required. Additionally, in wetlands and sensitive pine rockland communities such as County- designated Natural Forest Communities (NRCs), trees and shrubs whose mature height could exceed 14 feet which are very close to the transmission line will be pruned or cleared using only restrictive cutting techniques. Where there is an existing cluster of canopy trees, FPL can design the transmission lines to avoid removing the trees with higher structures or shorter or longer spans. FPL will implement tree protection and replacement measures in compliance with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local government where the clearing is being conducted. Alternately, a contribution to a local government's tree fund may be made, where allowed. ROW preparation also includes construction of access roads and structure pads where required. FPL will evaluate existing access roads, both public and private, for possible use. If necessary, in some instances these existing access roads may need to be improved to accommodate the construction and maintenance equipment needed for the transmission lines. 109 Where new access roads and pads are necessary, they will be constructed with hauled in clean fill material. Culverts will be included in the design of the roads and pads as necessary to maintain existing surface water flow conditions. The next steps in transmission line construction are material hauling and spotting and structure erection. The transmission line poles are trucked to each pole location and can be laid out along the patrol or access road or can be installed as soon as they are delivered to the site. A hole will be augured at each pole location. For the concrete single- pole, this hole will typically be 18 to 25 feet deep and approximately 72 inches in diameter on average. The material excavated from the holes will be spread evenly onto adjacent uplands, either onto existing or recently constructed access roads or pads where appropriate, or be removed from the site. The pole will then be set by the use of cranes and backfilled with crushed rock. The framing process, or installation of hardware and insulators on the poles, may be done with the poles laid on the ground or once erected. Some of the transmission line structures, including most of the structures for the western transmission lines and some of the heavy angle structures for the eastern transmission lines, will also require the installation of anchors and guy wires. 110 Anchors will be either multi-helix screw-in-type anchors or pile-type anchors. Pile-type anchors provide strength applications by embedding a short reinforced concrete pole section to a required depth with backfill. Multi-helix anchors are installed using truck-mounted equipment to screw the anchor into the ground to the required length or torque to meet design requirements. Guy wires will be attached to hardware connected to the anchor extending above the ground and to the transmission line structure. Span lengths can be varied for several reasons. Sometimes a pole location or height is adjusted to avoid a wetland, cluster of canopy trees, or other environmentally sensitive feature, or to coincide with property lines or the location of existing distribution poles that will be displaced. Span length can also be adjusted to accommodate the location or crossing of other electric utility lines or poles, or over highways, canals, or other linear features. Once the poles are in place and the insulator assemblies and hardware are installed, conductors and OHGW will be installed. A rope will be used as a pilot line to pull the conductors and OHGW through the stringing blocks. Conductor pulls will be up to two miles apart, or about 10,000 feet or shorter between dead-end or heavy angle structures. A conductor or OHGW stringing operation typically has a puller at one end of 111 the installation and the conductor reels with the tensioner at the opposite end of the installation. The pilot lines will be pulled in one direction, and the conductors will be pulled in the opposite direction. After pulling, the conductors and OHGW will be spliced together and ultimately sagged (tensioned) to ensure that the conductor is installed with the proper clearance. The conductor will then be attached to the insulator assemblies, and the transmission line will be energized. FPL will minimize the potential for impacts to wetlands during construction through the use of sedimentation control devices to control erosion and turbidity, along with regrading and seeding/mulching of side slopes if needed after construction. The final step in constructing a transmission line is ROW restoration, which is the final clean-up of the ROW after construction is complete. Where necessary, this involves restoring areas that might have been disturbed during construction due to use of heavy vehicles. Restoration may also include stabilizing any potentially erodible areas or replacement of vegetation impacted during construction. FPL will conduct routine maintenance on the ROWs following construction. As is typical and customary for FPL transmission line construction, the transmission lines will require minimal maintenance. Vegetation on and adjacent to the 112 ROWs will be maintained to ensure the safe, reliable operation of the lines. In areas that are not in active agricultural or nursery use, FPL will manage vegetation on the ROW by a variety of methods, including trimming, mowing, and the use of approved growth regulators and herbicides, targeting species that are incompatible with the safe access and operation and maintenance of the transmission system. Where the transmission lines are located along a roadside, very little maintenance of the ROW will need to take place. FPL's management techniques will encourage a broad diversity of vegetation growth to remain on the ROW. FPL will control exotic vegetation within the ROWs in any certified corridor. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements i. Wetland and Ecological Impacts In selecting the preferred transmission line corridors, and in comparing the alternate corridors proposed by other parties with the FPL preferred corridors, FPL analyzed wetland ecology within all proposed transmission line corridors through a combination of formal wetland delineation in the field, field reconnaissance, review of aerial photography, and review of SFWMD land use/land cover data. FPL conducted a wetlands assessment of the transmission line corridors in accordance with the UMAM. FPL evaluated the amount of mitigation required using the acreage of wetland impact based on 113 a conceptual transmission line design and the average quality of affected wetlands. In addition to reducing impacts to wetlands through collocation with existing linear facilities and reducing the construction footprint of the transmission lines, FPL has submitted a wetland mitigation plan for the entire Project to all reviewing agencies. FPL proposes to mitigate wetland impacts associated with the transmission line portion of the Project through purchase of credits from the agency-approved Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and the Everglades Mitigation Bank. The service territory for the Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and Everglades Mitigation Bank covers the entirety of the Project area. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the transmission line impacts will offset the adverse effects, including functional loss, caused by the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the certified corridors, and the transmission lines will not cause unmitigated secondary or cumulative impacts to wetlands or surface waters. FPL will use best management practices in constructing the proposed transmission lines to prevent, to the extent practicable, spills, erosion, dust generation, off-site 114 sedimentation, and pollution of waterways and storm drainage systems. No wastes will be discharged during location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines without being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. FPL will not discharge any wastewater, stormwater, or groundwater from a transmission line excavation into a storm sewer. In light of the measures proposed in the conditions of certification, construction of the proposed transmission lines will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. FPL's location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not result in the discharge of any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage to the public sewer system. After construction, during the period that any planted vegetation is being established and afterward during maintenance of its ROW, FPL will comply with all applicable non- procedural requirements for water conservation and environmental resource protection. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed transmission 115 line corridors will not have a significant adverse effect on wildlife habitat or the abundance and diversity of wildlife within that corridor, including listed plant and animal species; will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife populations, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective; will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to avian or non-avian aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting and denning; and will not be inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall CERP objectives. ii. Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species As noted above, FPL has submitted to all reviewing agencies a comprehensive threatened and endangered species management plan for all listed species for the Project. This plan includes sufficient protection measures for the Florida panther, the American crocodile, and avian species, among other species, regarding the proposed transmission lines. There is little likelihood that panthers are present in the transmission line corridors. In general, Florida panthers are not adversely affected by the presence of transmission lines, structures, fill pads, and access roads 116 within their home ranges. These features actually have the potential to benefit panther conservation by providing new movement corridors; by providing elevated habitat features likely to provide refuges during periods of high water; and by enhancing white-tailed deer populations, the principal prey species of panthers, in the herbaceous wetland habitats adjacent to the transmission line access roads. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation and preservation of Florida panthers or their habitats; will not adversely impact the abundance of Florida panthers; will not adversely impact panther denning; will not impact travel corridors used by Florida panthers; and will not pose an actual or potential threat of adverse impacts to Florida panthers or their habitat, including secondary or cumulative impacts. 329. In the small geographic portion of the proposed corridors where the transmission lines intersect the designated American crocodile critical habitat, FPL has proposed conservation measures to prevent adverse impacts to American crocodiles. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to American crocodiles. FPL's proposed mitigation measures will far outweigh any impacts to American crocodile habitat. The 117 wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification, in Attachment 1, Section C.III, are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the American crocodile from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation or preservation of American crocodiles or their habitat; will not adversely impact American crocodile nesting; will not impact travel corridors used by American crocodiles; will not impact the abundance of American crocodiles; and will not have any potential or actual adverse impacts on American crocodiles, including secondary or cumulative impacts. FPL has proposed conservation measures to prevent adverse impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. FPL's proposed mitigation measures will far outweigh any impacts to Eastern indigo snake habitat. The wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the Eastern indigo snake from the location, construction, and operation and 118 maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation or preservation of Eastern indigo snakes or their habitat; will not impact the abundance of Eastern indigo snakes; and will not have any potential or actual adverse impacts on Eastern indigo snakes, including secondary or cumulative impacts. FPL has proposed conservation measures, including an Avian Protection Plan (APP) to prevent adverse impacts to avian species, including the wood stork, Everglade snail kite, and least tern. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to avian species. The wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to avian species from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact any listed avian species; will not impact the values of wetland or other surface 119 water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to avian species; will not have an actual or potential negative impact on avian species; will not adversely (including cumulatively) impact avian species or avian species conservation, including listed species, or their habitat; will not adversely impact nest locations or nesting behavior of avian species; will not cause adverse impacts to the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed avian species, including nesting locations or nesting behavior; and will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification and the mitigation and species protection plans will not result in the intentional death or injury of migratory birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not have any adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of fish or to fish habitat. FWC, SFWMD, and the County have proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to species, including listed plant and wildlife species. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission 120 lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not significantly adversely affect wildlife populations, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, and will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning. Public Health and Welfare FPL's proposed transmission lines will comply with applicable non-procedural pre-construction and construction requirements. The proposed transmission lines will comply with good engineering practices and safety standards for the design of such facilities. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will ensure electric system reliability and integrity for the electric customers served by the transmission lines. Reliable, safe, cost-effective electrical service is in the public interest and supports the general welfare of the community. FPL will dispose of transmission line construction debris in compliance with all applicable non-procedural state, county, and local requirements. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with 121 all applicable design codes, standards, and industry guidelines, as well as FPL's customary internal design practices, and will have sufficient safety standards to protect the public. This includes compliance with local government public works requirements. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non- procedural public ROW requirements. FPL will comply with all applicable limitations on parking of large trucks in areas zoned residential during construction of the proposed transmission lines. FPL will maintain traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines using a certified maintenance of traffic plan that complies with the DOT's Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for streets and highways, or other applicable non-procedural requirements relating to traffic of the local jurisdiction within which the traffic is being maintained. During construction of the proposed transmission lines, FPL will not locate any temporary office, trailer, portable toilets, equipment, or storage materials and supplies within any temporarily obstructed public roads or ROWs. Waste created by location, construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not be 122 allowed to accumulate on the ROW. All waste will be collected on a daily basis during construction and disposed of in accordance with applicable state, county, and local non- procedural requirements. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with all applicable noise regulations; will not have an adverse impact on air quality; will not result in harmful quantities of contaminants being released to any existing or potential drinking water resource; and will not result in the creation of depressions in which water can accumulate in a manner that would encourage the propagation of mosquitoes. The proposed transmission lines will comply fully with the applicable Department standards for EMF from transmission lines. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-814. There is nothing unusual about the levels of EMF from the proposed transmission lines. The EMF levels are within the range to which people are exposed from many sources in everyday environments at home, work, and in public locations. The EMF levels are also many times lower than the international standards for public exposures to EMF and do not pose a health risk to people living or working near the proposed transmission lines. The large body of scientific research on EMF does not provide a reliable scientific basis to conclude that exposure to 123 EMF causes any adverse health effects, including the development or promotion of cancer or neurodegenerative illness in children or adults. The testimony presented by several members of the public claiming cancer or other risks was either unsupported by actual scientific evidence or was based on epidemiological studies whose results were inconsistent and did not establish a causal relationship between EMF and any adverse health effects. Dr. Barredo and Dr. Bailey presented the only credible expert testimony on EMF and health. Based on their detailed expert evaluations of the body of relevant scientific research, the EMF will not have an adverse health effect on the populations living and working near the lines. The proposed transmission lines will not result in any new public access points to public lands. FPL's ROW maintenance will comply with applicable non-procedural requirements related to vegetation in proximity to electric facilities. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in compliance with the conditions of certification will not cause harmful interference with microwave communications in South Florida. Archaeological/Historical Considerations In 2009, FPL conducted a preliminary cultural resources survey of the linear facilities associated with the 124 Project, including the associated transmission line corridors. The assessment included a desktop analysis as well as a visual survey. In the context of evaluating the alternate corridors proposed by other parties, FPL updated the preliminary assessment and also evaluated the alternate corridors. The assessment was consistent with the typical practice in the cultural resources profession when evaluating corridors for linear facilities and did not include field surveys. Field surveys will be conducted after the final ROW locations are finalized. 355. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area within which the Project may directly or indirectly cause changes to the character or use of historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. FPL considered an APE of 100 feet from each side of the proposed transmission line corridors for direct effects to cultural resources and 500 feet from each side of the proposed transmission line corridors for indirect effects to historic resources. The DHR agreed with the APE FPL used in its assessment. The APE for the cultural resources survey to be conducted post-certification will be established in consultation with that agency and will vary depending upon the character of the surrounding built and natural environments and final design and locations of the transmission line structures. The survey 125 of the transmission line ROWs will identify, document, and evaluate any resources that are 50 years or older, both previously recorded and unrecorded, and will include coordination with local governments. Any historical resources that may have been discovered or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or DHR's Florida Master Site File in the intervening time between preparation of the preliminary cultural resources assessment and the full survey will be identified during the post-certification survey. FPL's proposed transmission lines will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements relating to the protection of archaeological and historic resources. FPL will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to historical and archaeological resources in all areas. The City of Miami expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the eastern corridors to historic resources within its boundaries, potential adverse effects on those resources, and the adequacy of FPL's assessment of those resources. The greater weight of the evidence does not support these concerns. Rather, the evidence shows that FPL's assessment was conducted in accordance with typical practice in the cultural resources profession, and that FPL will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to historical resources in all areas. Notably, the DHR concurs with FPL's recommendations. 126 Applicability of Local Government Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Codes, and/or Land Development Regulations Throughout this proceeding, the local governments have argued that FPL should be required to design its transmission lines to comply with local comprehensive plans and LDRs, such as height restrictions and locational constraints. At hearing, Department witnesses testified that the Department interprets the PPSA, and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no "applicable" local government comprehensive plans or LDRs for the proposed transmission lines and pipelines in this case. This interpretation of the PPSA is consistent with the plain language of sections 163.3164 and 380.04, is a logical and reasonable interpretation of the law, and should be accorded substantial deference. Moreover, the Department's interpretation of the PPSA was not shown to be contrary to the plain language in the statute or clearly erroneous. If local governments were permitted to regulate the design, height, size, or placement of transmission pole structures, FPL could be unable to implement transmission line designs that comply with necessary industry standards and safety codes, such as the NESC, with which transmission lines must comply; unable to provide service to a designated area or substation; or unable to acquire the necessary uninterrupted contiguous ROW needed between substations and designated service 127 areas. To validate these concerns, it was not necessary, as Coral Gables asserts, for FPL to analyze every zoning and comprehensive plan requirement that might apply, speculate on whether or how it would be applied by the local government, and then predict with specificity how the regulation would impact FPL's ability to build the transmission lines. For these reasons, transmission lines should not be subject to local comprehensive plans or LDRs, such as zoning codes. The Legislature has recognized this imperative by statutorily providing that transmission lines are not considered "development" for the purposes of local government comprehensive plans, LDRs, and zoning ordinances. See §§ 163.3164(14) and 403.50665, Fla. Stat. Local development or zoning regulations and comprehensive plan requirements that might impose constraints on the location, height, or type of transmission lines constructed do not apply to the proposed transmission lines. Economic Impact FPL conducted an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the proposed transmission lines on the municipalities located within the transmission line project areas. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines are anticipated to have little, if any, effect on the economy of the area or negative fiscal impact 128 on the municipalities located within the transmission line project areas. 363. The transmission lines will serve and protect the broad interests of the public by providing for a safe and reliable electrical system at a cost-effective price. Eastern Transmission Lines Typical Structures and Substation Proposed The following constitutes FPL's proposed eastern transmission lines: Clear Sky-Turkey Point transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Turkey Point substation on the Turkey Point plant property (Clear Sky-Turkey Point); Clear Sky-Davis-Miami transmission line: a 230-kV line running from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Davis substation in southeast Miami-Dade County (Clear Sky-Davis), and another 230-kV line running from the Davis substation east and then north, predominately along U.S. Highway 1, to the existing Miami substation in downtown City of Miami just north of Miami River (Davis-Miami); FPL proposes to locate these transmission lines in the approximately 36.7 miles of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The entire construction process for the eastern transmission lines will take between 24 and 36 months. As part of this Project, FPL is proposing a new electrical substation, Clear Sky, on the Turkey Point Site in 129 southeastern Dade County. The Clear Sky substation will be connected to, and receive electricity from, proposed Units 6 and 7. That substation will occupy approximately 11.6 acres and will be the starting point for the two proposed 500-kV lines and the three proposed 230-kV lines associated with the Project. The substation site will be fenced and surrounded by a stormwater management area. The proposed Clear Sky substation, existing Turkey Point substation, existing Davis substation, and existing Miami substation are part of the proposed eastern transmission lines, although only the work at the Clear Sky substation is being certified in this proceeding. Work at the other three substations will be permitted separately, if needed. Zoning approval from the County for the construction of the Clear Sky substation as an "unusual use" has already been obtained. For a portion of the Davis-Miami transmission line, FPL proposes to replace an existing, concrete monopole 138-kV line with a double-circuit unguyed 230-kV line on a new concrete monopole designed to accommodate the two circuits, each with separate insulators. This practice is proposed for the approximately two-mile stretch of the FPL East Preferred Corridor along Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables. 130 FPL constructs concrete monopole transmission structures throughout its service area in urban, suburban, and rural settings similar to the structures proposed for the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Monopole construction of the type proposed within the FPL East Preferred Corridor, whether guyed or unguyed, follows its usual and customary practice for such lines. Wooden transmission structures are not FPL's customary design for new transmission lines. Where poles are being replaced in urban areas in the east study area, old wooden structures have often been replaced by concrete monopoles as the need arises. The typical height of the proposed 230-kV monopole structures in the FPL East Preferred Corridor is between 80 to 105 feet. (By stipulation, FPL has agreed that within Coral Gables, the poles will not exceed 98 feet in height or 4.1 feet in width.) This is similar to the height of other monopoles FPL has installed in its service area, including several in other parts of the County. While urban density is a factor in corridor selection, it is not determinative as to the siting of a transmission line corridor. FPL provided evidence of numerous 230-kV transmission lines of similar design to the transmission lines proposed for 131 the FPL East Preferred Corridor. These transmission lines are in similar urban areas of FPL's service territory, including areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. While sharply conflicting testimony on the issue was presented, the more persuasive evidence established that the transmission lines will be just one of many necessary urban features visible to the eye in the current urban landscape, such as street and traffic lights. Measures can be employed to minimize aesthetic impacts of the lines, such as landscaping to direct the eye away from the structures and adding new vertical elements to blend in with the pole. Numerous similar visible linear features exist in the U.S. Highway 1 multi-modal transportation corridor. The only location where the overhead installation of the proposed eastern transmission lines is not feasible is at the point where the Davis-Miami transmission line crosses the Miami River. An underground crossing of the Miami River is proposed for the Davis-Miami Segment. Corridor Selection Process for East Preferred Corridor FPL East Preferred Corridor 377. In the corridor selection process for the eastern transmission lines, FPL's multidisciplinary team used the same process described in Findings of Fact 269 through 290. 132 The east study area included the Clear Sky, Turkey Point, Davis, and Miami substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. Between the Turkey Point plant property and the Davis substation area, the study area focused on FPL's existing 330-foot-wide ROW that contains multiple existing 230- kV lines and has space available to accommodate the new Clear Sky-Davis transmission line. From there, the study area was expanded to include numerous available transmission lines, roadways, railways, and other linear features that could provide collocation opportunities to follow to the Miami substation. Much of the east study area is dominated by dense urban and suburban development. It contains several historical districts and sites and a major multi-modal transportation corridor. In addition to the qualitative criteria evaluated for all corridor segments, qualitative criteria for eastern transmission line routes included assessment of crossings for the Miami River, historical districts, the availability and use of Miami-Dade Metrorail and/or Miami-Dade Transit Busway (Busway) ROW, and landscaping. Land uses and constructability constraints were key considerations in the east. FPL's corridor selection process attempted to reflect a reasoned balancing of the need for the transmission lines 133 against the potential impact on both the public and the environment. After evaluation of all identified route alignments and significant consideration of public input throughout the community outreach program, FPL selected the East Preferred Route and delineated corridor boundaries for the route. Filing of Alternate Corridors During this process, one alternate corridor was proposed jointly by Coral Gables and Pinecrest, referred to as the Pinecrest/Coral Gables Alternate Corridor (PAC), for the portion of the FPL East Preferred Corridor from the area east of the Davis substation to the Miami substation. The PAC is described in more detail below. Eastern Transmission Line Corridors Proper for Certification FPL and the Department filed notices of acceptance of the PAC. The Department determined that both the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC met the criteria for certification. While both the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC are proper for certification, the multidisciplinary team recommended, and FPL is seeking certification of, the East Preferred Corridor and opposes certification of the PAC. 134 FPL East Preferred Corridor General/Constructability Through the corridor selection process described above, FPL selected the East Preferred Corridor and delineated corridor boundaries. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is of variable width. This flexibility allows FPL to accommodate localized conditions, respond to future development between the times of corridor selection and construction, take advantage of certain collocation opportunities, and avoid siting constraints or utilize existing or relocated FPL ROWs. For the east 230-kV transmission lines, the typical span length in the FPL East Preferred Corridor will range from approximately 200 to about 700 feet, depending on location- specific factors, ROW widths, and other design considerations. No new access roads or structure pads are anticipated to be needed in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The FPL East Preferred Corridor exits the Turkey Point plant property to the north and continues in a general north-south orientation following an existing FPL transmission line ROW. It follows this ROW west towards the Florida Turnpike, then northwestward to U.S. Highway 1, and then extends generally north to the Davis substation. The FPL East Preferred Corridor then continues generally east to the U.S. 1 corridor, then generally north following the U.S. Highway 1 corridor with 135 expansions around the downtown Kendall area and certain Metrorail stations, and terminating at the Miami substation immediately north of the Miami River in downtown City of Miami. In the FPL East Preferred Corridor, there is also a short proposed 230-kV transmission line between the proposed Clear Sky substation and the existing Turkey Point substation, both within the Turkey Point plant property. The Clear Sky-Turkey Point portion of the Corridor is approximately 0.4 miles long; the Clear Sky-Davis portion is approximately 19 miles long; and the Davis-Miami portion is approximately 17.7 miles long. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line in proximity to the Metrorail facility in compliance with the conditions of certification will not interfere with operation of the Metrorail. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line in proximity to the Metrorail facility in compliance with the conditions of certification will not exceed safety or industry limits applicable to the Metrorail facilities. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will not interfere with the use of U.S. Highway 1 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. 136 Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will not interfere with the possible future southward extension of the Metrorail within the 100-foot Busway ROW. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors will not cause obstructions to visibility. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Land Use The FPL East Preferred Corridor leaves the proposed Clear Sky substation and passes through Homestead Bayfront Park, heading north and west. It then passes through a largely agricultural area with existing transmission lines. Shortly before reaching the Davis substation, it crosses into low density residential land use. From the Davis substation, the East Preferred Corridor proceeds east along an existing FPL transmission line ROW until its intersection with U.S. Highway 1, then northeast along U.S. Highway 1 and the Busway before reaching the Kendall Urban Center or Dadeland area. U.S. Highway 1 is a principal arterial roadway with six traffic lanes. For most of this segment along the U.S. Highway 1/Busway ROW, the Corridor is approximately 200 feet wide, ranging in width from approximately 200 feet to 350 feet. The FPL East Preferred Corridor in this area is co-located with a wide multimodal transportation 137 corridor. In this segment, the northern tip of the Village of Palmetto Bay and the western edge of Pinecrest are on the eastern edge of the Corridor, with the remainder of the Corridor being in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The land uses within this segment are primarily commercial, with two parks on the east side of the Corridor, and industrial, commercial, and single-family residential uses on the west side. There are a limited number of cross streets compared to the east side of the Corridor. In the area of the County-designated Kendall Urban Center, the FPL East Preferred Corridor widens to allow greater flexibility. In this segment, the Corridor is bounded by commercial and multi-family residential development. The Corridor here also includes ROWs for several existing linear features such as State Road 826 and the SFWMD's ROW along Snapper Creek. The next segment of the FPL East Preferred Corridor narrows to follow the U.S. Highway 1/Metrorail ROW and stretches northeast through South Miami and Coral Gables, and into the City of Miami. For this segment, the Corridor ranges between 150 feet to 300 feet in width. Within South Miami, there is fairly continuous commercial development along the east side of U.S. Highway 1, including the Shops at Sunset and other highway strip commercial use. Uses along the west side of the Corridor 138 in South Miami include some single-family residential, South Miami Hospital, City Hall, South Miami Metrorail Station, and industrial uses. This segment then crosses Southwest 57th Avenue (Red Road), entering Coral Gables. Within Coral Gables, in addition to the Metrorail guideway, the M-Path, and U.S. Highway 1, the Corridor expands to include the Ponce de Leon Boulevard ROW and an existing 138-kV transmission line. This area has, from west to east, the University of Miami (with a large campus extending to the west), some commercial, multi- family, and single-family development on the west side of Ponce de Leon Boulevard, and the Metrorail guideway between Ponce de Leon Boulevard and U.S. Highway 1, and commercial development east of U.S. Highway 1. Farther north within Coral Gables, adjacent to the Corridor is multi-family residential and commercial development, including the Village of Merrick Park (a shopping mall), and an industrial area. In the portion of the Corridor along U.S. Highway 1, which contains limited single- family development, those homes are generally oriented away from U.S. Highway 1. Upon entering the City of Miami, the Corridor widens to include the Coconut Grove substation at Douglas Road (Southwest 37th Avenue) and Bird Road (Southwest 40th Street). Commercial development exists on either side of Bird Road in this portion of the segment. The Corridor returns to the U.S. Highway 1/Metrorail ROW, with single-family residential land use 139 on the northwest offset by a frontage road, and commercial land uses bordering the southeast side, with residential farther beyond. The Corridor then widens again around the Coconut Grove and Vizcaya Metrorail stations. In the next segment, the Corridor enters downtown City of Miami before the subaqueous crossing of the Miami River. Land uses in this area include single family, multi-family residential, Simpson Park, and commercial. It also crosses the City of Miami-designated Coral Way scenic transportation corridor in the vicinity of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95). Industrial and commercial uses are also adjacent to the Miami River in this area. The eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors will be generally compatible with the communities' priorities and preferences as reflected in their comprehensive plans and LDRs. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Environment Most of the FPL East Preferred Corridor has been altered from its natural state. Surface waters are limited to canals, ditches, channelized waterways, and reservoirs. Closer to the Turkey Point Plant site, a variety of wetland communities of varying quality and types exist, including forested and herbaceous wetlands. Beyond this area of wetlands, wildlife habitats within the Corridor are generally lacking or absent in 140 the agricultural and urbanized uplands. Construction of the proposed transmission lines in this area would use existing transmission line and other ROWs, and existing access roads and structure pads where they are needed, limiting wetland and surface water impacts to less than one-half acre, requiring less than one-half credit of mitigation. 402. None of the lands within the Corridor contain native terrestrial ecological attributes in significant amounts. However, there is a small area of the Corridor that includes upland forest classified as NFC by the County within Simpson Park. There are also some NFCs adjacent to but not within the Corridor near the Davis substation. There is very little wildlife habitat value found north of Davis substation. South of the Davis substation, the native upland and wetland communities are limited and generally small. The presence of the existing transmission lines, adjacent agricultural operations, and other development means that existing wildlife communities have already adapted to these man-induced habitats in that area. 403. FPL will avoid and minimize impacts within the Simpson Park NFC and, to the extent practicable, will avoid placing any of the transmission lines within the NFC. FPL will only conduct minimum tree trimming, pruning, or topping of trees in the NFC to meet ANSI standards. High visibility markers will 141 be installed to protect trees in the NFC during construction. Exotic vegetation within the ROW in the NFC shall be controlled to the extent practicable. Impacts to this NFC or other NFCs due to placement of the proposed transmission lines in the Corridor are anticipated to be insignificant. 404. A portion of the Corridor, no more than 0.2 miles long immediately north of the Units 6 and 7 site, is within designated critical habitat for the American crocodile. The area of overlap is largely occupied by other proposed facilities, including the nuclear administration building, the construction and contractor parking area, and the training building. This area is largely void of vegetation and is primarily rock fill. As the Corridor progresses north beyond the area of designated critical habitat, it enters a highly urbanized area. No part of the Corridor is suitable for crocodile basking, nesting, or foraging. 405. American crocodiles are not commonly observed in the area of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 406. Eastern indigo snakes, classified as threatened by USFWS and FWC, are not commonly found in southern Florida and are not commonly observed in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Two recorded observations of Eastern indigo snakes occurred in the southern end of the Corridor in 2011. There is a moderate 142 likelihood of Eastern indigo snake occurrence within the Corridor south of the Davis substation. 407. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is entirely outside of the PFA and would not affect Florida panthers or their habitats. 408. The eastern transmission lines if constructed in either of the eastern corridors will not cause a flood hazard. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Traffic 409. There will be some temporary, short-term impacts to traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines within the FPL East Preferred Corridor, but no permanent or long-term impacts to traffic or traffic flow patterns will occur. Transmission line construction may require closure of one or more traffic lane segments among the six or four lanes within the Corridor, particularly in the area of U.S. Highway 1. To avoid closure of a high-volume traffic lane, construction in most segments of the Corridor would occur at night. 410. The Corridor is compatible with DOT and Miami-Dade Transit long-range plans. The PAC General/Constructability 411. The PAC begins east of the Davis substation, where the FPL East Preferred Corridor along Southwest 131st Street intersects with the existing ROW for the North-South segment of 143 the FPL Turkey Point-Flagami transmission lines in the Kendall area. From there, the PAC continues north along the existing transmission line ROW for approximately 10.15 miles to FPL's - Flagami substation. From the Flagami substation, the PAC continues east for approximately 11.2 miles to FPL's Miami substation. The total length of the PAC where it diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor is approximately 21.35 miles. 412. The Flagami-Miami (i.e., east-west) portion of the PAC mostly follows very narrow residential streets with typically only 50-foot wide ROWs. Except for a few areas with a ROW of 50 to 80 feet, however, the FPL East Preferred Corridor does not have this narrow configuration. 413. While there are several other utility lines in the PAC, those lines are not in FPL-controlled or owned ROWs. The public ROWs are typically only 50 feet wide along narrow residential streets. To add another transmission line to those pole locations would require reconstruction of the poles to allow for a double-circuit configuration. As noted above, where double circuits are installed on a pole, two sets of insulators are also required to be installed, one set for each circuit. This configuration in ROWs along narrow residential streets would require acquisition of private strip easements along the frontage of hundreds of residential and commercial lots, with sets of conductors overhanging front yards, or removal of on- 144 street parking, swales, or vegetation to place the poles in those spaces. In some cases, there are buildings with no setbacks, precluding placement of a double-circuit pole. The PAC: Land Use 414. As the PAC diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor, the first segment stretches northward through unincorporated Miami-Dade County along the existing ROW for the North-South segment of the FPL Turkey Point-Flagami Kendall transmission lines in the Kendall area toward the Flagler Street area. Land uses vary from residential to commercial and also include some municipal and multi-family residential areas. 415. The second segment of the PAC extends from west to east between Southwest 92nd Avenue and Southwest 61st Avenue. Originating in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, the existing public road ROWs in this area are generally 50 feet wide. The PAC also encompasses an existing 138-kV transmission line in this area. This segment begins with a mix of residential areas, including townhomes and estate-zoned areas, and transitions toward more intense residential uses. Progressing into the City of Miami, the PAC enters dense, older neighborhoods. The residential home setbacks are shallower and the ROWs include sidewalks, parking spaces, and driveway access areas, which limit room for additional facilities. In addition, underground utilities likely exist within the ROWs. Depending on the 145 alignment of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the PAC, construction may require demolition of a residence. While most ROW in this City of Miami area is approximately 60 feet wide, Flagler Street along the northern edge of the PAC has a 100-foot ROW and an existing 138-kV transmission line. Throughout this segment, the residential uses face onto the proposed corridor. 416. Farther east into the City of Miami, the third segment of the PAC extends from west to east between Northwest 61st Avenue and Northwest 26th Avenue. This segment begins with largely single-family residential areas and transitions to multi-family residential, with as many as 65 dwelling units per acre in certain areas. It also includes elementary and middle schools. ROWs are approximately 50 and 60 feet in width. 417. The next segment of the PAC extends from west to east from Northwest 26th Avenue to Southwest 7th Avenue and also contains areas of 65 dwelling units per acre. Depending on the alignment, two aerial crossings of State Road 836 (an elevated roadway) may be required, which could require taller poles. Farther east, there are no existing transmission lines available for collocation. The higher-density residential neighborhoods have limited setbacks and contain primarily 50-foot road ROWs, occupied with sidewalks, parking, and driveway access, and homes facing the roadway. ROWs are as narrow as 30 or 45 feet in certain areas. For Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, 146 transmission line structures may have to be placed in what are currently parking areas. In addition, buildings with zero-foot setbacks in certain areas present design constraints. 418. Southwest 7th Avenue and Southwest 2nd Avenue bound the final segment of the PAC. In this area, the PAC approaches José Martí Park. It then encompasses the Miami River and I-95 before ultimately connecting to FPL's existing Miami substation. The PAC: Environmental 419. From the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Davis substation area, the PAC coincides with the FPL East Preferred Corridor. As such, the land uses and vegetation within the PAC in this area are identical to those described for the first segment of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Similarly, wetland and surface water impacts throughout the PAC will be limited to less than one-half acre and would require mitigation of less than one-half credit. None of the lands within the PAC contain native wetland ecological attributes in significant amounts. 420. Wetlands and surface waters within the PAC are limited primarily to low quality, man-made ditches and canals that can be spanned. The construction of the proposed transmission lines would use existing transmission line ROW, existing access roads, and existing structure pads. Wetland and surface water impacts will be limited to less than one-half acre 147 and would require mitigation of less than one-half credit of mitigation. Where the PAC diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor, it traverses an existing transmission line ROW south of the Flagami substation and highly developed residential and commercial areas east of the Flagami substation that do not provide quality wildlife habitat. One federally-designated threatened plant species (Garber's Spurge) is recorded within the PAC. There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC with regard to the presence of or impacts to American crocodiles, Eastern indigo snake, Florida panther, avian species, or fish species or habitat. The PAC: Traffic There will be some temporary, short-term impacts to traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines within the PAC, but no permanent impacts to traffic or traffic flow patterns will occur. Because the PAC largely consists of two-lane roadways with narrow ROWs, lane closure for construction would require flag personnel to direct one lane of traffic in two directions. Because traffic volume in that area is not significant, construction within the PAC can be conducted during the day, though construction in certain road segments should be 148 conducted during night hours to avoid significant traffic disruptions. e. Hardening or Improving Existing Transmission Lines Within the PAC Coral Gables and Pinecrest argue that FPL should abandon its FPL East Preferred Corridor in favor of the PAC, which already contains existing 138-kV transmission lines. Their witnesses assert that co-locating the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line with existing 138-kV transmission lines in the PAC between the Flagami and Miami substations would provide an opportunity to harden or improve existing substandard or wooden poles by relocating existing transmission lines onto new, double-circuit concrete poles constructed for the 230-kV transmission line, thereby increasing reliability. No credible evidence was presented that certification of the PAC would necessarily result in the hardening or improvement of existing lines there, once FPL considered all relevant factors for final design of the new Davis-Miami transmission line, beyond FPL's routine hardening or improvement of its transmission lines. Moreover, there is no credible evidence to rebut the testimony of FPL's transmission line engineer regarding the proposed design. In any event, a double- circuit configuration with one circuit on each side of the pole, 149 a configuration suggested by Coral Gables and Pinecrest, cannot be accommodated along many locations within the PAC. While the Davis-Flagami segment of the PAC contains sufficient room to co-locate with existing FPL transmission lines, it contains significant barriers to placing the new transmission line on new poles together with the existing FPL transmission lines. In this segment, the road ROWs do not have sufficient width to accommodate the new, larger poles proposed for the Davis-Miami transmission line. This segment primarily contains narrow, two-lane residential streets with limited space, where sidewalks, road-side parking areas, and improvements on private, residential lots present a conflict for these larger poles. Co-locating an existing transmission line with the new transmission line on a single, double-circuit pole is not technically feasible in many areas of the PAC due to space constraints. For example, where a single-circuit transmission line pole is currently located adjacent to buildings that are built to the edge of the street, replacement of that pole with a larger double-circuited pole may not be technically feasible. The new transmission line structure may need to be installed across the street, resulting in transmission lines along both sides of the street, or moved to another street entirely. 150 429. In addition, FPL routinely engages in hardening or improvement of its existing transmission lines as a standard and customary business practice, including replacing existing wooden structures with concrete monopoles as the need arises. Such hardening and improvement along the PAC will occur through FPL's normal course of hardening as pole replacement is needed. Eastern Transmission Line Construction and Design Standards Undergrounding 430. City of Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, and Pinecrest have urged the Siting Board to require undergrounding of the transmission line in their own jurisdictions and rely upon their local comprehensive plans and local regulations in support of their position. Although the County originally proposed undergrounding of the eastern transmission lines, the County and FPL have reached agreement on conditions for placement of the eastern transmission lines overhead in either of the eastern corridors. 431. Credible preliminary estimates indicate that undergrounding the Davis-Miami transmission line within the FPL East Preferred Corridor would cost approximately $13.3 to $18.5 million per mile. These numbers compare to a cost range of $1.5 to $2.5 million per mile for overhead facilities, with a cost differential of $10.8 to $17 million per mile. Thus, 151 underground construction in this area would be roughly nine times more expensive than overhead construction. 432. Extreme weather events do not require undergrounding transmission lines in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 433. FPL generally uses underground design where overhead construction is not feasible or the requesting entity pays the incremental cost of underground construction. With the exception of the Miami River Crossing, no engineering constraints require the use of undergrounding. Miami River Crossing 434. Construction of the Davis-Miami 230-kV transmission line in any corridor proposed for the Davis-Miami transmission line will require an underground crossing of the Miami River. 435. In the area where the Davis-Miami transmission line crosses the Miami River, the Miami substation is bounded by the I-95 bridge west of Second Avenue and the Metrorail bridge to the east. These fixed bridges and their vertical clearances required for navigation prohibit the use of an overhead transmission line design into the Miami substation. Due to this engineering constraint, placement of the transmission line underground is the only technically feasible alternative. Accordingly, FPL proposes undergrounding the eastern transmission line at the Miami River Crossing. 152 436. A transition or termination structure will be required where the underground portion of the transmission line transitions to overhead. North of the Miami River, the termination structure will be within the Miami substation fence. South of the Miami River, the location of the transition structure has not been finally determined, but preliminarily its location has been identified as somewhere along Third Avenue on a private easement. 437. The proposed Miami River crossing is located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. This crossing requires an easement over sovereign submerged lands from the Board of Trustees, which was requested by FPL through this proceeding. FPL has existing underground transmission lines that cross the Miami River to the south of the Miami substation, with associated sovereign submerged lands easements. 438. The Miami River crossing can be constructed using horizontal directional drill technology. Construction of the Miami River crossing is a water-dependent activity. 439. The transmission line crossing of the Miami River is a "structure required for the installation or expansion of public utilities," constitutes "[r]easonable improvement for . . . public utility expansion," and is specifically allowed by the statute that created the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. § 258.397, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.006(3)(b)(iv)7. 153 Placement of the transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement will not disturb submerged land resources or result in unmitigated adverse impacts to sovereign lands. The underground transmission line will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines. FPL will use best management practices in constructing the underground transmission line beneath the Miami River. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line beneath the Miami River will ensure electric system reliability and integrity for electric customers served by the transmission line. FPL owns the existing Miami substation, but must acquire any necessary private property interests for the transmission line easements north and south of the sovereign submerged lands at the Miami River. The Miami River crossing will be designed and constructed to avoid restriction or infringement on riparian rights of adjacent upland owners. No wetland vegetation will have to be removed, cut, or destroyed to place the transmission line in the sovereign submerged easement for crossing the Miami River. There will not be any impacts to the shoreline from placement of the transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement for 154 crossing the Miami River. In this area, the Miami River is within bulkheads and seawalls. Though temporary construction impacts will occur, the area affected by the underground installation will be restored soon after construction and there will not be any permanent impacts to property owners along the Miami River as a result of the transmission line crossing. Construction of the underground portion of the transmission line beneath the Miami River will not affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. During location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the underground portion of the transmission line, no wastes will be discharged without being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. Likewise, harmful quantities of contaminants will not be released to any existing or potential drinking water source. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the underground portion of the transmission line will not have an adverse impact on air quality and will not result in any new public access points to public lands. Placement of the underground transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement will not detract from or 155 interfere with propagation of fish and wildlife, or traditional recreational uses. Rather, it will minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat and other natural and cultural resources. Placement of the transmission line beneath the Miami River in the sovereign submerged lands easement is consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Management Plan. Placement of the transmission line beneath the Miami River in the sovereign submerged easement is clearly in the public interest. Maintenance of Hydrology/CERP Consistency FPL has submitted flowage easements to the County that provide for maintenance of existing flow across transmission corridors within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands CERP Project study boundaries and allowing improvements to sheet flow consistent with planned restoration projects in the area. These easements satisfy the requirements of Condition 17 of County Resolution Z-56-07. The eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors are not inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall objectives of CERP. Economic Impacts The Davis-Miami transmission line in the FPL East Preferred Corridor will have no quantifiable effect on property 156 values of adjacent properties. The evidence supports a finding that transmission lines will not adversely affect non- residential property values. Also, the more persuasive evidence shows that the effect on residential property values will be de minimis and below the levels that could be quantified to a reasonable degree of certainty. Accordingly, the placement of the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line within the FPL East Preferred Corridor will have little, if any, effect on the economy of the area or the fiscal situation of the municipalities. 455. The analysis regarding the transmission line's impact on property values within and adjacent to the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC presented by Dr. Frishberg, a Coral Gables expert, was imprecise, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant to the extent it did not appropriately address the substantial amount of non-residential properties in both corridors. The analysis of Dr. Weisskoff, a public witness, was also flawed in several respects. For example, his analysis is based on a misrepresentation of the published literature, contained a substantial calculation error, and failed to take into account several important variables affecting property value impacts. Therefore, these witnesses' testimonies are not credited. 157 Clear Sky Substation 456. Construction of the Clear Sky substation expansion will require clearing and grubbing the expansion area. Turbidity screens and other erosion control devices and techniques will be used to minimize construction impacts to nearby wetlands and water bodies. The expanded substation yard area will be excavated, filled with clean fill that is trucked to the site, graded, and rolled to provide the necessary elevation. A new grounding grid will be constructed and a new security fence around the expansion area will be installed. Compliance with Design Standards 457. All of the transmission lines, including the Clear Sky substation, will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable design codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including NESC, the Department's EMF standards, and the industry standards adopted by ASCE, ASTM, ANSI, ACI, and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers. 6. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements for Eastern Transmission Facilities a. Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plans As noted above, local zoning regulations and comprehensive plan requirements are not applicable non- procedural requirements for transmission facilities. To the extent local ordinances have been incorporated into the 158 conditions of certification, FPL has committed to comply with them. Otherwise, the often competing zoning regulations of local jurisdiction are not applicable. b. Work in SFWMD Rights-of-Way FPL's Davis-Miami transmission line will cross several SFWMD canals and may use a portion of SFWMD ROW along the Snapper Creek Canal. There are no levees within the vicinity of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will comply with the requirements for SFWMD ROW Occupancy Permits and, as such, will not interfere with the SFWMD's access, operations, or maintenance of the works of the district. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the eastern transmission lines in compliance with the conditions of certification will not interfere with the present or future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. This applies only to proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance known at the time of FPL's project design. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed eastern transmission lines will comply with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements, including 159 requirements of the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. c. Other Non-Procedural Requirements The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with applicable Department non-procedural environmental resource permitting criteria and other regulations. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in either of the eastern transmission line corridors will comply with the tree ordinances of the local governments in which the facilities will be located. The City of Miami raised concerns over impacts to tree canopy and the replacement of trees that must be removed within the final ROW within the City. A City witness testified that it was her preference that FPL do more than comply with the City of Miami's tree ordinance in siting and constructing the transmission line within the City. To this end, FPL will comply with the City's tree ordinance, and it will confer with local officials to identify areas of tree canopy that can be spanned or addressed by other engineering solutions, to relocate or replace trees that must be removed, or mitigate for impacts by paying into a tree fund. Within the City of Miami, the amount of tree removal in either of the eastern corridors will be 160 similar. The City also desires a condition of certification requiring FPL to not only comply with the City's tree ordinance, but also to submit a tree survey, a tree disposition plan, and a landscape plan to replace any trees prior to doing any work within the City of Miami, and to install transmission poles to avoid large, existing trees to the extent practicable. FPL has committed to a condition of certification to address each of the items. 465. If constructed within either the East Preferred Corridor or the PAC, the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local governments in which it will be located. These applicable non-procedural requirements include the requirements within the City of Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, and the County that (1) FPL construct and maintain transmission lines in accordance with its customary practice; (2) FPL transmission lines not unreasonably interfere with traffic on public ROW or reasonable egress from and ingress to abutting property; (3) FPL transmission lines be located as close to the outer boundary of public ROW as practicable, or as agreed with the local government; and (4) FPL repair or restore any damage to public ROW caused by construction or maintenance of transmission lines. 466. During construction of the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will not 161 excavate, dig up, or obstruct any public street or sidewalk in a manner that creates an obstruction for more than two adjacent blocks at a time. If any such obstruction is required, FPL will complete the work on one block before proceeding to work in the second block. 467. If any sidewalk must be reconstructed following construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will use only natural, uncolored Portland cement concrete for that sidewalk reconstruction. 468. If any road pavement must be repaired following installation of the proposed transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will use paving of a long-life, hard-surfaced type with sufficient base to ensure lasting service and a minimum expense for maintenance, as chosen in consultation with the City's Public Works Department. Eastern Corridors Comparison: Least Adverse Impacts, Including Cost Comparison of Land Use Considerations 469. While the final ROW for the Davis-Miami transmission line will be identified post-certification during final design, preliminary alignments within the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor were identified to facilitate comparisons between the two corridors where they diverge. FPL analyzed three routes to compare the proposed eastern corridors: (1) a route within its 162 East Preferred Corridor (the EPC Alignment); (2) the alignment identified by Pinecrest and Coral Gables within the PAC (the PAC Alignment); and (3) an alignment identified by FPL's engineers that they believe constitutes a more technically feasible alignment within PAC than the PAC Alignment (the 2013 Alignment). 470. The PAC Alignment has 2,829 buildings within 200 feet of the alignment; the 2013 Alignment has 2,746. These figures reflect the density within the PAC. In contrast, the EPC Alignment has only 762 buildings within 200 feet of the alignment. The transmission line, if built within either of the PAC Alignments, would be in proximity to three times more buildings than the EPC Alignment. 471. The PAC Alignment would cross or abut 1,217 separate parcels; the 2013 Alignment would cross or abut 1,164. In contrast, the EPC Alignment would cross or abut only 363 separate parcels. The transmission line, if built within either of the PAC Alignments, would cross or abut three times more parcels than the EPC Alignment. 472. There are 15 schools within 200 feet of the PAC Alignment and 14 schools within 200 feet of the 2013 Alignment; there are eight schools within 200 feet of the EPC Alignment, including the University of Miami. 163 473. There are more residential uses and smaller lots along the PAC. In contrast, more commercial parcels of larger size are along the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 474. Along the PAC Alignment, the available road ROW space is generally only 50 feet in width, rendering it generally too narrow for the construction of the necessary double-circuit transmission line structures suggested by Pinecrest and Coral Gables without acquiring additional ROW space on adjacent private property, much of which is dense residential development on shallow, narrow lots. However, along the EPC Alignment, the available road/Metrorail ROW is generally 200 feet wide or wider, making it less likely that FPL will need additional ROW space on adjacent private property. Comparison of Engineering/Constructability Considerations 475. Where the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC diverge, both contain collocation opportunities. While the total length of existing FPL transmission lines for collocation along the PAC Alignments may be greater than the total length along the EPC Alignment, the Flagami-Miami segment of the PAC has significant barriers to implementing collocation with those existing FPL lines. 476. Besides the narrow ROWs along the PAC Alignments, there are many obstructions such as sidewalks, fences, porches, 164 and other improvements which constrain construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line as proposed by Pinecrest and Coral Gables. In contrast, along most of the EPC Alignment, the ROW has a larger amount of available open space with few obstructions. There is greater potential conflict with underground utilities along the PAC than the FPL East Preferred Corridor. This is due to the greater likelihood of underground utilities parallel to streets, perpendicular lateral lines to service the homes in the PAC, and limited flexibility to adjust pole locations to avoid such constraints. Proximity of the PAC to the Miami International Airport will require notification to the FAA and possibly the Miami-Dade Aviation Department for crane operations during construction. There are no airports near the FPL East Preferred Corridor for the Davis-Miami transmission line. The cost of constructing the Davis-Miami transmission line within the PAC Alignment, including the cost of acquiring the necessary ROWs, ranges from $83.1 million to $107.7 million; the cost of construction within the 2013 Alignment within the PAC ranges from $77.8 million to $100.6 million. In contrast, the cost of construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the EPC Alignment ranges from $50.7 million to $68.6 million. 165 Comparison of Environmental Considerations There are no material differences in environmental considerations between the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor. There is no material difference between the FPL East Proposed Corridor and the PAC from a wetlands impacts or wetlands mitigation perspective. Construction of a transmission line within either of the two corridors would not impact any significant amount of wetlands or surface waters. The FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC are similar with respect to the likely magnitude of effects on the abundance and diversity of wildlife resulting from construction of a transmission line. From the point the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC diverge, approximately two miles east of the Davis substation, they largely traverse similar areas of dense urban development to reach the Miami substation. Neither corridor traverses high quality wildlife habitat or has the potential to impact listed species. Therefore, no adverse effects upon wildlife abundance and diversity would be anticipated. FPL will minimize impacts to NFCs in the FPL East Preferred Corridor, avoiding impacts to the extent practicable, consistent with the NFC standards and requirements contained in chapter 24, MDC. The PAC does not cross a NFC. 166 There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC with regard to impacts to American crocodiles; both must cross the same 0.2-mile area. There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred and the PAC with regard to impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. Avian issues are minimal with both of the proposed corridors, and there is no significant difference between the two corridors. From the standpoint of impacts to Florida panthers and their habitat, there is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC because both corridors traverse urbanized, developed areas of the County outside of the PFA, and panthers are not likely to occur in those areas. Comparison of Traffic Impacts No material difference exists between the traffic impacts anticipated in the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC. Both the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor will involve moderate to significant disruption of traffic during the temporary construction activities. Construction in the FPL East Preferred Corridor requires lane closure in a higher-volume roadway (U.S. Highway 1) and would be limited during peak traffic hours. Construction in the PAC would impact lower- volume roadways and would not be limited to nighttime hours, but 167 would require flag personnel to direct one lane of traffic in two directions. Archaeological and Historic Sites There is no material difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC in terms of impacts to archaeological or historic resources. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification in either of the eastern transmission line corridors will not adversely impact archaeological or historic structures, sites, or resources, given the level of disturbance and alteration in both corridors. Summary Because of significant constructability issues and land use constraints within the PAC and in light of the relative costs for placement of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the two eastern corridors proper for certification, the FPL East Preferred Corridor represents the corridor which, on balance, has the least adverse impacts, including costs, considering the criteria in section 403.509(3). Western Transmission Lines Typical Structures and Substation Proposed 491. The following constitute FPL's proposed western transmission lines associated with the Project: 168 From the proposed on-Site Clear Sky substation, FPL is proposing two 500-kV lines extending west and then north to the existing Levee substation. The total length of this alignment of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West Preferred Corridor is approximately 43.6 miles. From the proposed Clear Sky substation, FPL is also proposing to extend a 230-kV transmission line to the west and then north to the existing Pennsuco substation. This line is proposed to be constructed in the same ROW as the previously described 500-kV lines, but will bypass the Levee substation and continue to the Pennsuco substation. From the Levee substation area to the Pennsuco substation, FPL has an existing multi-circuit transmission line ROW. The section of the proposed Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line between Levee and Pennsuco will be placed within this existing ROW. This 230-kV-only portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West Preferred Corridor is approximately 8.4 miles long. Also as part of the western corridors, there are three access-only corridor laterals to be used only for vehicular access to the certified transmission lines. If the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is certified and used for the placement of the western transmission lines, one of the access-only corridor laterals extends from the northwest corner of Government Lot 4 to Northwest 137th Avenue. It is 200 feet wide with 100 feet extending on each side of the north section line of government Lots 3 and 4. The second access-only corridor lateral for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 extends south from the northwest corner of government Lot 4 to the north bank of the C- 4 Canal. It is 200 feet wide with 100 feet extending on each side of the west section line of Government Lot 4. From that point, it narrows to 100 feet in width and extends 169 to the west to include the bridge over the C-4 Canal at the entrance to the Trail Glades Sport Shooting Range. The third access-only corridor lateral extends from Krome Avenue to the L-31N ROW along the theoretical extension of Kendall Drive and is 200 feet in width. In addition, FPL will use the existing SFWMD access roadways on the L-31N levee and east of the L-31N canal within the SFWMD ROW, other public roadways, and newly constructed access roads within the corridor boundaries for access to transmission structures within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 south of Tamiami Trail. If the FPL West Preferred Corridor is certified and used for placement of the western transmission lines, two access-only corridor laterals are also proposed. The Tamiami Trail Access Corridor is just north of Tamiami Trail where the FPL West Preferred Corridor crosses the road. This access corridor is a rectangle that adjoins the FPL West Preferred Corridor, is approximately 0.25 mile long and 370 feet wide, and includes the existing SFWMD levee access roadway and bridge associated with the L-29 canal. The Krome Avenue Access Corridor is proposed along the L-30 canal ROW and includes Krome Avenue from the point where the FPL West Preferred Corridor exits Water Conservation Area 3-B and turns east towards the Levee substation. This access corridor extends approximately five miles due north along SFWMD ROW, is approximately 600 feet wide, and includes the existing levee access roadway and bridge associated with the L-30 canal, as well as Krome Avenue. The total length of the western transmission lines is approximately 52 miles. 492. Construction of the proposed on-site Clear Sky substation is addressed above. The existing Levee substation is 170 a transmission substation with multiple existing 500- and 230-kV transmission lines connected to it. The substation property encompasses approximately 65 acres. The property currently includes the fenced area of substation equipment, stormwater retention areas, wetland mitigation areas, compacted access/ patrol roads, and undeveloped areas. The fenced area of the existing Levee substation must be expanded approximately 130 feet to the north along the entire length of the fence (approximately 800 feet) to accommodate installation of transformers, breakers, and switchgear, and the connection of the two proposed 500-kV transmission lines being extended from the proposed Clear Sky substation at the Turkey Point site. The proposed expansion of the fenced area of the substation is approximately 2.3 acres. The expansion area is within the geographic boundaries of the County's "unusual use" approval for the existing substation. Zoning approval from the County for the expansion of the Levee substation as an unusual use has already been obtained. 493. All transmission facilities, including the Clear Sky substation and Levee substation expansion, will comply with applicable design standards. 171 Corridor Selection: FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 FPL's Existing Transmission Line ROW, Turkey Point to Levee Substation 494. In the 1960s and early 1970s, FPL acquired a ROW between the Turkey Point plant property and the Levee substation for placement of transmission lines. The existing ROW is wide enough to accommodate the proposed new transmission lines; it already contains an existing transmission line along most of its length south of the Everglades National Park. 495. Approximately 7.4 miles of this ROW was encompassed by the addition of the Everglades National Park Expansion Area (Expansion Area) to the Everglades National Park in 1989. Subsequent to the expansion, the National Park Service (NPS) and several other land-owning agencies in the area negotiated with FPL to exchange FPL's currently owned transmission line ROW in the Expansion Area for a combination of easements and property that would provide a continuous transmission ROW between the Turkey Point plant property and the Levee substation, and provided for a slight adjustment of the eastern boundary of the Everglades National Park so the relocated ROW would be entirely outside the Everglades National Park. Collectively, these efforts are referred to as the "Land Exchange." The NPCA is actively opposing the Land Exchange. 172 If the Land Exchange is consummated, a total of approximately 12 miles of FPL's existing ROW is proposed for relocation. The Land Exchange has been authorized by federal legislation and is undergoing final environmental review by the NPS. In 2011, the NPS began developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to review the impact of the proposed Land Exchange, which is a required review for such a federal action. The current schedule estimates the Draft EIS should be available in late 2013 with the Final EIS due to occur in the fall of 2014, although those dates could change. Thirty days after issuance of the Final EIS, the Record of Decision should be available. Once finalized, the relocated ROW that will result from the Land Exchange will be within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and portions of it will be within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. The existing transmission line ROW that FPL has owned since the 1960s and early 1970s in the area of the Land Exchange is identified in its application as the FPL West Secondary Corridor. However, the FPL West Secondary Corridor has been withdrawn from consideration by FPL. FPL desires to execute the Land Exchange and utilize a portion of those land rights for siting either the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. 173 b. West Preferred Corridor Selection In the corridor selection process for the western transmission lines, the multidisciplinary team used the same process described in Findings of Fact 269 through 290 to evaluate potential corridors for the western transmission The west study area included the Clear Sky, Levee, and Pennsuco substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. Much of the west study area is dominated by low- density residential development, agricultural and nursery operations, conservation lands, and mining activities. There are relatively few existing linear features that provide collocation opportunities. Each of the routes identified by the multidisciplinary team during the corridor selection process was evaluated in detail according to the quantitative and qualitative process described above. FPL's corridor selection process took into account planned development in the corridor areas, while avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to the extent practicable and reflected a balancing of engineering, environmental, and land use considerations against the need for the Project. After evaluation of all identified route alignments and consideration of public and agency input throughout the 174 community outreach program, FPL selected the West Preferred Route and delineated corridor boundaries for the route. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is of variable width, being wider in certain areas to give FPL flexibility in delineating the ROW within the corridor so as to accommodate localized conditions or take advantage of certain opportunities like following a property boundary, and narrower in other areas to avoid siting constraints, such as development or an environmentally sensitive area, or to utilize existing or relocated FPL ROWs, while maintaining a continuous route. c. Filing of Alternate Corridors During the certification process, four alternate western transmission line corridors were proposed for consideration in addition to the western corridors included by FPL in its application. MDLPA presented three alternate corridors and NPCA presented one, each to replace all or a portion of the West Preferred Corridor between approximately Southwest 120th Street and the Levee substation. MDLPA No. 2 is encompassed within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and is discussed in detail below, together with the FPL West Preferred Corridor. MDLPA No. 2 was developed after further discussions with the Everglades National Park and representatives of SFWMD and NPCA about the goal of reducing the potential impact on the Everglades National Park. The West 175 Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 achieves the combined goal of lessening potential impacts on the Pennsuco Wetlands and the Everglades National Park, while avoiding more urban uses to the east. It includes a segment of the FPL West Preferred Corridor, but also includes enough real estate east of the L-31N canal to potentially accommodate the full ROW where that proves to be a practical option for FPL and the rock mining companies. 507. The Pennsuco Wetlands, designated by the County as environmental protection lands, are a two-mile wide, approximately nine-mile long wetland between the Water Conservation Area 3B/Krome Avenue and rock mining lands known as the Lake Belt mining area. The Pennsuco Wetlands have long been a target of acquisition and restoration by various government agencies. Rock miners are still funding the ongoing acquisition and restoration of the wetlands as part of their wetland mitigation for mining wetlands within the Lake Belt mining area. About 80 percent of the Pennsuco Wetlands area has been acquired, and most of it has been restored. 508. MDLPA No. 1 was the first alternate corridor for the western transmission lines proposed by MDLPA and constitutes only a modest adjustment to the FPL West Preferred Corridor. MDLPA proposed its alternate corridor to avoid the FPL West Preferred Corridor's central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands. MDLPA No. 1 stays as close to the FPL West Preferred Corridor as 176 possible but crosses the Pennsuco Wetlands two miles farther south and eliminates much of the construction in Water Conservation Area 3B. MDLPA No. 3 was developed after discussion between the MDLPA and other interested parties, including NPCA. The goal was to develop a corridor with less impact west of the L-31N canal. However, the mining companies were not willing to propose a corridor with impacts on private property south of the parcel owned by CEMEX. Instead, MDLPA proposed a deviation from the FPL West Preferred Corridor which would move the corridor to the east to Krome Avenue on property owned by CEMEX and Kendall Krome Properties and Investments. NPCA filed one alternate corridor to be considered for portions of FPL's West Preferred Corridor, with a primary goal to eliminate potential impacts to conservation lands (primarily the Everglades National Park) and to wetlands. NPCA's corridor selection involved no analysis within the Everglades National Park itself. Potential impacts to future urban development in the Urban Expansion Area (UEA) of the County or encumbrances that might hinder use of NPCA's corridor were not considered in the selection process. NPCA's route selection team did not include a land use planner or a transmission line engineer. NPCA did not hold any publicly noticed open houses or workshops to solicit input from residents 177 and other stakeholders in the area before selecting its proposed corridor. Similarly, the number of government-owned parcels with encumbrances crossed by the proposed corridor was not considered. NPCA assumed parcels would likely be made available, despite a lack of confirmation through any final action or documentation. The County supports this corridor. d. Western Transmission Line Corridors Proper for Certification FPL and the Department filed notices of acceptance of the alternate corridors proposed by MDLPA and NPCA as proper for certification. The Department determined that all of the western alternate corridors met the criteria for certification. Consistent with its practice, the Department did not do a comparison of impacts among the different western alternate corridors. Each of the alternate corridors was evaluated by FPL's multidisciplinary team using the same quantitative and qualitative factors used to select the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Due to the withdrawal of the FPL West Secondary Corridor, only five western transmission line corridors are proper for certification as that term is used in sections 403.503(11) and 403.522(10). 178 514. FPL is seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor, with the FPL West Preferred Corridor to be utilized only if an appropriate ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. Both corridors are approximately 52 miles in length. 3. Corridor Descriptions 515. The western transmission line corridors can be divided into four separate geographic sections. Moving from south to north, these are referred to as the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, the U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th Section, the Southwest 120th-Levee Section (also known as the West Divergence Area), and the Levee-Pennsuco Section. The western transmission line corridors are co-existent in the Turkey Point- Highway 1, U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th, and Levee- Pennsuco Sections. They diverge only in the West Divergence Area. Sections Common to All Western Corridors 516. The Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, common to all of the corridors, begins at the proposed Clear Sky substation on Turkey Point plant property and continues west for approximately ten miles, co-located with an existing transmission ROW, to approximately U.S. Highway 1. The next section common to all western corridors, U.S. Highway 1- 179 Southwest 120th Section, heads west and then north from U.S. Highway 1 to approximately Southwest 120th Street, just south of the Everglades National Park. The final section common to all western corridors is the section where the western corridors reconverge in the Pennsuco Wetlands north of Tamiami Trail and just west of the Levee substation, to the Pennsuco substation, the Levee-Pennsuco Section. Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 517. This Section of the western corridors coincides with FPL ROW containing existing transmission lines and access roads. Land uses are predominantly wetlands. Adjacent land uses already exist along this Section in a compatible manner with transmission line facilities. The proposed western transmission lines would be compatible with the land uses in this area. 518. The Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section consists of a variety of wetland habitats, including areas of mangrove wetlands in the vicinity of the L-31E canal, freshwater marshes dominated by sawgrass, occasional tree islands, as well as some areas dominated by nuisance and exotic species. Construction of the western transmission lines within this Section would result in no more than 59 acres of wetland impact, and likely less than that, based on the measures FPL has agreed to take to eliminate and reduce wetland impacts. The majority of wetlands within the 180 transmission line ROW would remain undisturbed, and the loss of wetland functions would be fully mitigated. Plants and wildlife found in the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section common to all western corridors are those adapted to wetland cover types such as wading birds, raptors, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as small mammals and occasional deer. Very few upland habitats exist, and the Section comprises an existing FPL transmission line easement, including an access road, structures, and structure pads. U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th Street This Section of the western corridors coincides with FPL ROW containing existing transmission lines and access roads. Adjacent land uses have therefore adapted to the presence of transmission lines and have remained stable over time. Land uses are predominantly agricultural with some residential, and the northern end of this Section transitions to open lands. The western transmission lines would be compatible with the land uses in this area. The Section is primarily upland in nature and dominated by agricultural land uses, primarily tree nurseries. Other agricultural uses in this area include row crops and citrus. This Section traverses portions of two areas designated by the County as NFCs, the Sunny Palms Pineland and Kings Highway Pineland. These NFCs could also be home to various 181 species of state-listed plants. Wildlife found in this Section includes common reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals that are habituated to human-induced habitats. Wetland resources within this area of the corridors are limited to small areas of freshwater marsh, ditches, and canals. Construction of the transmission lines within this area will incur minimal wetland impacts, estimated to be less than one acre of relatively low- quality wetlands. iii. Levee-Pennsuco North of the West Divergence Area, in the Levee- Pennsuco Section, all of the western corridors travel along an existing multi-circuit transmission line ROW through unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Doral, and Medley, passing alongside agricultural, industrial, and multi-family residential uses. The Section comprises active rock mining facilities and contains very little undisturbed wildlife habitat. Rock quarries may contain some habitat for aquatic species, but very little native upland habitat exists. Wildlife usage is limited to common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals found in the County. From the Florida Turnpike to the Pennsuco substation, the corridors are dominated by FPL's existing transmission lines with scattered uplands and herbaceous wetlands on the existing transmission line ROW. Adjacent land uses include residential, 182 commercial, and industrial uses in Doral. No unique wildlife usage is expected in any of this Section due to the fact the existing right-of-way has been in place and maintained for many years. Wildlife species have become accustomed to those habitats. 524. Construction of the transmission line between the Levee and Pennsuco substations will use the existing transmission line roads and structure pads to the greatest extent practicable, limiting estimated wetland impacts to approximately one acre. 525. Land uses for the western alternate corridors are identical to the land uses in the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 in the Turkey Point- U.S. Highway 1, U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th, and the Levee- Pennsuco Sections, as these Sections are common to all the corridors. West Divergence Area: FPL West Preferred and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 526. The West Divergence Area extends from the southernmost point where the first alternate corridor diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor to the Levee substation. This Section generally encompasses an area that will be entirely east of the Everglades National Park following the Land Exchange and includes the L-31N and L-30 levees/canals and eastward to 183 encompass the Krome Avenue area and Bird Drive Basin. It then runs northward to a point just west of the Levee substation where all the western corridors reconverge. 527. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor turns due east at Southwest 120th Street towards the L-31N levee. Moving north from approximately Southwest 120th Street to Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor straddles the L-31N canal and runs adjacent to the Krome Detention Center. After crossing Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor then proceeds along the L-30 levee, passing the Miccosukee Casino property, and eventually parallels Krome Avenue to the north to a point just west of the Levee substation. The FPL West Preferred Corridor then proceeds due east across the Pennsuco Wetlands into the Levee substation. 528. Within the West Divergence Area, the ecological conditions differ among the various corridors. In this portion of the Corridor, freshwater marshes (sawgrass) dominate. These freshwater marshes provide suitable foraging habitat for a variety of wading birds, and support a variety of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Some tree islands also occur within the Southwest 120th-Levee Section of the Corridor and may provide suitable nesting habitats for wading birds, some of which are listed. No wading bird colonies exist within the Corridor, but there are two colonies within 0.5 mile of its 184 boundaries. These colonies have historically contained wood storks and listed wading birds during some nesting seasons. Additionally, the FPL West Preferred Corridor includes some historical nesting sites and marginally suitable foraging habitat for the endangered Everglade snail kite, particularly in the area north of Tamiami Trail. In any of the western corridors proper for certification, throughout the West Divergence Area, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species is low. 529. In the West Divergence Area, the wetland quality in the Corridor tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80 using UMAM. Placing the ROW in the FPL West Preferred Corridor would impact no more than 137 wetland acres, given FPL's flexibility to site the ROW within the Corridor and position the transmission line structures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable. 530. In the northern portion of the West Divergence Area, the wildlife habitats within the Corridor consist primarily of sawgrass marsh with scattered tree islands on the west side of the L-31N levee and Bird Drive Basin to the east, with scattered herbaceous marsh and tree islands. The Corridor itself is primarily co-located along disturbed areas including an existing levee and canal heading to the Levee substation. 185 531. Through much of the West Divergence Area, both the FPL West Preferred Corridor and the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 straddle the L-31N levee, which represents a seam between the Everglades National Park to the west, and residential and agricultural uses to the east. Some of the lands are in transition and include agricultural lands, a few large single family estates (one unit per five acres), and open lands, with more urban development to the east. Farther north along L-31N levee, the land uses to the east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor and the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are previously-disturbed uses, rail, and predominantly rock mining. Farther north, but south of Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor continues to run along a seam between conservation uses to the west and more developed uses, including the Krome Detention Center, to the east. North of Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor straddles the L-30 levee and runs between the conservation lands in Water Conservation Area 3B and the Miccosukee Casino property and then Krome Avenue further north. The Corridor then turns east on existing ROW through the environmental protection lands of the Pennsuco Wetlands, and then through rock mining land uses to the Levee substation. 532. Existing tall structures in the vicinity of the FPL West Preferred Corridor include the Miccosukee Casino and the 186 Krome Detention Center water tower, as well as power poles and radio towers. iii. West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 533. In the West Divergence Area, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 begins approximately one mile south of a hypothetical extension of Kendall Drive and extends to the Levee substation. Where it overlaps the FPL West Preferred Corridor along the L-31N levee, the Corridor widens eastward of the L-31N levee to encompass rock mining lands. It then diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor for approximately 13 miles, turning east at a point north of a hypothetical extension of 18th Street running just south of the Krome Detention Center. It then turns north at a point east of Krome Avenue, crossing Tamiami Trail and continuing north along the Dade-Broward Levee until it reaches the FPL West Preferred Corridor alignment; the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 then continues east until it reaches the Levee substation. 534. For most of the distance along the L-31N levee, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 includes, but is wider than, the FPL West Preferred Corridor. This configuration provides enough room on both sides of the canal for placement of the proposed western transmission lines, with some flexibility to potentially locate all or part of the transmission lines on the rock-mining lands and other private and public property to the 187 east. The Corridor includes sufficient real property east of the L-31N Canal to accommodate the full transmission line ROW in some areas, if that proves to be a practical option for FPL and the rock mining companies. 535. Where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 overlaps the FPL West Preferred Corridor in the West Divergence Area, such as along the L-31N Canal, the ecological conditions are the same, with conservation uses (the Everglades National Park) to the west and predominantly mining and rail uses to the east. However, the widened area of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 immediately to the east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor includes primarily previously-disturbed rail and mining operations, as well as shrub and brushland, and remnant upland and wetland habitats. 536. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor by turning eastward along a hypothetical extension of Southwest 18th Street, at the northern boundary of the rock mining overlay west of Krome Avenue. In this area, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 passes south of the Krome Detention Center, then runs eastward through the Bird Drive Basin overlay, consisting of open lands, wetlands, and conservation lands. The adjacent land uses in that area are open lands, wetlands, and conservation lands. In the Bird Drive Basin the land use is mixed ownership of governmental and 188 private parcels. The width of the corridor in this location provides flexibility to minimize crossings of private property in the Bird Drive Basin. 537. Where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 crosses wetlands within the Bird Drive Basin and, north of Tamiami Trail, the eastern edge of the Pennsuco Wetlands, the wildlife habitats generally consist of herbaceous marsh (sawgrass), wet prairie, shrub/brushland, and tree islands (primarily melaleuca). This area is used by wetland-dependent wildlife, such as wading birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammal, and deer. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is, however, located farther than the FPL West Preferred Corridor from known locations of wood stork colonies located along and north of Tamiami Trail. At the point where it turns north and for the remainder of its length until it reaches the Levee substation, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is very wide. This allows maximum flexibility in aligning the corridor so as to avoid obstacles and minimize impacts. 538. The Bird Drive Basin is a County regulatory zoning overlay that consists primarily of wetlands, although in many cases they are low-quality herbaceous wetlands with scattered tree islands (primarily melaleuca). It is located east of the rock mining zoning overlay and Krome Avenue from approximately Southwest 88th Street to Southwest 8th Street (Tamiami Trail). 189 Wetlands in the Bird Drive Basin and the east side of the Pennsuco Wetlands are generally lower in quality compared to wetlands located further to the west, due to increased proliferation of nuisance and exotic species of vegetation. Wetland quality within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80, and siting the ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would impact no more than 122 wetland acres. The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is an area designated by the County in the CDMP for existing urban uses, while the UEA, adjacent to the UDB, is designated by the County for anticipated future urban development after 2015, if there is a need based on population growth. Corridors farthest from these areas are more desirable from the standpoint of potential conflict with residential and urban land uses, although all would be compatible from a land use perspective. Both the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor are entirely west of the area designated by the County as the UEA and even farther west of the area designated as the UDB. There is no urban development near the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. The western transmission lines in any of these corridors would be compatible and consistent with the adjacent 190 land uses, including the Everglades National Park, and would serve the broad interests of the public. c. West Divergence Area: Other Western Alternate Corridors Vegetation/wildlife habitats within the West Divergence Area of MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor have a mixture of agricultural areas, uplands, and wetlands. Land is more disturbed and wetlands more degraded the farther east one heads, as compared to the areas closer to the Everglades National Park. Wildlife usage is more limited to the east than to the west as a result of the land disturbances. Wetland quality in MDLPA No. 1 tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80 using UMAM; MDLPA No. 3 wetlands were of somewhat lower quality in spots, averaging between 0.60 and 0.80. The NPCA Corridor, located farthest east, had the lowest quality wetlands, averaging between 0.60 and 0.70. In the West Divergence Area, the acres of wetlands potentially impacted by each alternate corridor, and therefore the amount of mitigation required to offset the impacts, also tends to decrease to the east and increase to the west. MDLPA No. 1 would impact no more than 199 acres of wetlands. In contrast, MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor, located the farthest east, would impact 165 and 152 acres of wetlands, respectively. 191 546. Wildlife species usage in the West Divergence Area of the alternate corridors consists of common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of the region. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in certain portions of the alternate corridors. 547. Within the West Divergence Area, the alternate corridors cross agricultural lands, open lands, rock mining, residential parcels, and wetlands. MDLPA No. 1 548. In the north portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 1 deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor for approximately four miles between Tamiami Trail and the Levee substation, turning east north of Tamiami Trail. It crosses the Pennsuco Wetlands approximately two miles farther south than the FPL West Preferred Corridor and is coexistent with the FPL West Preferred Corridor for its remainder, generally following the L- 31N levee and canal. Except in the area north of Tamiami Trail to the Levee substation, MDLPA No. 1 is identical to the FPL West Preferred Corridor. 549. The ecological conditions in the south and center portions of the West Divergence Area of MDLPA No. 1 are the same as the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. Like the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, it 192 travels along the same seam between land uses along the L-31N levee and canal and adjacent to/within active rock mining areas. 550. Within MDLPA No. 1, uplands in the north portion of the West Divergence Area consist primarily of roads and levees. The wetlands are primarily sawgrass marsh with melaleuca- dominated tree islands. Wildlife species usage consists of common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of the region. No known listed species occurrences were identified, but it is expected that wading birds would use the area for foraging. The northern part of MDLPA No. 1 in the West Divergence Area is within 1,500 feet of one wading bird colony containing wood storks along Tamiami Trail. MDLPA No. 3 551. MDLPA No. 3 follows a more easterly pattern in the West Divergence Area than the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. It deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 for approximately 13 miles between Southwest 120th Street and the Levee substation. It turns east approximately one-half mile south of the theoretical extension of Kendall Drive, then north along Krome Avenue, then through the Bird Drive Basin and eastern Pennsuco Wetlands to the Levee substation. 552. In the south portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 3 follows the West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West 193 Preferred Corridors until it turns east along Southwest 100th Street, through residential, agricultural, and open/mining land uses. 553. In the south portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 3 includes agricultural and rock mining areas as well as sawgrass marsh, native wetland hardwoods, and exotic wetland hardwoods. Wildlife habitat in this area is very limited. 554. The wildlife habitats within the central portion of MDLPA No. 3 in the West Divergence Area consist of agricultural areas adjacent to Krome Avenue and lower quality wetlands east of Krome Avenue. These areas include wetlands consisting primarily of freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and tree islands (many of which contain melaleuca). 555. The north portion of MDLPA No. 3 in the West Divergence Area crosses wetland habitat within the Bird Drive Basin and Pennsuco Wetlands. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in this area although no breeding colonies are known in this area. In the Bird Drive Basin, there is a mixture of some low-quality exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie wetlands; the corridors cross Tamiami Trail, and then enter the Pennsuco Wetlands in an area where there is a mixture of exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie. All of the corridors converge just to the west of the Levee substation. 194 556. The center and north portions of MDLPA No. 3 and NPCA Corridor in the West Divergence Area are generally overlapping. From the intersection of Southwest 100th Street and Southwest 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue, MDLPA No. 3 and NPCA Corridor move north following Krome Avenue/Southwest 177th Avenue and angle northeastward near Southwest 72nd Street to run through environmental preservation/wetlands, open lands, and rock mining lands, and near to residential lands. They are both located within the Bird Drive Basin in this area. From the Bird Drive Basin area, the corridors travel northward generally along the Dade-Broward Levee alignment to the Levee substation. A portion of MDLPA No. 3 is located within the County-designated North Trail Basin. The two corridors are both wide at this location, angling to the east through Bird Drive Basin wetlands to the Dade-Broward Levee alignment. In this area, they also generally overlap the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, which is the widest choice of corridors in this area. 557. The two corridors both cross the UEA and are the closest corridors to the UDB. They also cross the property owned by Limonar, which has yet-to-be finalized plans for future residential and mixed-use development of its 485-acre tract. NPCA Corridor 558. The NPCA Corridor deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor near Southwest 120th Street to the Levee 195 substation for approximately 15 miles. It turns eastward in the Southwest 120th Street area to Krome Avenue, where it turns northward along Krome Avenue, generally following MDLPA No. 3 to a point just west of the Levee substation, where the alternate corridors all converge. 559. The south boundary of the West Divergence Area is defined by the southern boundary of the NPCA Corridor. It turns eastward and encompasses an area on the south side of Southwest 120th Street, including land outside the Everglades National Park and south of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Between Southwest 194th Avenue and Southwest 197th Avenue, the NPCA Corridor jogs northward to be within the FPL West Preferred Corridor. It then turns north to run for a short distance along the L-31N levee, and then eastward again along Southwest 112th Street, where it turns northward again at Southwest 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue. Like MDLPA No. 1 and MDLPA No. 3, the NPCA Corridor runs through predominantly agricultural areas/rock mining areas along Krome Avenue as well as the Bird Drive Basin overlay and the North Trail Basin overlay. 560. As noted above, in the central portion, the NPCA Corridor overlaps MDLPA No. 3 and thus has the same adjacent land uses. It also crosses the UEA as well as the property owned by Limonar, which has plans, although not yet final, for future residential and mixed-use development of this property. 196 561. The NPCA Corridor has similar ecology as MDLPA No. 3 in the southernmost part of the West Divergence Area but traverses more agricultural areas. 562. The center portion of the NPCA Corridor in the West Divergence Area, like MDLPA No. 3, consists of agricultural areas and wetlands, providing suitable habitat for a variety of common wading birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. 563. From an ecological perspective, the northern part of the NPCA Corridor within the West Divergence Area is also the same as MDLPA No. 3. Both traverse wetland habitat within the Bird Drive Basin, the North Trail Basin, and the Pennsuco Wetlands. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in this area although no breeding colonies are known for this area. In the Bird Drive Basin, there is a mixture of some low- quality exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie wetlands. The corridors cross Tamiami Trail, and then enter the Pennsuco Wetlands in an area where there is a mixture of exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie. All of the corridors converge just to the west of the Levee substation. 564. Wetlands to the east of the L-31N levee within the Bird Drive Basin and the Pennsuco Wetlands, in which MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor traverse, are somewhat lower in quality 197 compared to wetlands located west of the L-31N canal, in which MDLPA No. 1 traverses. 565. In the north portion of the West Divergence Area, the West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 1, and MDLPA No. 3 narrow as they approach the Levee substation, limiting the crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands and adjacent land uses, while the NPCA Corridor remains wide from north of the North Trail Basin to the Levee substation. 4. Western Transmission Line Construction and Design Standards 566. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines will comply with all applicable design standards. They will be located, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with all applicable non-procedural regulatory standards; these standards are reflected in the Conditions of Certification, and FPL has committed to implementing those conditions. The entire construction process for the western transmission lines will take between four to five years. 567. Existing transmission lines and access roads in the certified corridor will first be assessed to determine whether they are suitable for construction and ongoing operation and maintenance activities for the proposed western transmission lines. If determined to be suitable, these features will be 198 used, which will minimize the need for new road construction in the area that could potentially impact wetlands or surface hydrology. 568. In the past, FPL has used the SFWMD's existing levees for access onto other projects and may seek to use these levees as access roads for this Project, which could further minimize the need for new access roads. 569. Where new access roads and structure pads are necessary, they will be constructed with clean fill material and unpaved. Access road and pad elevations will be established after a review of available drainage basin data, seasonal water elevations, and flow patterns. The final grade elevation of any necessary access roads and structure pads will be sufficient to ensure emergency access to provide at least 12 inches of clearance over seasonal or mean high-water levels or over controlled water levels in areas where water levels are regulated. The roads and pads will have two-to-one side slopes, which allows for a stable side slope. An 18-foot top width of the road is proposed to allow for large vehicular use during construction and maintenance. A variation on this width will occur in the southern portion of the corridor that is common to all of the western corridors proper for certification where the main plant construction temporary access road will be built over the location of the future permanent transmission line access 199 road. This wider plant access will also be used temporarily for transmission access. Once the plant construction is complete, the temporary additional width will be removed. 570. Where practicable, access roads and structure pads will be constructed outside of wetlands. Culverts will be installed under the access roads and structure pads as needed to maintain pre-construction flows. Culverts will be covered with at least two feet of clean fill to prevent them from being crushed by vehicles. 571. FPL will use sedimentation control devices to control erosion and turbidity, and will utilize stable, compacted fill material, along with seeding and mulching of side slopes, to minimize the potential for impacts to wetlands. 572. Transmission line construction includes material hauling, spotting, and structure erection. If multiple-piece structures are used for the western transmission lines (tubular steel poles installed on concrete caisson foundations), the augured holes will be approximately nine feet in diameter to accommodate the installation of concrete caisson foundations. 573. For the western 500-kV transmission lines, the typical span length will be approximately 1,000 feet between structures. For the west 230-kV transmission line, the typical span length from Clear Sky to the Levee substation area will be approximately 500 feet, and from the Levee substation area to 200 the Pennsuco substation, the typical span length will range from approximately 250 to 750 feet, following the alignment of the existing 230-kV transmission lines in that ROW. 574. Span lengths vary for several reasons. Sometimes a pole location is adjusted to avoid a tree canopy, wetland, or archaeological or historical site, or to coincide with property lines or the location of existing distribution poles that will be replaced. They can also be adjusted to accommodate the crossing of highways, water bodies, or other linear features. 575. The typical ROW width identified in the application to accommodate the three western transmission lines between the Clear Sky and Levee substations is approximately 330 feet, which for a majority of the length of the corridor comprises FPL's existing transmission line ROW. Between the Levee and Pennsuco substations the ROW will be approximately 170 feet, and the 230- kV transmission line will be mostly constructed within existing FPL transmission line ROWs, with the exception of the upland easement requested in a mining area. 576. FPL establishes a transmission line ROW through multiple means, such as the purchase of easement rights over affected parcels, property in fee simple, and for public ROW, the acquisition of longitudinal use permits and licenses for crossing permits. 201 577. Where FPL is not constrained to a 330-foot ROW, it may use its traditional 500-kV H-frame unguyed structures using a horizontal configuration. Use of such structures would allow greater span lengths between structures, potentially minimizing wetland impacts. 578. All of the western alternate corridors, including the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, cross property owned by state and federal agencies in the West Divergence Area east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. FPL may not have the eminent domain authority to condemn all of the necessary rights in those government parcels. 579. No party presented evidence suggesting that undergrounding for any portion of the western transmission lines was appropriate for the proposed western transmission lines or that undergrounding was feasible for the western 500-kV transmission lines. 580. Construction of the Levee substation expansion will require clearing and grubbing the expansion area. Turbidity screens and other erosion control devices and techniques will be used to minimize construction impacts to nearby wetlands and water bodies. The expanded substation yard area will be excavated, filled with clean fill, graded, and rolled to match the existing substation yard elevation. The existing grounding 202 grid will be expanded and a new security fence around the expansion area will be installed. 581. After the substation expansion area is prepared, concrete caisson foundations will be installed for the new equipment using drilling rigs and large cranes. Once the foundations are complete, the new bus system, circuit breakers, switches, and other associated equipment will be installed. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements Wetlands 582. The corridor selection process appropriately eliminated and reduced impacts to wetlands and waters of the state to the extent practicable, as required by applicable rules. First, FPL has eliminated consideration of the FPL West Secondary Corridor for this Project completely, despite having owned the ROW within this corridor for over 40 years. Second, assuming the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 can be feasibly and timely obtained, FPL's preference for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 over the FPL West Preferred Corridor constitutes a substantial additional wetland impact elimination measure by moving a significant length of the lines in the West Divergence Area to the east side of the L-30 and L-31N levees and avoiding a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands. Third, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are co-located with existing disturbed 203 ROWs, with existing linear facilities and using existing access roads and infrastructure where available. The need for new access roads will be minimized in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, due to the ability to use existing access. 583. Additional minimization of impacts will be incorporated throughout the entire certified corridor during final transmission line design. Locating the transmission lines within corridors allows flexibility in routing and additional wetland avoidance/minimization opportunities such as adjusting the location of structure pads and access roads, and/or adjusting the span lengths between structures. 584. No significant adverse effect on the abundance and diversity of wildlife is anticipated as a result of construction in any of the corridors proper for certification. Pre-clearing listed species surveys will be conducted. Most herbaceous and low-growing wetland vegetation will not need to be cleared. Construction practices in wetlands will retain the vegetative root mat in areas not filled, thereby minimizing impacts to wetland vegetation. 585. Impacts will be rectified or mitigated to the extent practicable by restoring wetlands within the ROW that are not directly impacted by structure or pad installation. Also, FPL has committed to controlling exotic vegetation within the entire ROW (both wetlands and uplands). Any remaining unavoidable 204 impacts will be fully compensated through the Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and the Everglades Mitigation Bank. These measures satisfy the state Environmental Resource Permit criteria and the County code criteria relative to wetland impacts. Wetlands to the east of the L-31N levee within the Bird Drive Basin (where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and NPCA Corridor are located) are lower in quality compared to wetlands located west of the L-31N levee (where the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are located). They also experience more shallow inundation compared to wetlands to the west of L-31N levee, reducing the amount of wetland fill required to elevate proposed roads and transmission structure pads and the amount of mitigation required for the wetland impacts. Construction, operation, location, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective. Restrictive clearing techniques will be employed in forested wetlands and sensitive pine rockland communities. NPCA offered testimony regarding federal law and international treaties to underscore the importance of the Everglades National Park wetlands, including designation of part 205 of present-day Everglades National Park as a Wilderness Area (excluding the East Everglades addition) in 1978, designation of Everglades National Park as a world heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 1979, and inclusion of Everglades National Park among the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance in 1987. However, all of these designations predated Congressional authorization of the Land Exchange. 591. In addition, the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, cited by NPCA witnesses, predated the negotiations and agreements, subsequently authorized by Congress, for the Land Exchange. Avian Species 592. The western corridors were analyzed for their potential to impact avian species, including wading birds and the endangered wood stork and Everglade snail kite, since they are known to occur in the area. 593. There are no known current nesting sites for listed avian species within any of the western corridors, but there are wading bird colonies in the vicinity of the FPL West Preferred Corridor in the area of Tamiami Trail. 594. The USFWS has recommended primary and secondary protection zones with specific management restrictions in order 206 to minimize wood stork colony disturbance. Such recommended management restrictions for wood storks and their colonies would not prohibit placement of the proposed transmission lines in the FPL West Preferred Corridor or West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. 595. The wood stork is known to nest in four colonies both south and north of Tamiami Trail and west of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. These colonies have been well documented for years and are known as the Tamiami East 1 and 2, Tamiami West, and 3B Mud East colonies. The NPCA Corridor and MDLPA No. are the farthest from these colonies. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 fall within 1,500 feet of one of these colonies. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is located east of all of these colonies, and the closest colony (Tamiami East 1) is approximately one mile away from the closest corridor boundary. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 falls outside the recommended primary (500 to 1,500 feet) and secondary (2,500 feet) management zones for the wading bird colonies published by the USFWS. No known listed species have been recorded in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, or NPCA Corridor, but it could be expected that listed species would utilize portions of those corridors. 596. The primary and secondary management zones for these colonies are flexible and much smaller management zones may be 207 applied, as was done for the Tamiami Trail Modifications: Next Steps Project near the West Preferred Corridor. Three wood stork nesting colonies are located along Tamiami Trail to the west of the western corridors. One colony (3B-Mud East) is located farther north, to the west of L-30 levee. The FPL West Preferred Corridor crosses only portions of the secondary management zones for the Tamiami East 1 and 3B-Mud East colonies. None of the other western corridors cross either a primary or secondary management zone of a wood stork colony. 597. None of the Everglade snail kite's critical habitat areas, as designated by the USFWS, are crossed by any of the western corridors. The closest critical habitat area is over ten miles to the west, and not "in close proximity," as suggested by NPCA. 598. Although some parties contend otherwise, the record establishes there will be no adverse impacts on avian species, including listed species such as the wood stork and Everglade snail kite. In all of the corridors proper for certification FPL will implement design features to protect avian species. These include: (1) wide spacing of the energized conductors to avoid birds touching two conductors simultaneously, which is the manner in which many avian electrocutions on power lines occur; perch discouragers on every pole; and (3) bird flight 208 diverters on all of the spans on the overhead or ground wires within one-half mile of any wood stork colonies. 599. FPL has agreed to comply with very specific wood stork and Everglade snail kite conditions of certification proposed by FWC. These are sufficient to protect the species. 600. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed avian species for enabling existing nesting by these species because the upland areas to be affected are of low value to wetland-dependent species. 601. FPL's APP outlines specific design and construction standards for distribution and transmission lines, substations, and other avian mortality reduction methods. These standards are designed to avoid and minimize potential bird impact issues such as electrocutions and collisions, as well as avian enhancement activities that can provide benefits to birds from FPL structures and activities. These steps should resolve the concerns expressed by NPCA at hearing. 602. The APP also provides FPL managers and field personnel with a single, accessible information resource describing avian protection background issues, relevant bird species, potential impact issues, applicable federal, state, and 209 local regulatory context, key resources and contacts for bird issue responses, and FPL responsibilities. 603. The APP also outlines specific training, response, reporting, and quality control protocols to ensure that FPL personnel are adequately prepared for responding to potential bird impact issues, focusing on bird mortality, injury, or nesting incidents, and on key potentially affected listed bird species, as well as personnel safety procedures to be implemented during responses to bird impact situations. 604. In light of these measures to be implemented, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that avian species in the region are unlikely to suffer electrocution from or collision with the transmission lines. 605. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely impact wood storks. There will be no loss of nesting habitat as a result of the proposed transmission lines, any loss of wood stork foraging habitat will be fully mitigated, and there will be minimal to negligible exposure of wood storks to risk of electrocution as a result of the western transmission line corridors. There will be only a small risk of a wood stork collision with the transmission lines because their large wings enable them to fly slowly with higher maneuverability. Any risk will be further minimized by use of 210 flight diverters. While it is assumed juvenile wood storks are poorer flyers than adults and may be more susceptible to collisions, there has never been a documented case of a juvenile wood stork colliding with a transmission line. The period of exposure of young wood storks to hazards around the colony is very short, as they leave the colony within about 48 hours after fledging. 606. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact Everglade snail kites. While the Everglade snail kite is known to occasionally forage within parts of some of the western transmission line corridors, the area currently lacks apple snails, which are the Everglade snail kite's primary food source. If apple snails were to return, however, Everglade snail kites could also return. Everglade snail kite foraging and nesting behavior is compatible with transmission facilities and habitats under transmission lines, so no impacts to Everglade snail kites are expected. By virtue of their flight morphology and behavior, Everglade snail kites are not likely to be exposed to any risk of electrocution or collision mortality from the transmission lines. 607. With respect to all other listed avian species, habitat loss will be minimal to negligible because they will be 211 restricted to a minor loss of foraging habitat for some wetland- dependent species with no significant adverse effect on the population, and this habitat loss will be fully mitigated. There is no risk of electrocution from the proposed transmission lines, as the separation of energized parts exceeds the maximum wingspan or bill tip to foot length of all listed bird species potentially occurring within the area. While some listed species will be exposed to risk of collision with the lines, this risk will be relatively small and is not likely to affect any populations. 608. In light of the APP and other protection measures described above, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission corridors proper for certification will be consistent and in compliance with FWC regulations related to the protection of threatened and endangered avian species, as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. More strict measures than those imposed by the FWC, or described in the APP, are not necessary. 609. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of any listed avian 212 species because all wetland impacts will be mitigated consistent with applicable regulations and the approved mitigation plan. No adverse impact to the conservation of birds or their habitats, including endangered and threatened species, is expected. Impacts on birds, including listed species and their habitats, have been avoided and minimized through the siting of the corridors and design of the transmission lines. The risks to avian species are small and all impacts will be fully mitigated. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not cause adverse secondary impacts to avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact the population of any threatened or endangered avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification will not prevent the preservation of avian species. Through the use of reasonable and available methods, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors 213 proper for certification will minimize any adverse effects on avian species and their habitats. FPL has committed to taking a variety of steps to minimize any potential adverse impacts on avian species and their habitats including the siting of corridors, avian-protection design features and construction standards, and mitigation. 615. From an avian perspective, FPL's mitigation will fully compensate for any functions that may be lost on environmentally sensitive lands as a result of the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines. 616. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of avian species, including listed avian species and their habitat. Non-Avian Wildlife Species 617. Impacts of location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines on non-avian wildlife were also evaluated and specifically included evaluations of potential impacts to the Florida panther, Eastern indigo snake, and the American crocodile, since they are listed species known to occur in the area. 618. In all of the corridors within the west study area, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species, 214 including listed species, is low. Care was taken in the corridor routing to avoid and minimize proximity to known listed species locations. Listed species pre-clearing and construction surveys will be conducted. Prior to conducting surveys, FPL will coordinate with the FWC and USFWS to obtain and follow the current survey protocols, as memorialized in the FWC-recommended conditions of certification to which FPL has agreed to comply in any of the western corridors. 619. The ecological value of the uplands to wetland- dependent listed species for nesting and denning will not be adversely affected by location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors. 620. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission line corridors will not have an adverse effect on the abundance and diversity of wildlife, including listed species, because all corridors offer flexibility in locating the ROW to avoid site-specific listed species locations, all corridors will be required to comply with conditions of certification requiring pre-clearing and construction surveys, and all wetland impacts will be mitigated. 621. Construction of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification, or any 215 portion thereof, will not have a significant adverse effect on fish habitat or the abundance or diversity of fish. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife populations, including endangered and threatened species, or their habitats; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective; and will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to non-avian aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species for nesting and denning. Construction, operation, location, and maintenance will comply with all of the conditions proposed by FWC and all agency substantive requirements. In light of the proposed protective measures and the proposed mitigation, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not cause adverse secondary impacts to fish and wildlife; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; and will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective. 216 Panthers The proposed western transmission line corridors are within the extreme southeastern area of the range of the Florida panther in south Florida. All western corridors fall partially within the panther primary zone and partially within the panther secondary zone. Florida panthers have been recorded in the area of the proposed western transmission line corridors. There is, however, a very low likelihood that panthers would actually occur in the area during construction. There are positive benefits that accrue to Florida panthers and their habitat and prey associated with the placement of transmission lines within panther habitats. Therefore, the transmission lines will not result in the loss of panther habitat or adverse impacts to the panther. FPL has proposed protection measures for Florida panthers in the unlikely event they would occur in the transmission line ROWs, including training of construction personnel and unannounced inspections. FPL has also agreed to FWC-proposed protection measures for Florida panthers. Those protection measures are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to Florida panthers from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated with the proposed western transmission lines. 217 628. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of Florida panthers. Eastern Indigo Snakes 629. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed in the western corridors. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of Eastern indigo snakes. Hydrologic Considerations 630. New access roads, structure pads, and stormwater discharges during construction in any of the western corridors proper for certification have the potential to impact surficial hydrology. NPCA contends that FPL's current proposal to construct culverts in its preferred corridors will stop sheet flow, the proposed roads and structure pads will disrupt water flow, and this will adversely affect the hydrological resources of the Everglades National Park. For the following reasons, these concerns are not well-founded. 631. Where new access roads are needed or upgrades are required to accommodate construction vehicles, those access roads will be unpaved and constructed using clean fill. Culverts will be included in wetland areas to maintain channel 218 flow and overland flow. Culverts are also expected to be used under structure pads where required to maintain existing surface flows. These culverts would help to equalize water volume and maintain pool equilibrium. 632. The spacing, diameter, and length of the culverts for access roads and structure pads will be based on hydrological studies that will be conducted post-certification, where final project elements are reasonably expected to impact surface or groundwater. Any culverts will comply with applicable conditions of certification. A combination of different culvert sizes is expected to be used. The design will be dictated depending on where the corridor is located and the amount of water that will need to be managed, among many different criteria. Typically, culverts installed in wetlands are designed so the bottom of the culvert will match the wetland floor elevation. 633. The proposed western transmission lines will comply with applicable agency non-procedural requirements, including requirements of the County, SFWMD, and Department, as well as SFWMD ROW Occupancy Permit Criteria. In particular, the conceptual design specified by FPL in its application will maintain surface water flows and will not result in ponding or flooding. 219 The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines will comply with applicable Department non-procedural environmental resource permitting criteria and other non-procedural requirements. Based upon the conceptual design specified by FPL in its application, the design of the roads and structure pads will incorporate drainage features such as culverts to allow the free flow of water. The function of culverts is to allow water to flow freely without impeding natural systems. The design used for the western transmission lines will ensure that culverts maintain equilibrium of water on both sides of roads and structure pads. FPL will also implement and maintain erosion and sediment control devices and best management practices such as silt fences, hay bales, erosion control blankets, and turbidity screens. FPL proposes to conduct hydrologic studies if the final project elements are reasonably expected to impact surface or ground water to ensure that any impacts associated with hydrology, water quality, and water supply will be avoided and minimized. FPL has committed to a flowage easement that would maintain existing sheet water and allow for future improvement 220 of surface water flows across the transmission line ROW located within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands CERP Project study area boundaries, which traverse the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 section of the western transmission corridors. 639. FPL has proposed specific design measures to protect surficial hydrology of the Wink Eye Slough and the Northeast Shark River Slough. These sloughs are unique environmental features. The Wink Eye Slough traverses the west corridors in the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, common to all the west corridors. The eastern edge of the Northeast Shark River Slough is within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 in the L-31N levee portion of the West Divergence Area. The predominant hydrologic flow of the Northeast Shark River Slough occurs west of the L-31N levee. FPL will design the transmission line access roads and structure pads to avoid sheet flow impacts to these sloughs, considering design alternatives such as culverts, stabilized at-grade roads, geoswales, or other techniques to maintain the sheet flow in compliance with applicable non-procedural requirements. CERP 640. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification are not 221 inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall objectives of CERP. FPL demonstrated that the western transmission line structures and access roads will be designed and constructed in any of the western corridors in such a manner as to maintain surface flows and sheet flow, and no flood hazards will be created as a result of the transmission lines or access roads. Access roads will be properly culverted and appropriately constructed so as to maintain drainage and manage water quality and will not interfere with sheet flow or the higher water levels anticipated as a result of CERP implementation. The transmission line structures and access roads will not negatively impact the quality, quantity, or timing of the distribution of water. Given these considerations, a contention that the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or back-up West Preferred Corridor will negatively affect the CERP Modified Water Deliveries Project, or specific goals and objectives of the CERP Yellow Book (the blueprint for Everglades restoration), is rejected. FPL has submitted flowage easements to the County for review in accordance with Condition 17 of County Resolution Z- 56-07. 222 East Everglades Area of Critical Environmental Concern The County has a zoning overlay district known as the East Everglades Area of Critical Environmental Concern (EEACEC) that comprises approximately 242 square miles, part of which is within the Everglades National Park. See ch. 33B, MDC. A portion of the corridor common to all western corridors crosses the EEACEC south of Southwest 120th Street. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and portions of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 1 follow the extreme eastern edge of the EEACEC where they travel along the L-31N levee. The EEACEC's northern boundary is Tamiami Trail. The remaining alternate corridors are not located within the EEACEC in this area. For parcels within the EEACEC zoning overlay district, additional restrictions apply to development to ensure, singly or cumulatively, no adverse effects on the hydrologic or ecologic integrity of the east Everglades. See ch. 33B, MDC. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, these EEACEC restrictions do not apply to transmission lines. Notwithstanding the inapplicability of these restrictions, the evidence establishes that the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in corridors traversing the EEACEC in 223 compliance with the agreed-upon conditions of certification will maintain existing flows and water quality and will not have an adverse impact on natural flow of water or cause a change in water quality or quantity in the adjacent Everglades National Park. 646. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any portion of the EEACEC likewise would not have an adverse impact on wetland flora and fauna within the adjacent Everglades National Park or cause material injury to wetland ecology on adjoining lands or on portions of the ROW not proposed for placement of the transmission lines. For example, FPL has committed to employ best management practices during construction to avoid sedimentation and undertake exotic vegetation control within the ROW. Bird Drive Everglades Wetland Basin and North Trail Basin 647. The County has two environmental districts within portions of the proposed western transmission line corridors, which have been adopted in chapter 24, MDC. The Bird Drive Everglades Wetland Basin (Bird Drive Basin) is located south of Tamiami Trail and east of Krome Avenue. The North Trail Basin is located north of Tamiami Trail and approximately two miles east of Krome Avenue. 224 648. Sections 24-48.20 and 24-48.21 require that all work within the Bird Drive Basin or the North Trail Basin must be consistent with the Land Management Plan to ensure the maintenance of biological resources in that area. Those provisions call for minimizing impacts to flood drainage; minimizing impacts to water storage capacity and Biscayne Aquifer recharge; and maintaining desirable biological values, or mitigating for loss of such values. 649. A portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MLDPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor traverse the Bird Drive Basin and North Trail Basin. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 traverses a short distance of the northern portion of the Bird Drive Basin and the westernmost edge of the North Trail Basin. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor traverse a significant portion of the Bird Drive Basin and the western edge of the North Trail Basin. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are not located within the Bird Drive or North Trail Basins. 650. The western transmission lines will not cause impacts to flood drainage, will minimize impacts to water storage capacity and Biscayne Aquifer recharge, and will allow the areas to maintain desirable biological values. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any portion of the Bird Drive Basin or 225 North Trail Basin will not cause any unmitigated impacts to wetlands. The placement of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors within the Bird Drive Basin and North Trail Basin will be compatible with the County's land management plans for those areas. Natural Forest Communities Two NFCs are located in the section of the western corridors between U.S. Highway 1 and Southwest 120th Street, a section that is common to all the western corridors. In accordance with Condition 20 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL will minimize impacts to NFCs in the western corridors consistent with the NFC standards and requirements of chapter 24, MDC. FPL has agreed to a stipulation and associated conditions with the County to not place any structures within the edge of the Sunny Palms NFC, which is included in the western transmission line corridors. For the Kings Highway Pinelands NFC, FPL already has an existing easement and transmission line crossing in this area. Additional vegetation clearing and construction for the certified facilities will occur only in accordance with the stipulated conditions applicable to NFCs. 226 Use of SFWMD ROW, Crossings, and Levees FPL's proposed western transmission lines will cross several SFWMD canals and may use a portion of SFWMD ROW linearly along the L-31N and L-30 levees. The proposed western transmission lines also involve the crossing of SFWMD bridges. Crossings of SFWMD canals and crossing or use of SFWMD levees and bridges will be required for all western corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor traverses or runs longitudinally with the following SFWMD facilities: L-31E canal, C-113 canal, C-103 (Mowry) canal, C-102 (Princeton) canal, L-31N canal, C-1W (Black Creek) canal, C-4 (Tamiami) canal, L-29 Borrow Enlargement, and L-30N canal. The FPL West Preferred Corridor or West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 may use SFWMD levees L-31N, L-30, and L-29 for access during construction, operation, and maintenance. MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor may also require the crossing of several SFWMD facilities including canals and levees. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not interfere with the present construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. While parallel runs have a potential for interfering with the District's operation and maintenance of its system, it is possible to accommodate transmission lines with site-specific 227 configurations. Transmission lines have been successfully designed and constructed within SFWMD ROW previously. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not interfere with proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. This applies only to proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance known at the time of FPL's project design. The proposed transmission lines within SFWMD lands will not result in damage from soil erosion. Structural integrity of bridges crossed by vehicular traffic will be certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Before FPL's use of levees for construction and maintenance access, FPL will coordinate with the SFWMD Right-of- Way Department to develop a plan for compatible use of these facilities. Any improvements within the associated canal ROWs will maintain the structural integrity of the levee(s) at a level as good as or better than the conditions in existence immediately prior to commencement of FPL's work activities. All activity within SFWMD ROWs will be conducted consistent with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements and 228 will be consistent with the development and regulation of dams (or levees) and other works to provide water storage for beneficial purposes. 662. The western transmission lines will not adversely affect the levees or other works crossed or paralleled by the transmission lines; unduly burden SFWMD interests; contribute to damage from floods, soil erosion, or excessive drainage; affect disease-carrying vectors and pests so as to impact public health and welfare; or have adverse effects on human health or waters of the state. 663. SFWMD has stipulated to the use of its ROWs in whichever corridor is ultimately approved for certification, provided the Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1 to this Recommended Order are met. 664. FPL has agreed to accept the conditions of certification offered by SFWMD, and FPL has demonstrated that the conditions offered by SFWMD relating to ROW occupancy permits will be met. Upland Easement 665. The 230-kV segment of the western transmission lines that is common to all western corridors proper for certification includes an approximately four-acre parcel of state-owned uplands. The parcel is adjacent to an existing FPL transmission line ROW through previously mined areas east of Levee substation 229 and northwest of the intersection of Doral Boulevard and the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike. The area is currently subject to a commercial mining lease and is a limerock mine. FPL has requested that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to issue an upland easement for this approximately four-acre parcel through this proceeding. 666. The upland easement over this narrow strip is required for the Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line in order to comply with EMF standards and to accommodate conductor swing out in high winds. No construction will occur within the upland easement. 667. The narrow strip of uplands for which FPL is seeking an easement from the state is between two rock mine pits and currently used as a berm access road by mining operations. It has limited value to wildlife. All of the western corridors must use this same segment. 668. FPL will undertake all activities on the upland easement in accordance with best management practices. Placement of the proposed transmission line in the area of the requested upland easement over state lands will not have adverse impacts on conservation, the environment, natural resources, wetlands, or fish and wildlife values. 669. If the easement is not obtained, FPL could still construct the proposed line, but that would involve 230 reconstructing two of the existing transmission lines to make adequate space within FPL's existing ROW, and it may be very difficult to get the extended transmission line outages that would be required to reconstruct those facilities. 670. Grant of the easement is not contrary to the public interest, as the area is already subject to a commercial mining lease and is a limestone mine. There is a clear public need for the Project, and there are no reasonable alternative locations. The public does not use the area to be covered by the upland easement. General Considerations 671. The evidence establishes that the structural integrity of bridges, dams, or levees will not be affected by construction or operation of the western transmission lines; the lines will not cause damage from soil erosion; they will not cause or contribute to flood damage or excessive drainage; they will not affect disease-carrying vectors and pests so as to impact public health and welfare; and they will not have other adverse effects on human health or water resources. 672. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification will comply with applicable noise regulations and will not have an adverse impact on air quality. 231 The western transmission lines will comply fully with the applicable Department standards for EMF from transmission lines. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission line corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact archaeological or historic structures, sites, or resources. There is no material difference between the western transmission line corridors proper for certification in terms of impacts to cultural resources and archaeological and historic sites. All of the western corridors provide sufficient access to the proposed transmission lines, either via existing public roads, existing FPL access roads, or through the use of access corridors to ensure suitable access. All of the alternate corridors east of the L-31N and L-30 levees provide flexibility for access because there will be multiple opportunities for access on public roadways along those routes. There will be no adverse traffic impacts from construction of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors. The western corridors are compatible with DOT and Miami-Dade Transit long-range plans. If constructed within any of the corridors proper for certification, the proposed western transmission lines will 232 comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local governments in which they will be located. These applicable non-procedural requirements include the requirements of Florida City, Doral, Medley, and the County that FPL: (1) construct and maintain transmission lines in accordance with FPL's customary practice; (2) ensure that its transmission lines do not unreasonably interfere with traffic on public ROW or reasonable egress from and ingress to abutting property; (3) ensure that transmission lines be located as close to the outer boundary of public ROW as practicable, or as agreed with the local government; and (4) repair or restore any damage to public ROW caused by construction or maintenance of transmission lines. 678. Impacts to wildlife habitat and listed species in any of the western corridors will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. All of the western transmission line corridors proper for certification are appropriate for placement of the proposed western transmission lines from a wildlife perspective. 679. The evidence establishes that all of the five western corridors proper for certification meet the criteria for certification set forth in section 403.509(3). 7. Corridor Comparison: Least Adverse Impacts Including Costs 680. As found above, the multidisciplinary team evaluated the various proposed western transmission line corridors based 233 on a theoretical centerline of the transmission lines through the middle of each corridor, with the centerline adjusted as needed to avoid certain obstacles. The comparative evaluation also assumed use of a ROW obtained through the implementation of the Land Exchange. For the NPCA Corridor, FPL evaluated both the alignment as proposed by NPCA and an adjusted centerline based on FPL's expertise as more feasible than that proposed by NPCA, to allow for a more equitable comparison. Environmental Comparisons 681. Within the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor would impact a maximum of 137 wetland acres, although these figures will likely be significantly reduced through FPL's final transmission line design process. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would impact no more than 122 wetland acres. The wetland ecology in both corridors is generally similar, as is the estimated acreage of wetland impact. Wetland quality in both corridors ranges between 0.70 and 0.80 as measured by UMAM. 682. Within the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 1 and MDLPA No. 3 would impact up to 138 or 104 wetland acres, respectively, and those wetlands range in quality from 0.70-0.80 (MDLPA No. 1) to 0.60-0.80 (MDLPA No. 3). 234 683. Using either centerline alignment, the NPCA Corridor would impact up to 91 wetland acres, ranging in quality from 0.60 to 0.70. 684. Construction of the proposed transmission lines within the NPCA Corridor would traverse lower quality wetlands and require a smaller amount of mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland impacts, as compared to the other proposed western corridors. 685. In the certification analysis required by section 403.509, wetland impacts are only one factor of a multi-faceted analysis. Determination of the appropriate corridor for certification is a balancing of the criteria, and impacts to wetlands or other natural resources are not the only factors in the analysis. See § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. 686. From a surficial hydrology perspective, there is no material difference between any of the western corridors proper for certification, because each corridor can be engineered to maintain sheet flow and other surface water flow. However, the amount of engineering that would be required to maintain sheet flow in each area and the level of complexity involved differs between the corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor, MDLPA No. 1, and West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2 would require equivalent levels of surficial hydrology engineering. MDLPA No. 3 and the 235 NPCA Corridor would involve the least surficial hydrology engineering. 687. The potential for adverse unmitigated impacts to listed species is equally low within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, and lower in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor. 688. From the perspective of PHUs, the NPCA Corridor would require the least panther mitigation credits (7), followed by MDLPA No. 3 (76), West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 (207), MDPLA No. 1 (288), and FPL West Preferred Corridor (374). While PHUs are one metric for comparing potential habitat impacts, there is no material difference in any of the western corridors from a Florida panther perspective. Florida panthers are not adversely affected by, and may even benefit from, the presence of transmission lines. 689. There is no material difference among the western corridors with respect to potential impacts to American crocodiles or Eastern indigo snakes or their habitats. 690. The presence of the Everglades National Park was considered in the comparison of the alternate corridors and in the selection of the FPL West Preferred Corridor because it potentially harbors more listed wildlife species and is the subject of various government-funded restoration projects. 236 691. From a wildlife habitat standpoint, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are about equivalent, with West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor ranked as somewhat more desirable. However, in all of the western corridors proper for certification, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species, including listed species, is low, given the pre-clearing listed species surveys and construction methods to be employed that serve to avoid and minimize impacts, as discussed above. FPL's wildlife experts do not see a significant difference in impact between the corridors from a wildlife perspective, and FWC recommends the identical wildlife conditions of certification for all western transmission line corridors. 692. In the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species is low. In any of the other proposed western alternate transmission line corridors, that potential is lower. Land Use Comparison 693. The proposed western transmission lines in any of the western corridors will be compatible with adjacent land uses and consistent with the communities' priorities and preferences as reflected in the comprehensive plans and land development regulations. However, it is desirable from a land use perspective to be further from residential and urban land uses. 237 694. FPL balanced proximity to both existing and planned urban development/adjacent land use considerations, engineering considerations, and environmental considerations/effect on environmentally sensitive areas in comparing the western transmission line corridors and attempted to achieve the best balance of all of those considerations in selecting its preferred corridors. The presence of the Everglades National Park was one factor in the analysis. In contrast, NPCA and the County reviewed and considered primarily environmental impacts in proposing and comparing the various western corridors or assessing corridor impacts. 695. FPL assessed the visibility of the proposed transmission line structures from various vantage points. NPCA did no comparative visual impact analysis, including no assessment of visual impacts to Everglades National Park visitors. The County assessed only whether the proposed lines would be visible from Management Area 1, also known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area. 696. The west transmission line structures placed in any of the western corridors proper for certification would not be visible to visitors at the Everglades National Park Shark Valley Visitor's Center Observation Tower, which is approximately 16.7 miles west of the L-31N levee. At an airboat vantage point within Everglades National Park approximately 3.44 miles west of 238 the L-31N levee, existing structures in the area, such as the Miccosukee Indian Casino and numerous radio and cell towers, are visible, but the proposed transmission lines in the closest corridor proper for certification (the FPL West Preferred Corridor) would be barely visible on the horizon. 697. Transmission lines are not uncommon in rural areas. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines in the west alternate corridors will not cause significant adverse effects to scenic or recreational values. 698. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the farthest away from any urban or residential areas, minimizing potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses. The greater the distance a residence is from a transmission line, the likelihood of the visibility of that transmission line is reduced. Along the L-31N levee/Land Exchange area, there are three buildings within 500 feet of the FPL West Preferred Corridor centerline, one of which is residential. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is predominantly within existing ROWs or runs along existing linear features and would require crossing 49 individual parcels or lots throughout its length. 699. Regarding the number of buildings within 500 feet of the corridor centerline for the various corridor alignments, the 239 MDLPA No. 1 centerline has three buildings, one of which is residential; the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 centerline and the MDLPA No. 3 centerline each have nine buildings, two and four of which are residential, respectively; the NPCA Corridor recommended centerline has five buildings, all of which are residential; and the NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline has seven buildings, six of which are residential. The two NPCA Corridor centerline route alignments considered by FPL are close to urban areas. MDPLA No. 1 centerline would require FPL to cross 45 separate parcels, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 centerline would require crossing of 63 parcels, although some of these private parcels are owned by mining companies who may be amenable to land donations if the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 is certified. MDLPA No. 3 centerline, the NPCA Corridor recommended centerline, and the NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline would require the crossing of 96, 108, and 104 individual parcels, respectively. The higher the number of parcels to be crossed, the higher the acquisition costs will be. 700. In considering the number of buildings in proximity and the number of parcels crossed, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, FPL West Preferred Corridor, and MDLPA No. 1 rank equally. MDLPA No. 3 and both of the NPCA Corridor centerline alignments ranked as the least desirable when considering these two land use factors. 240 701. MDLPA No. 1, like the FPL West Preferred Corridor, follows along existing levees for a good portion of its length (11.1 miles); West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3 follow 8.3 and 4.8 miles of linear features, respectively, while the two NPCA Corridor route alignments would follow 7.1 or 5.9 miles of such features, respectively. The ability to collocate with existing linear features is important from a land planning perspective, as linear features serve as a seam between land uses and avoid or minimize potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, in addition to minimizing impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. There is also an efficiency to be gained by collocating in an existing utility ROW in terms of maintenance. 702. Accordingly, MDLPA No. 1 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor rank as the "most desirable" in terms of the ability to co-locate the new transmission lines with existing linear features in the landscape and thereby minimize potential adverse land use impacts. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 Corridor and the remainder of the proposed western transmission line alternate corridors ranked as less desirable for this aspect, although in no case would the transmission lines change the land uses within the corridor. 703. FPL's multidisciplinary team expressly considered whether and how much of a corridor was located in conservation 241 lands, and in particular, the Everglades National Park. The FPL West Preferred Corridor does not traverse the wetlands comprising the Bird Drive Basin or the North Trail Basin. In contrast, the other western transmission line alternate corridors impact either Bird Drive Basin or North Trail Basin wetlands, with MDLPA No. 1 impacting 0.11 acres, West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 impacting 2.27 acres, and MDLPA No. 3 and the two NPCA Corridor alignments impacting between 4.81 and 5.92 acres of wetlands, respectively, in these basins. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and NPCA Corridor avoid most or all of the Pennsuco Wetlands. None of the corridors traverse the Everglades National Park. 704. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is located primarily along the L-31N levee, which represents a seam between conservation uses of the Everglades National Park and more developed land uses to the east. Around 4.8 miles will be located in conservation lands. MDLPA No. 1 also has 4.8 miles in conservation lands, and MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor alignments range between 3.8 and 4.1 miles in such lands. In contrast, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 has only 2.8 miles of its length in conservation lands. 705. The Land Exchange would give FPL fee simple or easement rights over a contiguous ROW within the West Preferred Corridor as well as portions of MDLPA No. 1 and West Consensus 242 Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. Those rights are contingent on the Land Exchange occurring. This would leave no ROW to be acquired over government-owned parcels in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. If the Land Exchange occurs, MDLPA No. 1 would cross six government-owned parcels, while the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3 cross 27 and 49 government-owned parcels, respectively. The NPCA Corridor proposed alignment would cross 74 governmental parcels; the adjusted centerline alignment drawn by FPL in the NPCA Corridor would only cross 47 such parcels. Thus, the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the most desirable from this standpoint. MDLPA No. 1 is slightly less desirable, and the remaining western transmission line alternate corridors, which require substantially more government land crossings, are the least desirable since it is often significantly more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to acquire ROWs across government-owned parcels, and FPL may not have eminent domain authority to acquire those parcels if the agencies are not willing sellers. 706. Land uses within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are canals and embankments and rock mining, the most desirable uses from a land use perspective. Land uses within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are rock mining and lands with regulatory overlays, somewhat less desirable due to the regulatory overlays. Lands within MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA 243 Corridor are residential, agriculture, wellheads, and lands with regulatory overlays, which are less desirable land uses than those within the other three corridors. 707. The FPL West Preferred Corridor, MDLPA No. 1, and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 do not encroach on the UEA and are furthest from the UDB; thus, they are all equally the least likely of the western corridors to interfere with residential land uses. They run predominantly along seams between less developed, conservation lands to the west and transitional uses and more urban development to the east. They therefore avoid conflicts with more dense urban development. 708. MDLPA No. 3 and both NPCA Corridor alignments encroach on the UEA and are closest to the UDB. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor also cross the property of Limonar, a property owner with plans for future development that is opposed to the placement of transmission lines on its property. Also, placing a corridor over the UEA property would reduce the size of the UEA which has been identified by the CDMP that is available for urban development. 709. The mining companies prefer the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. It has the least interference with their uses and mining. It is on property where there is a lot of industrial activity associated with active rock mining, a heavy industry. In contrast, the mining companies are unsure of the 244 effect of MDLPA No. 3 on their ability to mine the eastern part of their property. There is a potential with the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 that the mining companies may be willing to donate their property for the transmission line ROW, thus offsetting the added cost of ROW acquisition in this corridor. However, the mining companies are not willing to do so for MDLPA No. 3. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is wide enough to provide flexibility in siting the proposed transmission lines so that both the 500-kV and 230-kV lines could potentially be located on mining property land in significant portions of that corridor. However, there are some features such as the rock processing plant and shipping area near the quarry that could limit or preclude siting of the proposed transmission lines, requiring the lines to be placed in other portions of the corridor in this area. MDLPA's goal for MDLPA No. 1 was simply to minimize potential impacts to the Pennsuco Wetlands; for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3, the goal was both to minimize impacts on Everglades National Park and on Pennsuco Wetlands. The benefits of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 include avoiding a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands and completely removing the proposed transmission lines from Water Conservation Area 3B. This 245 corridor is also further removed from known wood stork colonies along and north of Tamiami Trail, and is farther east of potential Everglade snail kite foraging habitat within the Everglades National Park. Although the western transmission lines would not interfere with surface flows in any of the corridors, MDLPA believes use of the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 would be less likely to interfere with any attempts to restore flow inside the eastern part of Everglades National Park and also removes any potential future conflict inside Water Conservation Area 3B, if any. Engineering Comparisons i. Traffic There is no material difference with regard to traffic impacts between any of the western corridors proper for certification. There is minimal to no risk of conflict with traffic or with future roadway expansion or road widening projects in the FPL West Preferred Corridor or MDLPA No. 1. The remaining western corridors present some risk of potential conflict with the proposed expansions of Krome Avenue near Kendall Drive and the State Road 836 Southwest Extension, but it is recognized that conflicts with these projects are highly speculative at this stage. 246 Construction and Maintenance Access In the West Divergence Area, while all of the western corridors provide reasonable access for construction and maintenance, access along the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 may be limited to one-way traffic. ROW Acquisition For the West Preferred Corridor, FPL has executed agreements in place from all of the landowners involved in the Land Exchange area for conveyance of land clear of encumbrances. Already authorized by Congress, significant investment and commitment has been made to this exchange. It would also encompass portions of the West Consensus Corridor/MDPLA No. 2, MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor. From an engineering/constructability standpoint, the difficulty or ease in acquiring the necessary property interest in the land underlying the corridors is a significant consideration. Following implementation of the Land Exchange, the FPL West Preferred Corridor would be highly desirable from a property acquisition standpoint, as FPL would own all of the necessary property interests for placement of the western transmission lines in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. The remaining corridors are less desirable from this perspective, as FPL would need to acquire permanent easements over numerous 247 government parcels within any of the alternate corridors. Since FPL does not have eminent domain authority over all government lands, its ability to acquire the necessary easements over government parcels is uncertain. Additionally, consistent with past practice, FPL would seek a ROW over lands owned by the SFWMD, which would lessen this concern for the other western transmission line alternate corridors, and in particular, MDLPA No. 1 and the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, both of which also incorporate the L-31N and L-30 levees. If the Land Exchange is timely implemented, no further ROW acquisition will be required for the West Preferred Corridor. A small portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 will also use properties obtained through the Land Exchange. Between the point where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 turns east from the SFWMD L-31N ROW and the point where it converges with the FPL West Preferred Corridor west of the Levee substation, FPL will need to establish a new ROW for the western transmission lines. Some of the government parcels in the area where the western alternate corridors diverge from the FPL West Preferred Corridor were purchased with federal funds or other grants that limit the uses of the property. These encumbrances may be overcome if FPL purchases substitute land for the encumbered parcels. But removal of the encumbrances held by federal 248 agencies would require action or review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It is not known how much time or cost would be required to clear these encumbrances. These uncertainties are the reason FPL is seeking certification of the FPL West Preferred Corridor as a back-up to the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. d. Cost Comparisons The FPL West Preferred Corridor would cost approximately $229.4 million to construct. MDLPA No. 1 would cost approximately $282.5 million, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would cost around $273.2 million. The NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline alignment would cost approximately $262.15 million. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor centerline would cost approximately $298.25 million and $313.7 million, respectively. Conflicting testimony was presented on the cost of the NPCA Corridor ROW. Testimony by NPCA indicated that a transmission line ROW could be acquired within its alternate corridor for approximately $23.3 million. However, the methodology used to prepare this estimate has not been credited. FPL submitted an appraisal consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that showed the cost for FPL to acquire a transmission line ROW in the NPCA Corridor would be approximately $84 million. This estimate includes the cost of 249 the property, any damages to remainder parcels (severance damages), title work, survey work, legal fees, and appraisal fees, but does not include the cost to acquire and substitute lands for parcels within the transmission line ROW with federal encumbrances. Determination of the costs associated with exchanging substitute lands to clear encumbrances on government- owned parcels is not possible until a final ROW for the western transmission lines is identified and negotiations completed on the substitute lands to be accepted. Summary: Least Adverse Impacts, Including Cost Given these considerations, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 has the least adverse impact, including costs, only if a ROW within that corridor can be acquired in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. If a ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost, then the FPL West Preferred Corridor has the least adverse impact, including costs. While the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the least expensive and preferable from a land use perspective, including being farthest from urban uses that might potentially conflict with the transmission line, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is subject to an agreement limiting acquisition costs to no more than ten percent above the total projected costs of the FPL West Preferred Corridor, rendering the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA 250 No. 2 the second least expensive. In addition, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is sufficiently wide to allow flexibility to site the ROW within the Corridor in a manner to minimize conflicts. Neither the FPL West Preferred Corridor nor West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 encroaches on land designated as UEA. The FPL West Preferred Corridor includes a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 avoids such a crossing. From a cost and adjacent land use standpoint, the West Preferred Corridor is somewhat preferable to the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and significantly preferable to the remaining western transmission line alternate corridors. From an environmental standpoint, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is somewhat preferable to the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, but less preferable than the NPCA Corridor. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is fairly equivalent to MDLPA No. 1 from an adjacent land use standpoint, but has the added advantages of allowing the placement of transmission lines farther from Everglades National Park and is less expensive than MDLPA No. 1. Also, the West Consensus Corridor/MDPLA No. 2 is less expensive than MDLPA No. 3 or the NPCA Corridor, and is significantly preferable in terms of adjacent land uses and ROW acquisition to these western transmission line alternate corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus 251 Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are roughly equivalent and both represent, on balance, the corridors with the least adverse impacts, considering the factors set forth in section 403.509(3), including costs. 722. Certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor, as conditioned, serves the broad interests of the public by ensuring reliable electric service at a reasonable cost. Conditions of Certification Agreed Upon Conditions of Certification 723. In constructing, operating, and maintaining the Project, including the Plant and its associated non-transmission facilities and transmission lines, FPL has agreed to comply with the Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1 to this Recommended Order. 724. FPL has provided reasonable assurances that the Project, including the Plant and its associated non-transmission facilities and transmission lines, can be constructed in compliance with the agreed-upon Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1. 725. The Department has proposed and FPL has agreed that the conditions in Attachment 1 are appropriate or necessary. They are therefore authorized. 252 726. The only condition relative to the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project remaining in dispute is addressed in the "Road Right-of-Way Dedications" section above. That condition is not authorized. Other transmission line conditions of certification proposed by local governments remaining in dispute are discussed below. Disputed Conditions of Certification – Transmission Lines Miami-Dade County 727. The County submitted its Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines associated with the Project to the Department's Siting Coordination Office, pursuant to sections 403.5064(4), 403.507(2), and 403.526(2). The Agency Report proposed 73 conditions of certification relating to the FPL transmission line corridors. 728. The County and FPL reached agreement on conditions to resolve the concerns in the Agency Report enumerated in General Conditions 1-5, 7-25, 27-29, and 32; East Conditions 1-17, 19, 20(b), 21, and 22; and West Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 5(c), 6-8, and 10-18 (with the exception of certain conditions to be applied in the West Corridor Divergence Area). The County and FPL have not reached agreement on proposed General Conditions 6, 26, 30, and 31; East Conditions 18 and 20; West Conditions 4, 5, and 9; the unnumbered conditions on page 59 of the Agency 253 Report; and the conditions to be applied in the West Corridor Divergence Area (General Conditions 14-23 and West Conditions 6- 8, 11-13, and 16-18). Those conditions remain in dispute between the two parties. 729. FPL will comply with the conditions included in Sections C.VII.A through C.VII.5 of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with the County. 730. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of the County's proposed conditions of certification, noting that section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4) require that agency recommendations for conditions of certification be limited to those within the proposing agency's jurisdiction and authorized by a specific statute, rule, or ordinance. All of the conditions that remain in dispute between FPL and the County were rejected by the Department in Appendix I to the PAR. 731. Proposed General Condition 6 relating to air quality is rejected because it is based on provisions of state regulations, the County's comprehensive plan, which is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and section 24- 7(6), MDC, establishing that the County Department of Environmental Resources Management has the authority to render assistance to persons operating equipment which may cause air pollution. The state regulations do not provide a proper basis 254 for a County condition and the comprehensive plan is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Further, FPL established that the proposed transmission lines will not cause air pollution if constructed in compliance with the conditions of certification in Attachment 1. Thus, General Condition 6 is rejected. 732. For the reasons cited previously, proposed General Condition 26 (ROW dedication) is rejected. 733. Proposed General Condition 30 seeks to require FPL to compensate the County for its review of the application. The bases for this condition are sections 403.511(4) and 403.531(4), which allow local governments to charge "appropriate fees." These provisions, however, relate to post-certification reviews, and not review of the application. Thus, proposed General Condition 30 is rejected. 734. Proposed General Condition 31 seeks to require FPL to work with the County and the SFRPC to provide electric vehicle charging stations at County parking lots and other locations. However, the County offered no evidence to support this condition. Thus, proposed General Condition 31 is rejected. 735. Proposed East Condition 18 relates to conditions based on the land use designations of certain areas. These conditions are based on comprehensive plan provisions that are 255 not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and are hereby rejected. 736. Proposed East Condition 20 relates to impacts within BNP. FPL is in the midst of federal government agency review of the Project, in which the United States Department of the Interior, representing BNP, is participating. Thus, any conditions regarding activities within BNP will be addressed in that federal process. The County cites only comprehensive plan provisions, which are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, as bases for this condition. Further, it provided no evidence to even suggest that the proposed transmission lines will create negative impacts within BNP. Thus, proposed East Condition 20 is rejected. 737. Proposed West Conditions 4, 5, and 9 propose to restrict transmission lines based on land use designations and are based entirely on the comprehensive plan. Because the comprehensive plan is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, these three conditions are rejected. 738. On page 59 of the Agency Report are listed five conditions of certification proposing to preclude the location of transmission lines in certain areas, including most of the West Corridor Divergence Area, based on the East Everglades Area Zoning Overlay District found in chapter 33B, MDC. Those zoning provisions are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines 256 and are not a proper basis for these proposed conditions. Other agencies, including the Department, SFWMD, and FWC, have proposed conditions that will require FPL to avoid and minimize impacts to the environmental resources in that area, and FPL has established that the transmission lines can be constructed, operated, and located to avoid and minimize impacts to the environmental resources in that area. Thus, these proposed conditions are rejected. Further, although the Department did not originally recommend the proposed conditions relating to wetlands protection and wildlife in its PAR, FPL is willing to accept those conditions in the West Corridor Divergence Area. These conditions are found in Attachment 1, §§ C.VII, I, J, and P. 739. The County has also proposed conditions for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 that are similar to or the same as the conditions in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Conditions 1 through 6 are based on the County zoning code and comprehensive plan, are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and are rejected. Further, FPL has established that the proposed transmission lines in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 will not adversely impact the environmental resources in the West Corridor Divergence Area. Even so, FPL is willing to accept the County-proposed conditions relating to wetlands protection and wildlife in the West 257 Divergence Area. Those conditions have been included in Attachment 1. 740. Proposed Condition VII of County Exhibit 11, relating to alternate corridor access roads, tree islands, and Trail Glades Park, has been partially incorporated by the Department into the Conditions of Certification. FPL has agreed to comply with those conditions recognizing that "tree islands" are defined in section 24-5, MDC, as "a vegetative community located within freshwater wetlands whose dominant vegetation components consist of native hardwood trees and shrubs." Although the County proposed expanded versions of those conditions, those expanded versions are rejected because the County failed to present credible evidence to support those requirements. 741. Because PAC, MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor are not recommended for certification, the County- proposed conditions for those corridors are rejected. 2. City of Miami 742. The City of Miami's Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposes conditions 5.1 through 5.15 to address its regulatory and other concerns related to the proposed transmission line. It also recommends denial of the proposed transmission line certification. 743. The City of Miami and FPL have reached an agreement on conditions to resolve the City's concerns set forth in 258 conditions 5.1, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 on the FPL Corridors, and conditions 5.1, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 on the Alternate Corridors. The stipulation acknowledged that the City of Miami's proposed conditions 5.2 (undergrounding), 5.4 (zoning), 5.5 (landscaping), 5.6 (EMF), and 5.10 (scenic transportation corridor) for the FPL East Preferred Corridor and 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 for the PAC remain in dispute between the two parties. FPL will comply with the conditions included in sections C.X.A. and C.X.C through C.X.G. of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with the City of Miami. 744. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of the City of Miami's proposed conditions because section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4) require that agency recommendations for conditions of certification be limited to those within the proposing agency's jurisdiction and authorized by a specific statute, rule, or ordinance. However, the Department included condition 5.10, as proposed by the City of Miami. 745. FPL will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of proposed condition 5.10 regarding the City of Miami's Scenic Transportation Corridor starting at Southwest 13th Street and continuing along Coral Way, as reflected in section C.X.B of Attachment 1. FPL also agrees that the 259 condition should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within the East Preferred Corridor. This scenic transportation corridor is not located within the PAC, and is not relevant for that corridor. 746. FPL will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the City of Miami's ordinances to protect and minimize impacts to trees in the construction and placement of the transmission line, and to replace or mitigate for any damage to, or removal of trees in, the construction and placement of the transmission line. To address the City of Miami's concerns regarding trees in proposed condition 5.5, FPL agrees that the condition in section II.A of Attachment 2 should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within either of the east corridors proper for certification. 747. The City of Miami contends that FPL should exceed the applicable requirements of its ordinances to protect against tree impacts and/or replace trees damaged or removed as a result of the transmission line. However, such requirements are undefined, exceed the scope of the ordinances, and are rejected. See § 403.507(3)(c), Fla. Stat. 748. The City of Miami also proposed conditions 5.2 and 5.4 requiring underground construction of the transmission line in either of the east corridors. Those conditions are rejected 260 for the reasons previously discussed and in the Conclusions of Law. 749. The City of Miami proposed condition 5.6 regarding EMFs in both east corridors. However, it failed to offer into evidence this section of its two Agency Reports. The City's proposed condition is rejected because that topic is exclusively regulated by the Department; FPL has demonstrated that it will comply with the relevant, applicable Department standards; and the City of Miami presented no credible evidence to rebut that showing. 750. The City of Miami proposed condition 5.9 regarding historic resource preservation in both east corridors. On this issue, FPL established that it will comply with the applicable City of Miami non-procedural requirements through the conditions proposed in Attachment 2, section II.B. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Accordingly, condition 5.9 is rejected, and the condition proposed in Attachment 2, section II.B. is accepted. 3. City of Coral Gables Coral Gables' Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposed conditions A-Q relating to the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Coral Gables and FPL have reached an agreement on conditions to resolve Coral Gables' concerns set forth in 261 conditions A.5, C.1, D, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, F, G, H.1, H.2, I., J.1, J.2, K, L, M.1, M.2, M.3, N, O, and P in the Agency Report. However, they have not reached agreement on proposed conditions A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, A.6, B, C.2, and Q. Those conditions remain in dispute between the two parties. FPL will comply with the conditions included in sections C.VIII.A. through C.VIII.P. of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with Coral Gables. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of Coral Gables' proposed conditions because they fail to meet the requirements of section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4). All of the conditions that remain in dispute between FPL and Coral Gables were rejected by the Department in Appendix I to the PAR. Proposed conditions A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 relate to aesthetic impacts of the proposed transmission line and are based on the zoning code and comprehensive plan. They are not applicable to the East Preferred Corridor and are rejected. Proposed condition A.6 seeks to require FPL to compensate Coral Gables for alleged "economic impacts" of the East Preferred Corridor. As discussed above, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the East Preferred Corridor will not cause negative economic impact to Coral Gables or properties within the City. Further, there is no ordinance 262 applicable to the proposed transmission lines that provides a basis for this condition. The proposed condition is rejected. 757. Proposed condition B seeks to require FPL to follow state laws regarding eminent domain in the acquisition of property rights for the proposed transmission line. However, FPL is already required to comply with state laws and regulations in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line, including in the acquisition of property rights. Further, Coral Gables cites no ordinance as a basis for this condition. Condition B is rejected. 758. Proposed condition C.2 seeks to require FPL to build the transmission line underground within the City, at FPL's expense. Coral Gables cites only its zoning code and comprehensive plan in support of the condition, which are not applicable to the proposed transmission line. For the reasons discussed above, this condition is rejected. 759. Finally, proposed condition Q, paragraphs 1 and 2, seek to require FPL to indemnify the City for any work done by FPL within the City. FPL is committed to comply with applicable ordinances requiring such indemnification and to comply with Condition C.VIII.P in Attachment 1 addressing this subject. Thus, no additional condition is required. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 3, seeks to require FPL to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations. FPL has committed to do so. 263 Thus, this condition is not required. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 4, seeks to require FPL to provide Coral Gables with any terms, benefits, or concessions or agreements provided to any other local government. Coral Gables has provided no applicable ordinance or other authority as a basis for this condition, and it is hereby rejected. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 5, adopts the recommendations and reports of the SFWMD, SFRPC, and the County. The issues of concern to those entities, as they relate to the FPL East Preferred Corridor, have been resolved to the satisfaction of those three agencies. Further, Coral Gables has identified no applicable non- procedural ordinance providing a regulatory basis for this condition. Accordingly, these proposed conditions are rejected. 4. Village of Pinecrest 760. Pinecrest's Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposed conditions A.1 through D.8 to address its regulatory and other concerns related to the proposed transmission line. It also recommended denial of the proposed transmission line certification. 761. The Department included proposed conditions C.3 (nuisances) and C.4 (emergency management) in the PAR. FPL will comply with those conditions, now found in section C.XII.A and C.XII.B of Attachment 1. 264 762. In addition, to address Pinecrest's concerns reflected in conditions A.2 (solid waste), A.3 (noise), B.1 (location of the transmission line within Pinecrest), B.3 (trees), D.2 (obstructions of visibility), D.5 (trees), D.6 (trees), and D.8 (ROW restoration), FPL agrees that the conditions in section III.A. through III.F. of Attachment 2 should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within the East Preferred Corridor. FPL is willing to comply with these conditions and has demonstrated its ability to do so. 763. Proposed condition B.2 seeks to require that FPL coordinate with appropriate authorities to accommodate expansion plans for the Busway and Metrorail along U.S. Highway 1. FPL has coordinated with DOT, MDX, and Miami Dade Transit and reached agreement with those agencies on conditions of certification addressing future facilities. Thus, FPL has satisfied this requirement and there is no need for inclusion of the proposed condition in this Recommended Order. 764. For reasons previously stated, proposed condition C.1, which seeks to require FPL to construct the transmission line underground, is rejected. 765. Proposed conditions C.2 (pole placement information), D.1 (historical resources), D.3 (appearance of structures), D.4 (compliance with comprehensive plan), and D.7 (signs) seek to require FPL to comply with chapter 30 of Pinecrest's LDRs and 265 its comprehensive plan. These conditions are rejected for the reasons previously found. 5. Cities of Doral and South Miami 766. Doral and South Miami also proposed conditions of certification beyond those included by the Department in Attachment 1. However, these cities provided no evidence or legal argument to support these conditions, and they are rejected. Public Testimony and Comments 767. Six sessions on four separate days were held to allow members of the public to testify or offer comments on the Project. In addition, a number of written comments or letters were submitted by mail. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. 768. Members of the public who testified in favor of the Project commented on the economic benefits of the Project and specifically focused on the potential for job creation. Many members of the public also commented that they believe nuclear power is safe and clean and that this Project will allow South Florida to sustainably meet its future energy needs. Several members of the public testified that FPL is a good corporate citizen and environmental steward. 769. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of concerns, such as economic 266 impacts, property values, health-related and aesthetic impacts of the proposed transmission lines, as well as safety and environmental impacts of various features of the Project. 770. Some members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. Several individuals testified that they believe the PSC's determination of need is out of date and should be reconsidered. A few members of the public testified that they are concerned that the power to be generated by the new nuclear units is actually intended for other areas of Florida. As to these concerns, the PSC has made its determination that the Project is needed to meet the needs of FPL's customers, based in part on the PSC's consideration of renewable and other energy resources. The PSC's need determination remains in legal effect. The PSC annually reviews the Project's costs. 771. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety of the nuclear units. However, issues related to radiological safety are exclusively considered by the NRC and are beyond the scope of this proceeding. 772. Some members of the public expressed concerns about the safety of new nuclear units at the Turkey Point location in the event of a natural disaster, questioning sea level rise projections and storm surge and high winds during hurricanes. 267 Another member of the public testified regarding concerns related to the use of deep well injection. FPL considered reasonable sea level rise and storm surge projections in the design of the proposed nuclear units. Regarding the deep well injection, the evidence reflects that the Boulder Zone, which will receive the injection of Project wastewaters can adequately confine the planned volumes of wastewater. Underground injection has been extensively used in Florida. 773. Some members of the public testified that they are concerned about impacts to the Biscayne Aquifer, specifically expressing concerns about saltwater intrusion and other contaminants entering the water supply. A few members questioned how well isolated the proposed radial collector well laterals below Biscayne Bay will be from the Biscayne Aquifer. Others expressed concerns about conflicting water uses potentially increasing water costs. One individual testified that he believed that the APT was not adequate. FPL conducted an appropriate APT, in accordance with accepted professional procedures, at the site of the proposed radial collector wells as part of the extensive groundwater modeling of those wells. That modeling and other evaluations demonstrated that the operation of the radial collector wells would not cause saltwater intrusion or cause contamination or other adverse impacts to groundwater or drinking water sources. Under the 268 conditions of certification and an agreement with the County, FPL will use reclaimed water from the County as the primary source of cooling water and will use the radial collector wells only when reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quantity or quality. FPL's use of reclaimed water is a beneficial and cost-effective means of maximizing the use of reclaimed water and helps the County meet its reclaimed water compliance requirements. 774. A few members of the public are concerned about potential negative environmental impacts to Biscayne Bay. The evidence shows that the Project will not have negative effects on Biscayne Bay. Construction in upland areas near the Bay for the radial collector wells and the barge unloading area will utilize measures to prevent adverse impacts from runoff that might reach the Bay. The radial collector well laterals will be drilled beneath the Bay without any dredging in the Bay itself. Operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely affect the water quality including salinity, or the ecological resources including fisheries in the Bay, and the radial collector wells will be closely monitored to ensure there are no adverse impacts. 775. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed transmission lines. Several of the individuals who testified in opposition were only opposed to 269 the FPL East Preferred Corridor and supported the Project if the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest is certified instead. Similarly, several individuals were only opposed to the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest and support the Project with certification of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is the corridor with the least adverse impacts, including costs, when considering and balancing the statutory criteria in section 403.509(3). 776. Several individuals testified about negative aesthetic impacts or blight that may be caused by the installation of transmission lines within their communities. Several also stated that they were concerned about negative impacts to quality of life. Specific aesthetic concerns included the height and diameter of the transmission line poles as well as the sway of the transmission lines. A few individuals were concerned about maintaining the historic aesthetic of Coral Gables. The greater weight of the evidence offered with respect to quality of life impacts from the transmission lines did not support these concerns as expressed by the public. Aesthetic and economic impacts have been addressed, and the height and diameter of the transmission line poles was established as customary for FPL. FPL complies with local tree ordinances, including tree replacement planting where 270 appropriate. Landscaping and trees can help to minimize any aesthetic impacts. The final transmission line alignment will take into account approved and proposed development to be constructed in the area. The testimony established that while transmission lines in urban settings may involve aesthetic impacts, those aesthetic impacts from placing transmission lines such as within any of the eastern corridors would be minimal, and the transmission lines would be just one of many urbanized vertical elements in the landscape. Any aesthetic impacts from the proposed transmission lines would be no different in kind from those normally experienced every day in settings like those proposed for the transmission lines. Additionally, FPL is not required to comply with zoning ordinances relating to aesthetics because they are not applicable non-procedural requirements with which FPL is required to demonstrate compliance in the siting of transmission lines. 777. A few members of the public testified that they are concerned that the tree canopy and other landscaping will be negatively affected by the proposed transmission lines. FPL will comply with numerous conditions regarding NFCs and tree pruning/maintenance that will avoid adverse impacts on tree canopy. Additionally, FPL restores the landscaping in the ROW following construction in compliance with applicable regulations. 271 Members of the public expressed concerns about negative economic impacts that may be caused by the installation of transmission lines within their communities, including potential reductions in property values and the potential for a negative impact on the economic development of the areas surrounding the proposed FPL East Preferred Corridor. While the evidence was conflicting on this point, the more persuasive evidence demonstrated that the economic effects on the property values of residential or commercial properties adjacent to the transmission lines would be nominal. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the proposed transmission lines and associated poles are not in compliance with local codes and ordinances. A few members of the public expressed concerns about "humming" noises caused by the transmission lines. The transmission lines meet all applicable non-procedural requirements, including noise standards. Local zoning codes and LDRs are not applicable non- procedural requirements with which a transmission line is required to comply. Nevertheless, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that incorporate, to the extent practicable, the desires and concerns of the local governments through which the transmission lines pass. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the proposed transmission lines will have negative impacts on 272 multi-modal transportation uses within FPL's East Preferred Corridor. On this issue, the evidence established that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in proximity to the Metrorail facility or the U.S. Highway 1 multi-modal corridor will not interfere with the operation of the Metrorail. Multi-modal uses will not be affected. A few members of the public expressed concerns about safety and health risks that they believe are associated with high-voltage transmission lines. The evidence established and the parties stipulated that the transmission lines will not have adverse effects on human health. In addition, the design and construction of the transmission line structures conforms to NESC requirements adopted by the PSC to protect public safety. No competent evidence was presented that proximity to transmission lines like the type proposed would cause adverse health effects. Also, there was no competent evidence of adverse health impacts associated with these lines. A few members of the public expressed concerns about interference that could be caused by the transmission lines, specifically referencing EMF and interference with radio communications. The evidence established that there will be no interference with radio or microwave communications. Some members of the public testified that they believe the proposed transmission lines should be or are 273 required to be placed underground. FPL is proposing underground construction only where an overhead design is not feasible; overhead design is feasible in all locations except when crossing the Miami River. 784. Several members of the public expressed concerns that some existing transmission lines are in poor condition and will never be improved if the FPL East Preferred Corridor is certified. The evidence established that FPL replaces inadequate or outdated transmission lines and poles on an as- needed basis; the certification of the East Preferred Corridor would not change this practice. 785. Several members of the public testified that they are concerned about allowing certification of transmission line corridors prior to the issuance of a license for the nuclear units by the NRC or a commitment to build the nuclear units by FPL. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the NRC proceeding need not be completed prior to the issuance of the site certification under the PPSA, including for the transmission lines. 786. Several members of the public expressed concerns about potential negative environmental and aesthetic impacts to Everglades National Park from the transmission lines. Several individuals were concerned about impacts to wading bird colonies. A few individuals expressed a concern about directing 274 freshwater away from the federal Everglades restoration program. A few other individuals expressed concerns about the proposed Land Exchange. FPL has minimized the impacts to the Everglades National Park by withdrawing its request to certify the West Secondary Corridor, which would have bisected the Everglades National Park. The evidence established that construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will not be inconsistent with Everglades restoration. Issues related to the Land Exchange involving the western corridors will be addressed by the United States Department of Interior. The evidence established that the transmission lines in the western corridors would not have adverse impacts to wading bird colonies. 787. Finally, one member of the public testified that traffic during construction within FPL's East Preferred Corridor is a concern. The evidence established that traffic impacts between both the East Preferred Corridor and the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest are comparable, and these impacts only occur during the short time frame of construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant final certification to Florida Power & Light Company under chapter 403 for the location, construction, and operation of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Project, representing a 2,200 MW nuclear generating facility, and including associated electrical transmission lines and other associated linear facilities, as described in the Site Certification Application and in the evidence presented at the certification hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification appended hereto. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board certify one of the corridors proper for certification for the eastern transmission lines and the western transmission lines. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board certify the following transmission line corridors pursuant to section 403.509: 326 East Preferred Corridor; West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2; and West Preferred Corridor as a back-up if an adequate right- of-way within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant Florida Power & Light Company a variance from section 24-43.1(6), MDC, to allow use of the on-site package sanitary treatment plant and other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to grant to Florida Power & Light Company three separate easements over state-owned lands, including: (1) submerged lands owned by the State of Florida located within Biscayne Bay for the installation of the laterals associated with a radial collector well system to supply back-up cooling water; (2) submerged lands owned by the State of Florida located within the Miami River for the installation of a subaqueous 230- kV electrical transmission line; and (3) an approximate four- acre parcel of state-owned uplands along the western certified 327 corridor to allow the construction of a 230-kV electrical transmission line. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D.R. ALEXANDER 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 December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 328 Toni L. Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Frederick L. Aschauer, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Michael S. Tammaro, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard, No. LAW/JB Juno Beach, Florida 33408-2657 Curtis Renner, Esquire Watson & Renner Suite 350 1400 16th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036-2227 Elizabeth M. Hernandez, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131-1700 William C. Garner, Esquire Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3008 Victoria Mendez, Esquire City Attorney 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Dennis A. Kerbel, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1930 329 Sara E. Fain, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Suite 246 1172 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33146-2918 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7721 Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. Federal Tower 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 921 Pompano Beach, Florida 33062-7520 Jason A. Totoiu, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Post Office Box 2693 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-2693 Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-7273 Patrick T. DiPietro, Esquire Patrick T. DiPietro Law LLC 8083 Northwest 66th Street Miami, Florida 33166-2729 Kerri L. Barsh, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400 Miami, Florida 33131-2176 Ruth A. Holmes, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Ronald S. Lieberman, Esquire 10625 Southwest 100th Street Miami, Florida 33176-2732 330 Michael Rosenberg, President Kendall Federation of Homeowner Associations, Inc. 12900 Southwest 84th Street Miami, Florida 33183-4320 Anthony J. Pinzino, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Francine T. Steelman, Esquire Miami-Dade Expressway Authority 3790 Northwest 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142-6812 Craig E. Leen, Esquire City Attorney City of Coral Gables 405 Biltmore Way Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5717 Jennifer Brubaker Crawford, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Kimberly C. Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308-4311 Mitchell A. Bierman, Esquire Weiss, Serota, Helfman, Pastoriza, Cole & Boniske, P.L. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6045 331 Thomas F. Pepe, Esquire Pepe & Nemire, P.A. 1450 Madruga Avenue, Suite 202 Coral Gables, Florida 33146-3163 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-4236 Jeff P. H. Cazeau, Esquire Kleiner & Cazeau, P.L. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134-3061 Steven T. Williams, Esquire Monroe County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1026 Key West, Florida 33041-0226 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6545 Matthew J. Pearl, Esquire Weiss, Serota, Helfman, Pastoriza, Cole & Boniske, P.L. 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1949 Michelle M. Niemeyer, Esquire Archer Bay, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33130-1721
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Kenneth Tuch is liable to Florida Power and Light Company for receipt of unmeasured electric energy and if so, what amount is due?
Findings Of Fact Kenneth Tuch resides alone at 1924 N.E. 25th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He receives his electric current from Florida Power and Light Company. In June of 1985, an employee of American Cable Company went to Mr. Tuch's home to investigate a complaint about the quality of cable television reception at the Tuch residence. The employee noticed that the air conditioning was on in the Tuch residence while he was investigating the complaint. When following the cable lines outside the home, he noticed the electric meter was not operating. He provided this information to Florida Power and Light which sent two employees to the Tuch residence on June 20, 1985. They found the air conditioning and swimming pool pump were on, but the electric meter disk did not turn. The meter seal was opened and the meter was removed from its socket, and photographed. The photographs demonstrate that the potential clip of the meter was open. The potential clip is used when testing a meter. When it is open no registration of electric current is made. The meter was originally placed at the Tuch residence in 1960. The potential clip could not have been open then, for it never would have registered any electric consumption were that the case. The potential clip would not have fallen into the open position on its own. There was tampering with the potential clip because a screw in the slot in the center of the clip had been tightened to keep the clip in the open position. In addition, the picture of the potential clip and the screws (FP&L Exhibit 5) show wear and tear on the screw. Marks on the area around the screw slot in the center of the potential clip show that the clip has been slid back and forth. These facts prove a deliberate attempt to divert unmeasured electricity. The meter seal consists of a wire bail of a horseshoe shape which fits into a rectangular base body approximately 1 and 1/4 inches by 3/4 inch by 1/8 inch. The seal removed from Tuch's meter bears the inscription on one side "77 FP&LS" and on the other side, the numbers "0379126". The condition of the seal was such that by tugging on the wire bail, it would loosen from the body of the seal, and open, but the bail could be replaced into the seal body giving the impression on casual observation that the seal was intact. While the inscription on the seal indicates that it is a genuine Florida Power and Light seal, it is not in the condition in which seals are originally placed. It is not possible to open the wire bail of a seal and thereby gain access to the meter canopy without tampering with the seal. The billings for consumption of electricity at the Tuch residence show an erratic pattern of monthly electric consumption during the period for which Florida Power and Light has records available, January 1982 through June 1986. For the years 1982 through 1984, Mr. Tuch was billed for an average of 11,022.33 kilowatts per year. On June 20, 1985, the meter at the Tuch residence was replaced with a new meter which was locked in place. Readings were taken from the new meter on June 21, June 27, July 2 and July 9. During those 19 days, 1,063 kilowatts had been consumed for an average use of 55.9 kilowatts per day. This equals 1,677 kilowatts for a 30 day period. An average percentage of use chart was introduced into evidence as the basis for distributing the total yearly kilowatt consumption based upon seasonal variations in consumption. According to the chart 9.8 percent of the total kilowatts used by Florida Power and Light customers in 1985 were consumed in the July billing period. That being so, the total estimated annual usage given a July bill of 1,677 kilowatts would be 17,112 kilowatts. The total additional billing on that basis for 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 (through the date of the discovery of the tampering) would be $1,829.57. A potential problem with this methodology for determining annual usage is that it extrapolates a bill for a one year period based on readings taken over only 19 days. As a check on the method Florida Power and Light also placed in evidence the readings for approximately six months actual usage after replacement of the meter which had been tampered with. Mr. Tuch used 7,865 kilowatts during the 172 day period from June 20 through December 31, 1985. This was an average use of 45.72 kilowatts per day. When multiplied by 365 days the estimated yearly usage is 16,690 kilowatts. This results in a billing $17.52 lower than the extrapolation and shows the reasonableness of using the 19 day period to project annual usage. The electric meter removed from Mr. Tuch's residence was tested, but due to its age was then destroyed. Florida Power and Light rendered its additional bill two months later. Mr. Tuch therefore did not have the opportunity to inspect or test the meter. Florida Power and Light tested the meter appropriately before it was destroyed and it was accurately registering current flow when the potential clip was closed. If this case involved questions about the accuracy of the registration on the meter which had been removed, Mr. Tuch's inability to test the meter would have seriously impaired the fairness of this proceeding. The testimony and photographic evidence, which is accepted, is that the potential clip was open, and thus the meter would register no use of current at all. Essentially the meter had been turned on and off. This tampering caused the underregistration, not inaccuracy of the meter's measurement ability. In this case, the inability to test the old meter did not prejudice Mr. Tuch. Florida Power and Light is not entitled to recover $157. 88 in investigative costs. The witness proffered to testify about investigative costs was listed in interrogatories as a witness on matters of corporate policy. See Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed April 21, 1986. While it may be corporate policy to bill those who divert current for investigative charges, the exhibit purporting to set out the costs incurred in the Tuch investigation was admitted to show the corporate form for recording charges. No evidence of the charges in this specific case was admitted (Transcript 196-97). 1/
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Public Service Commission requiring Kenneth Tuch to pay Florida Power and Light $1,829.57 for current diverted. If such payment is not made, electric service to Mr. Tuch's residence at 1924 N.E. 25th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, should be discontinued. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1987.
The Issue This proceeding was conducted under the Florida Electrical Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52 through 403.5365, Florida Statutes (2007)1, to determine whether any of the proposed transmission line corridors for the Bobwhite- Manatee 230-kV transmission line (BWM Line) comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and, if more than one corridor complies with the criteria, to determine which corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria, including costs. If any of the “corridors proper for certification,” as that term is defined in Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, is determined to have the least adverse impact, the Siting Board must determine whether the application for the corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. If the alternate corridor proposed by John Falkner (not a corridor proper for certification) is determined by the Siting Board to have the least adverse impact, certification shall be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FPL is the electric utility that is applying for certification of the Bobwhite-Manatee 230kV Transmission Line. DEP is the state agency with powers and duties to administer the TLSA, including the power and duty to process applications for certification and to act as a clearinghouse for agency comments on proposed corridors. Sarasota County and Manatee County are political subdivisions of the State and the local governments with jurisdiction over the areas in which the BWM Line will be located. Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. (SMR), is a Delaware corporation with its office in Bradenton, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee and Sarasota Counties, and is the developer of residential communities, including Lakewood Ranch. Lake Club Investors, LLC (LCI), is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Winter Park, Florida. It owns property in Manatee County. Gum Slough Preservation Foundation, Inc. (GSPF), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. GSPS was established with the primary objectives to protect and preserve the beauty and ecological values of Gum Slough. Manasota-88, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its office in Nokomis, Florida. Manasota-88 was formed to protect and preserve the water quality and wildlife of Manatee and Sarasota Counties. John Falkner is a resident of Myakka City, Florida, and the owner of real property in Manatee County. Taylor & Fulton, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It is the owner of real property in Manatee County. Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC, and FC, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with separate offices in Bradenton, Florida. They own real property in Sarasota County. The Concession Land Development, LLC, and The Concession Golf Club, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with their office in Wichita, Kansas. They are the owners and managers, respectively, of The Concession residential development and The Concession Golf Club in Manatee County. Kittie L. Chapman is a resident of Sarasota, Florida, and the owner of real property in Sarasota County. John Cannon Homes-Eastmoor, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Schwartz Farms, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael D. and JoAnne Schwartz are residents and real property owners in Sarasota County. Sarasota One, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Bowie, Maryland. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Pacific Land, Ltd, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee County. East County Homeowners Organization, Inc., is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It was formed to protect the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents of eastern Sarasota County. Hi Hat Ranch, LLP, is a Florida liability limited partnership with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael Hunsader, David Hunsader, and Donald Hunsader own real property in Manatee County. Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc. (BCHOA), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. BCHOA was formed to represent the owners of real property in the Bridle Creek residential community. Manatee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District filed timely notices of their intent to be parties. Sarasota County filed a Notice of Appearance and participated as a party without objection. The Need for the Bobwhite-Manatee Line FPL is seeking certification of a transmission line to transmit electricity from the Manatee Energy Center, a generating facility near Parrish in Manatee County, to the proposed Bobwhite transmission substation near Fruitville Road in Sarasota County. The service area for the proposed BWM Line is an area in Manatee County and Sarasota County that is south of the Manatee Energy Center, north of the planned Bobwhite substation, and east of I-75 and the existing 230kV transmission network. The PSC determined that FPL had demonstrated the need for the BWM Line by December 2011 to: provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 230kV transmission network between Manatee and Ringling Substations in a reliable manner consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; (b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service area; and (c) provide for another electrical feed via a separate right-of-way (“ROW”) path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC recognized, however, that the “Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the exact length and route of the new line.” The Proposed Corridors (Depicted in FPL Exhibit 77B) 1. The FPL Original Corridor Selection Process FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives. The team comprised a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. Because FPL wanted geographic separation from the existing transmission lines that are located in a common ROW that is generally parallel to I-75, the western boundary of the team’s study area began a mile east of this existing ROW. The multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area. The guidelines developed by the team to select route segments included maximizing collocation with existing or proposed roads, following property lines or section lines as much as possible, following disturbed paths through wetlands where practicable, and minimizing siting constraints such as airports, private airstrips, residential development, and the crossing of existing transmission lines. The team ultimately identified 62 route segments which could be assembled into 1,275 alternate routes for the BWM Line. FPL engaged in an extensive public outreach program to gather public input regarding the BWM Line. The public outreach program was integrated with the corridor selection process so that information was shared with the public and feedback from the public was used in evaluating alternate routes. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 1,275 routes quantitatively, using factors such as the number of homes and schools in proximity; the length of wetlands crossed; the length through existing parks, recreation areas or other designated conservation lands; the number of parcels or lots crossed; and estimated costs. The quantitative analysis was used as a screening tool to limit the number of routes that would receive more detailed analysis. The route that received the highest ranking from the quantitative analysis is the same as The Concession Corridor. The FPL Original Corridor follows the route that was ranked eleventh. The routes that correspond with the subsequently-filed Consensus Corridor and Falkner Corridor were not ranked in the initial screening process because they were not among the 1,275 evaluated routes. The Consensus Corridor passes through a conservation area that FPL’s multi-disciplinary team assumed had to be avoided. The Falkner Corridor was not included because it is in FPL’s existing transmission line ROW, which the team also assumed was not an option. The team then evaluated the highest ranked routes, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The qualitative criteria included the functional value of wetlands; the orientation of landing strips to the route; plans for new roads, road extensions and road widenings; proposed developments; “buildability” issues; and the need for future distribution substations. From the more detailed analysis, a preferred route was selected by FPL. This corridor, described in FPL’s application for certification, will be referred to as the FPL Original Corridor. The multi-disciplinary team then determined the varying widths of the FPL Original Corridor along its route that were needed to provide flexibility in locating the ROW within the corridor. The Route of the FPL Original Corridor The FPL Original Corridor exits the Manatee Energy Center north of State Road 62 (SR 62) and turns east for approximately one mile. The corridor then turns south along a section line for approximately five miles, in which area the corridor is approximately 3,000 feet wide. The corridor includes a lateral spur along an existing 50-foot-wide farm road, which is included in the corridor for the sole purpose of providing access to the transmission line from County Road 675 (CR 675). The corridor then intersects CR 675 and follows CR 675 to its intersection with SR 64, in which area the corridor is 400 feet wide and centered on the road. At the intersection of SR 64, the corridor turns west and follows SR 64 for approximately three miles to its intersection with Dam Road. There, the corridor turns south and runs along section lines for approximately three miles, beginning with a width of 4,500 feet and narrowing to 3,000 feet, until it reaches University Parkway. At University Parkway, the corridor turns west and runs along the south side of the road to its intersection with Lorraine Road, in which area the corridor is at least 500 feet wide. At Lorraine Road, the corridor turns south along the road and is of varying width as it follows Lorraine Road to Dog Kennel Road and the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Consensus Corridor Selection Process In November 2007, after eight days of hearing, FPL, SMR, and several other parties jointly requested a continuance of the certification hearing because their informal discussions indicated the possibility for agreement on corridor modifications that would resolve a number of disputes. The continuance was granted and the certification hearing was continued until May 2008. In the interim, a number of parties reached agreement on a new corridor which they referred to as the Consensus Corridor. The areas of the Consensus Corridor that differed from the FPL Original Corridor were thoroughly studied and inspected by consultants and experts hired by FPL and SMR. FPL re-initiated its public outreach program to inform the public about the new Consensus Corridor. The Consensus Corridor is now the corridor preferred by FPL. The Route of the Consensus Corridor The Consensus Corridor is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. However, FPL and Pacific Land, Ltd, entered into an agreement wherein FPL agreed to locate the ROW “as close as reasonably practicable” to Pacific Land’s west property boundary line. The Consensus corridor follows SR 64 a shorter distance west than the FPL Original Corridor before it turns south, avoiding some of the frontage along Lake Manatee State Park. The Consensus Corridor is 500 feet wide as it turns south from SR 64 on property owned by Bradenton Motorsports, Inc., and continues south onto land owned by Taylor & Fulton, Inc. It then makes four 90-degree turns to form a “C” shape, or “notch,” to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary.3 When the Consensus corridor reaches Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, it turns west and rejoins the FPL Original Corridor. Along Taylor & Fulton’s southern boundary, the corridor is located north of a drainage canal, and about 350 feet north of the Bridle Creek subdivision. In addition to this setback from Bridle Creek, Taylor & Fulton has agreed to preserve the existing tree line between them. Turning south from Taylor & Fulton’s property, the Consensus Corridor generally follows the FPL Original Corridor, but the Consensus Corridor is narrower, providing about 200 feet more separation from the residential developments of Panther Ridge and The Concession.4 Along Bourneside Boulevard, the Consensus Corridor is shifted west to align with the eastern edge of the existing road pavement,5 which avoids some wetlands crossed by the FPL Original Corridor and provides a greater setback from The Concession residential development. South of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor departs substantially from the FPL Original Corridor to avoid the latter’s impacts to SMR’s residential developments. Rather than moving west all the way to Lorraine Road and following Lorraine Road south, the Consensus Corridor turns south almost immediately after reaching University Parkway, and meanders generally southward through the Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE). The HRCE is a 1,972-acre tract of land owned by SMR, which is subject to a conservation easement acquired by Sarasota County. The Consensus corridor is 1,000 feet wide as it moves through the HRCE along an irregular line that generally follows existing field roads or fire lanes. The corridor exits the HRCE going west onto SMR-owned land, rejoins the FPL Original Corridor along Lorraine Road, and then runs south to the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Concession Corridor 45. The Concession Corridor (formerly SMR #1) is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. At the intersection of SR 64 and CR 675, The Concession Corridor continues to follow CR 675 to the intersection with SR 70. The corridor then extends southeast on SR 70 to Verna Road, which the corridor follows south to Verna Road’s intersection with Fruitville Road. The Concession Corridor then follows Fruitville Road west to Dog Kennel Road, then north on Dog Kennel to the proposed site of the Bobwhite substation. From SR 64 to the Bobwhite substation, the corridor is 500 feet wide. The Falkner Corridor The Falkner Corridor stays in existing FPL transmission line ROW all the way from the Manatee Energy Center to the proposed Bobwhite substation. From the Manatee Energy Center, the Falkner Corridor heads west on the FPL ROW for approximately five miles. It then turns south and follows the ROW for approximately twenty miles, where it turns eastward and then southeastward for about five miles, until it reaches the area of the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Falkner Corridor is 400-to-500 feet wide. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features 1. FPL Original Corridor Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 All three of the corridors proper for certification incorporate this segment from the Manatee Energy Center to SR The existing land uses in the area of the corridor are primarily agricultural. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are Major Public/Semi Public (P/SP-1), Agricultural/Rural (AG-R), and Major Recreation/Open Space (R-OS) The P/SP-1 land use category applies only to the Manatee Energy Center. The AG-R land use category designates areas with long-term agricultural or rural residential character. Potential uses in this category include farms, rural residential, small retail and office commercial, mining, low- intensity recreational facilities, and schools. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The R-OS land use category applies to Lake Manatee State Park, and recognizes these existing recreation and permanent open space land uses. The ecological communities between the Manatee Energy Center and CR 675 include pine flatwoods, mixed oak-pine uplands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, forested swamps, and small tributaries such as Gamble Creek, Tyre Creek, and Waterhole Creek. The vegetative habitats are dominated by agricultural crops. The tributaries are narrow and have existing road crossings. From CR 675 to SR 64, the FPL Original Corridor follows SR 675. The existing land uses on both sides of the road are primarily agricultural. The corridor crosses the Manatee River system, which includes Boggy Creek and Gilley Creek. There are scattered trees, including some large oak trees along portions of CR 675. SR 64 to University Parkway Lake Manatee State Park is on the north side of SR 64. On the south side are the DeSoto Speedway and Bradenton Motorsports Park, as well as a mix of other uses, including businesses, a nursery, a winery, and some residences. Between SR 64 and University Parkway, the existing land uses are primarily agricultural, except for the Panther Ridge and The Concession residential developments, which are just east of the FPL Original Corridor. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R, R-OS (described above), Urban Fringe (UF-3), and Estate Rural (ER). The UF-3 land use category applies to a half-mile strip on the south side of SR 64, west of Dam Road, is for low-density residential use, generally developed through the planned unit development concept, and residential support uses. The ER land use category is for clustered, low-density suburban, residential use with large tracts of open space for agricultural activities, low- intensity recreational use, environmental protection or other compatible open space uses. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The ecological communities in this area include mixed oak-pine uplands, pine flatwoods, shrub and brush land, freshwater marshes, and forested swamps along tributaries of the Manatee River. Along SR 64, the vegetative habitats and waterbodies include scattered shrub and pasture. Lake Manatee State Park contains pine flatwoods and xeric pine communities, except close to SR 64, where a fire break is maintained. The FPL Original Corridor crosses the Braden River which is a Class I water. As the corridor approaches University Parkway, there are scattered uplands, several small marshes, and pasture land. Near The Concession development, there are four herbaceous wetlands along the eastern boundary of the corridor. c. University Parkway to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation The land in this area is largely undeveloped. Within the corridor, the land use is primarily agricultural. However, just north of the FPL Original Corridor is an SMR residential development under construction known as The Lake Club and a large-lot residential community to the west known as The Polo Club. Closer to the Bobwhite substation site, there are large- lot residential developments east of the corridor. University Parkway divides Manatee County and Sarasota County in this area. The small piece of the FPL Original Corridor that is north of University Parkway and in Manatee County is subject to AG-R (described above) and RES-1 future land use categories. RES-1 designates areas of low-density suburban residential environment, clustered low-density urban residential environment, and compatible agricultural facilities. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per acre. The balance of future land uses in this segment of the FPL Original Corridor is subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, and its Rural land use category. The primary function of the Rural category is to preserve agricultural lands and rural character, and residential development is limited to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. However, if elected by the developers, these lands can be subject to the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area (RMA) Supplement to the Future Land Use Element. The Sarasota 2050 Plan creates several types of RMAs, which function as overlays that do not affect existing development rights of the underlying property owners. RMAs encourage the use of clustered development and the preservation of open space and rural character. The FPL Original Corridor crosses three types of RMAs: Greenway, Village/Open Space, and Rural Heritage/Estate. The Greenway RMA designates a network of riverine systems, floodplains, native habitats, storm surge areas and uplands as priority resources. Uses in Greenway RMAs are restricted to uses that are compatible with ecological functions and values. The Village/Open Space RMA provides for compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly villages and hamlets within a system of large areas of permanent open space, designed to prevent urban sprawl. Villages have a maximum density within developed areas of five-to-six dwelling units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate RMA is intended to recognize and preserve the existing pattern of very low-density, large-lot estate developments, agriculture, and equestrian activities outside the urban service boundary. The vegetative communities and habitats along University Parkway to Lorraine Road are dominated on the north side of the road by developing lands, and on the south side of the road by the HRCE and portions of Gum Slough. As the corridor proceeds westward, there are also scattered shrub and brush land, pine flatwoods, and scattered marshes and forested systems. Along Lorraine Road, the vegetative communities and habitats include primarily shrub and brush land, various upland forested systems, some wetland forested systems, small marshes, and active mining east of Lorraine Road. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Consensus Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of the Consensus Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. SR 64 to University Parkway The Consensus Corridor is east of the FPL Original Corridor in the north half of this segment. There are large- acre agricultural land uses in this area, but the corridor is closer to residential development to the east. The future land use is AG-R (Agriculture/Rural), described previously. c. University Parkway to the Bobwhite Substation The Consensus Corridor meanders through the HRCE for most of this segment. The existing uses are cattle grazing, sod farming, and recreational hunting. The HRCE has a future land use designation as Greenway. The HRCE contains a portion of the Gum Slough swamp system as well as uplands of open pine flatwoods and improved pasture which serve as a buffer for the swamp system. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Concession Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of The Concession Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. State Road 64 to Fruitville Road The existing land uses in this area are a mix of large-lot residences and some agriculture. A large PUD, Panther Ridge, is just west of The Concession corridor. When The Concession Corridor turns south on Verna Road, it passes large wellfields owned by the City of Sarasota and through pastures and other agricultural uses on both sides of the road, with some residential development to the east. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R and R-OS, which were described above. The ecological communities in this area include pine flatwoods, shrub and brush lands, and freshwater marshes. Just south of SR 64, The Concession Corridor crosses Corbett Branch, which is a Class I tributary of the Manatee River. Along CR 675 and SR 70, are primarily developed lands or farmsteads. There are scattered trees and wetlands along SR 675. The corridor along SR 70 crosses a slough. Along Verna Road, there are no significant natural features. c. Fruitville Road to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation In this area of The Concession Corridor, there are some existing residential and agricultural uses, as well as vacant land that is proposed for residential development. Fruitville Road (and The Concession Corridor) runs just north of the large Gum Slough System. The future land uses in this area are subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The primary future land uses are Rural, which may be subject to the Sarasota 2050 RMA Supplement, as explained above; Major Government Uses (MGU), which applies to the existing city wellfield; and Greenway, which covers the Gum Slough system. There are also publicly owned lands south of Fruitville Road that are protected for environmental functions and values. The ecological communities in this area are pine flatwoods, oak and pine uplands, shrub and brush lands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, and forested swamps. On the western end of Fruitville Road, there are scattered wetlands and tributaries across the roadway, including Cow Pen Slough and Gum Slough. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Falkner Corridor Falkner did not present a detailed description of the existing and future land uses or the significant environmental features in the areas through which the Falkner Corridor passes. In the ROW itself, of course, the existing use is electrical transmission lines. Along the corridor, however, there are areas of existing and future residential development. The corridor also passes over the Manatee River and its floodplain. D. Transmission Line Design and Construction FPL will ultimately construct the BWM Line within a ROW more narrow than the approved corridor. The width of the ROW will range from 10 feet to 75 feet. Pursuant to Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, after all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the width of the ROW. The proposed design for the BWM Line will be a single- pole un-guyed concrete structure, 65-to-100 feet above grade, with the phase conductors framed in a vertical or triangular configuration. Each of the BWM Line’s 3 phases is anticipated to utilize bundled 954-thousand circular mils, aluminum conductors (2 conductors per phase), with a steel reinforced alumoweld core. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating for the BWM Line will be 2,990 amperes. The span length between structures will vary between 250 feet and 700 feet, depending on site-specific ROW widths and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, water bodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. Shorter structures might be required in proximity to an airstrip, to comply with applicable clear zones, or to accommodate the wishes of underlying property owners. The transmission line poles can accommodate the placement of electric distribution lines or communication cables beneath the transmission line’s conductors, referred to as “underbuilding.” For poles shorter than 85 feet, however, it is difficult to underbuild. Use of shorter poles also requires a wider ROW to comply with the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) requirements established in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step toward construction. Concurrently with surveying, FPL will work with the underlying landowners to determine the most appropriate boundaries of the ROW and the location of poles within the ROW. Another early task is to determine where access roads or structure pads are needed. After the ROW is established, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the ROW. Clearing the ROW will consist mainly of tree trimming in compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Generally, trees that cannot be avoided and which exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height will have to be removed to ensure adequate clearance is maintained around the conductors, both vertically and horizontally. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet will be removed by hand. Lower wetland vegetation will not be cleared. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. To the greatest extent practicable, existing roads will be used. Improvements might be made to existing roads, depending on their condition. Where soil conditions will not support large construction and maintenance vehicles, usually in wet areas and areas with soft soil, FPL will probably construct new access roads and structure pads. Where new access roads are constructed, they will typically be 14 feet wide and at least six feet above seasonal high water. Structure pads will typically extend about 20 feet around the pole, but, on at least one side, must extend at least 30 feet to accommodate the outriggers on the construction and maintenance equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. They will have culverts installed beneath them, when needed, to maintain preconstruction water flows in the area. The next phase of construction involves the augering of holes, erection of poles, and backfilling of the holes. Poles are typically embedded 18-to-25 feet into the ground. The poles are then “framed,” which is the installation of the insulators and clamp hardware. If the pole is set at a location where the line turns a large angle, guy lines will be installed to compensate for the greater tension on the conductor. Then, the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then tensioned to provide the proper design vertical clearances and “clipped in” to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW clean-up, smoothing of ruts, and placement of sod or seed as needed. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state or federal roadways in compliance with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques (e.g., silt fences, turbidity screens, and hay bales), will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation. The entire construction process for the BWM Line will take 13-to-15 months. Conditions of Certification The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification must comply with the Conditions of Certification. The Conditions of Certification establish a review process through which the final right-of-way, access road, and transmission line structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. The parties agree that the Conditions of Certification attached as Appendix I to DEP Exhibit 8 are consistent with applicable non-procedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over the BWM Line. FPL agrees to comply with the Conditions of Certification. Agency Review of Corridors Proper for Certification Local, regional, and state agencies with regulatory authority over the construction of the BWM Line reviewed the FPL Original Corridor application and each subsequent alternate corridor application filed in this proceeding and submitted to DEP a report on matters within the agency’s jurisdiction. DEP’s first Summary and Compilation of Agency Reports, dated April 27, 2007, addressed only the FPL Original Corridor. At that time, DEP reported that the FPL Original Corridor “can be certified so long as the conditions of certification are met.” The other commenting agencies recommended that the FPL Original Corridor be certified, subject to the conditions of certification. A revised Summary and Compilation of Agency reports was issued by DEP on September 7, 2007. It addressed the FPL Original Corridor and 12 alternate corridors. DEP stated that “any of the proposed corridors can be certified.” The other commenting agencies, except for Manatee County and Sarasota County, had no objection to certification of any of the proposed corridors. Manatee County recommended denial of four alternate corridors, including SMR #1, which is the same as The Concession Corridor. Sarasota County also expressed concerns about SMR #1. DEP’s most recent Addendum to Staff Analysis Report, dated May 5, 2008, compiled the updated reports of the reviewing agencies on the alternate corridors proper for certification, including the Consensus Corridor. Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit supporting data for the corridor and the agencies did not review or comment on the Falkner Corridor. In the Addendum, Manatee County again recommended denial of The Concession Corridor. Comparison of Corridor Impacts The Effect of Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement In the second half of the certification hearing, an issue arose regarding the credibility of the testimony of witnesses for 15 non-governmental parties. These parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on November 7, 2007, which contained the following condition in paragraph 5: The Parties agree that, through their pleadings and testimony, they shall urge the Administrative Law Judge to recommend, and the Siting Board to certify, the Consensus Corridor subject to the supplemental conditions of certification set forth below. FPL and the other signatories to the agreement offered testimony to show that they had not entered into the agreement until they were genuinely convinced that the Consensus Corridor was the best of the proposed corridors. They asserted, therefore, that the credibility of the testimony offered in support of the Consensus Corridor is not diminished by the fact that the parties had contractually obligated themselves to support the Consensus Corridor in their testimony. Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement, however, also raises the question of whether witnesses for the signatories to the agreement felt free to express a subsequent change of opinion with respect to any aspect of the Consensus Corridor; a change of opinion which they reached either on their own or through cross-examination. The Administrative Law Judged asked several of the witnesses whether their testimony was serving their oaths to tell the truth or their contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. All the witnesses claimed allegiance to their oaths to tell the truth. The credibility of the witnesses, based on their demeanor and other indices of veracity, was still discernable by the Administrative Law Judge, despite Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement. Only one witness gave testimony that, in some respects, appeared to be based not on personal knowledge or genuine belief, but on the witness’ sense of contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. Lack of Detailed Information for the Falkner Corridor Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit detailed information in support of his corridor and the agencies did not review it. Therefore, Falkner had the burden to present in the certification hearing all of the information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor and to compare it to the corridors proper for certification. Falkner contends that his right to due process was violated because “FPL prevented the public and government agencies from fully considering the proposal to build the BWM Line in the existing FPL right-of-way.” The evidence offered by Falkner in support of his due process claim, however, amounts to nothing more than discussions between FPL and governmental parties about TSLA procedures and the effect of the PSC need determination. The governmental parties remained free to disagree with FPL and to take whatever related action they deemed appropriate. FPL had no power to “prevent” action by a governmental party. Section 403.526(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the failure of an agency to submit a report is not grounds to deny or condition certification. In several respects, Falkner failed to present the detailed information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor. For example, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Falkner Corridor (especially the impacts associated with crossing of the Manatee River) were described in less detail than was done in the case of the corridors proper for certification. The record evidence regarding the existing and future land uses adjacent to the Falkner Corridor is also inadequate to make detailed findings on that subject. The Certification Criteria Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, provides: In determining whether an application should be approved in whole, approved with modifications or conditions, or denied, the board, or secretary when applicable, shall consider whether, and the extent to which, the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line will: Ensure electric power system reliability and integrity; Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion; Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies; Be consistent with the applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans, if any; and Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the transmission line as a means or providing reliable, economically efficient electric energy, as determined by the commission, under s. 403.537, and the impact upon the public and the environment resulting from the location of the transmission corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines. The three corridors proper for certification and the Falkner Corridor will be compared below with respect to each certification criterion. Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC determined that locating the BWM Line in a geographically separate ROW from the existing common ROW would enhance the electric system reliability benefits of the new line. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that this determination by the PSC did not preclude Falkner or any other party from presenting evidence regarding electric system reliability. The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) is a component of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). FRCC’s primary purpose is to ensure electric system reliability in Florida. FRCC has adopted NERC’s planning standards, which are mandatory and enforced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. All four proposed corridors would be equally able to achieve the reliability standards established by NERC for “single contingency” events, those that result from the loss of a single element such as a generator or a transmission circuit. The reliability issue in dispute in this proceeding relates to the potential for the loss of all circuits on a common ROW, referred to as a “corridor outage.” NERC planning standard TPL-004 requires electric utilities to plan for and mitigate the system performance problems that could occur during a corridor outage. The key to maintaining adequate system performance during a corridor outage is reinforcement elsewhere in the transmission system. FPL’s records from 1985 to date show that FPL has experienced eight corridor outages in that period. Corridor outages have been caused by, among other things, fires, airplanes contacting the lines, hurricanes, tornados, and lightning. These are all events that could occur in the common ROW that is the Falkner Corridor. Vince Ordax, FPL’s former supervisor of local area transmission planning, testified that a corridor outage with the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor could possibly trigger cascading, or uncontrollable, outages. A simulation performed under the direction of Carlos Candelaria, an expert in transmission planning, also showed that a cascading outage could occur, resulting in a blackout lasting hours and affecting 500,000 customers. Such a blackout would jeopardize public health, safety and welfare. FPL admits, and it is understood in the electric utility industry, that the probability of a corridor outage is very low. Falkner agrees that “if the BWM Line is built in the existing right-of-way, and if there is a corridor outage, a cascading outage might result causing customer service interruption of up to 4-6 hours.” Falkner further agrees that, “If the BWM Line is built in a geographically separate corridor . . . then a cascading outage is unlikely and customer service interruptions should be resolved in minutes, not hours.” Falkner’s position is that this difference in system reliability is not significant and does not prevent an ultimate finding that the Falkner Corridor would have the least adverse impact when all the certification criteria are considered. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that geographic separation of the BWM line from the existing ROW would improve system reliability with respect to system performance in the event of a corridor outage. Placement of the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would reduce system reliability in the event of a corridor outage. This enhancement of system reliability is a part of the need for the BWM Line as determined by the PSC. There is an airstrip that is in active use that is perpendicular to Fruitville Road within The Concession Corridor. The proximity of an airstrip to the BWM Line poses a risk of a plane striking the line. The Consensus and FPL Original Corridors are the same length, about 26 miles. The Concession Corridor is 3.3 miles longer and the Falkner Corridor is 2.5 miles longer. A shorter line reduces line losses and exposure to reliability risks, such as lightning or falling trees. However, the differences in the lengths of the four corridors under review are not significant with regard to system reliability. Electric system integrity addresses the adequacy of design and strength of the transmission line to withstand various events. The BWM Line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, DEP’s regulations on electric and magnetic fields (Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814), the Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, Manatee County and Sarasota County noise ordinances, and the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, NERC standards, as well as FPL’s own internal standards. If the BWM Line were constructed in the Falkner Corridor, several structures would have to be built in the open water and floodplain of the Manatee River. Maintenance of these structures would be more difficult and the replacement of poles and some other major components would require barges or helicopters. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are on nearly equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion, with the Concession Corridor slightly less attractive. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion In its need determination for the BWM Line, the PSC determined that the line must be in service by December 2011 to preserve electric system reliability and integrity. The design, construction, and operation of the BWM Line can be accomplished in an orderly and timely fashion and in compliance with the conditions of certification in any of the corridors proper for certification. FPL contends that there was an insufficient showing that the BWM Line could be constructed, operated and maintained in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the conditions of certification and, therefore, an insufficient showing that a new transmission line in the Falkner Corridor could meet the area’s electric energy needs in an orderly and timely fashion. FPL’s position is based in part on its belief that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. Although the record evidence indicates that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor would have wetland impacts associated with its crossing of the Manatee River, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that a permit could not be obtained. Some questions remain about whether the BWM Line could physically fit within the existing common ROW in the area south of SR 70 where a Peace River Electric Cooperative (PRECO) transmission line, called the Crawley tap, is located within it or in locations requiring the BWM Line to turn corners where guying would be needed. Within the next 10 or 15 years, FPL and PRECO plan to place four new distribution substations east of Interstate 75 in Manatee County and Sarasota County to serve future growth. Placing the BWM Line in a corridor east of the existing common ROW would more efficiently integrate these future distribution substations than placing the transmission line in the Falkner Corridor. Placement of the BWM Line in one of the corridors proper for certification would facilitate the building of an integrated system that could be efficiently expanded in the future as this area continues to develop. The Falkner Corridor, because it is on the western edge of the service area, would be less able to provide these benefits. The Concession asserts that its corridor has the unique advantage of passing FPL property that was purchased many years ago for a future distribution substation, referred to as the Oakford site. However, because of the uncertainties associated with whether and when the Oakford site will ultimately be used, how other planned substations will be integrated, and their costs, the proximity of the Oakford site to the Concession Corridor cannot be assigned much weight at this time. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on essentially equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has some potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Comply with Applicable Nonprocedural Requirements of the Agencies The construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line on any of the corridors proper for certification, subject to the conditions of certification proposed by the DEP, will comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Described earlier, but also relevant to this particular certification criterion, is FPL’s contention that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the transmission line crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. FPL suggests that the availability of the alternative river-crossing along CR 675 in the corridors proper for certification would pose a problem in demonstrating that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor avoided or minimized wetland impacts. However, the Falkner Corridor would only be certified by the Siting Board if it determined that the Falkner Corridor had the least adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. Such a determination made in this integrated certification proceeding would have to be considered in the wetland permitting process. As stated above, the record evidence is insufficient to find that the Falkner Corridor could not be approved due to its wetland impacts. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on an equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has more potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Consistency with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan has no provisions specifically addressing transmission lines. Policy GS 2.4 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan discourages the crossing of Greenway RMAs by utilities, but allows a utility crossing when it shown to be necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. A utility crossing must be designed to have minimal impacts on the environment. The Consensus Corridor crosses a Greenway RMA in Sarasota County within the HRCE. Sarasota County has authorized placement of the BWM Line across the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified.6 In the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Objective VOS 5 and Policy VOS 5.2 require protection of the “open vistas” and “integrity of the rural character” of Fruitville and Verna Roads. Because transmission lines are commonly placed in rural settings, FPL asserts that a transmission line is consistent with rural character. The comments of the public show this notion is not generally accepted. Although it is undisputed that transmission lines are commonly placed in rural areas, there appears to be almost unanimity in the belief that a transmission line reduces the quality of a rural vista. Neither Manatee County nor Sarasota County asserted in this proceeding that any of the four proposed corridors is inconsistent with the applicable provisions of its comprehensive plan. However, the TLSA requires a consideration of “the extent to which” the proposed corridors are consistent with local government comprehensive plans. Because Sarasota County has recognized the special character of the Verna Road/Fruitville Road area and adopted policies that seek to preserve its open vistas and rural character, The Concession Corridor along Verna Road and Fruitville Road presents a “negative” with respective to this criterion. The Consensus Corridor also presents a consistency issue under the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan because the corridor crosses through the HRCE. However, due to the mitigation proposed as part of the corridor proposal (discussed in the next section), there is a net positive furtherance of the relevant comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies regarding environmental protection, generally, and the HCRE, specifically. The four proposed corridors are not far apart with respect to this particular certification criterion, but, as explained above, there is an advantage with The Consensus Corridor and a disadvantage with The Concession Corridor. Effecting a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Transmission Line and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Proximity to Residences There is no route between the Manatee Energy Center and the proposed Bobwhite substation that would make the BWM Line unseen from residences. Of the corridors proper for certification, the Consensus Corridor has the fewest homes within 600 feet and The Concession Corridor has the most. The Consensus Corridor has 40 existing homes within 600 feet, the FPL Original Corridor has 54, and The Concession Corridor has 189. The record does not show how many existing homes or residential lots are within 600 feet of the Falkner Corridor, but the Falkner Corridor passes through or by residential developments and urban areas. Taylor & Fulton/the Hunsaders/Bridle Creek The FPL Original Corridor, south from SR 64, begins at Dam Road and travels south through a large tract of agricultural land owned by Taylor & Fulton. Manatee County plans to extend Dam Road north from University Parkway to SR 64, and the FPL Original Corridor would be aligned with Dam Road through the Taylor & Fulton property. Collocation with Dam Road, compatibility with the existing agricultural uses, and avoidance of the residential land uses to the east and west were some of the reasons given by FPL for selecting this segment of the corridor as part of the FPL Original Corridor. The Consensus Corridor in this segment is derived from an agreement between FPL and Taylor & Fulton to have the BWM Line follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary. Jay Taylor testified that this location would cause less impact to the future development of the Taylor & Fulton property. In order to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary, it is necessary to construct the BWM Line in a “C”- shaped notch. The notch adds about one mile of transmission line, compared to a straight line. FPL asserts that such notches are not unusual and FPL has created notches in other areas of the State to follow property boundaries or to avoid wetlands. However, the only examples presented by FPL were notches with much longer sides. The notch in the Consensus Corridor creates a tight “C” shape, with the sides close to each other. From several vantage points around the notch, a viewer would see two, three, or even four transmission lines. There are technical solutions for transmission lines that turn sharp angles, so the tight turns in the proposed notch can be engineered and built. The problem created by the proposed notch in the Consensus Corridor is not an engineering issue, but a problem of extreme visual impact on adjacent properties. The complaints and concerns expressed by many persons and parties in this proceeding were over the prospect of a single linear “eyesore.” The notch in the Consensus Corridor, however, would make it appear that there were three or four separate transmission lines built close together and running in different directions. This dramatic difference undermines attempts to describe the Consensus Corridor as more favorable than the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. The Hunsaders own property that would be surrounded on three sides by the BWM Line in the notch of the Consensus Corridor. In this area, the Hunsaders host the annual Hunsader festival, a rural community festival that attracts thousands of people. Collocation with existing or planned roads is an important consideration in transmission line siting. The FPL Original Corridor south of SR 64 is collocated with the future Dam Road extension. The Consensus Corridor would provide an opportunity to collocate with existing farm roads on the Taylor & Fulton property, but collocation with Dam Road is the better of these alternatives. Although Taylor & Fulton claims that the Consensus Corridor would cause significantly adverse impact to its property, the evidence offered in support of this claim was not persuasive. Agricultural uses are relatively unaffected by a transmission line. Unlike SMR, Taylor & Fulton has no specific future development plans for its property. Its concern regarding the impacts of the BWM Line on future development is speculative. The Dam Road extension (four-lanes) will divide the Taylor & Fulton lands into two distinct areas, east and west of the road. The BWM Line would run along one side of Dam Road. It will be Dam Road, not the BWM line, that will be the primary feature that Taylor & Fulton will have to incorporate into its future development plans. Moreover, the potential adverse impacts to Taylor & Fulton’s future development interests must be considered in conjunction with the fact that Dam Road and the BWM Line are both major public infrastructure projects that will provide substantial future benefits to Taylor & Fulton and the other developers in that area. FPL and other parties emphasized in this proceeding that when a transmission line is constructed in rural areas in advance of residential development, there are many options and techniques available to a developer to integrate the transmission line into future development plans in order to minimize its visual impact. In the future development of Taylor & Fulton’s agricultural lands, Taylor & Fulton will have these same development options and techniques. The difference between the three-sided notch and a simple line defies simple comparisons, such as the numbers of current residents in the vicinity of the Consensus Corridor versus the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. In order to assuage the concerns of the residents of the Bridle Creek subdivision on the south side of the Consensus Corridor where it runs back to the west to join the FPL Original Corridor alignment, Taylor & Fulton agreed to have the BWM Line located on the north side of a drainage canal and a line of trees so that the BWM Line would be screened from Bridle Creek. Taylor & Fulton would not remove the trees in this area if the BWM Line is constructed within the Consensus Corridor. FPL has agreed to the following condition, to be added to the Conditions of Certification as No. XVIII(F), if the Consensus Corridor is certified: To the extent feasible, and upon request by the Bridle Creek Homeowners Association (BCHOA), FPL shall consult with Taylor & Fulton, Inc. and BCHOA in the design of the transmission line to: 1) keep the pole heights along the northern BCHOA property boundary to the minimum height that is practicable, consistent with the desires of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices; and 2) work collaboratively to locate the poles in such a way as to accommodate the BCHOA to the extent practicable, consistent with the wishes of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices. The Concession’s Entrance The Concession’s main concern is the impact of the BWM Line on its entrance. An attractive entrance is an important aspect of a residential development. The Concession believes the BWM Line in the FPL Original Corridor and the Consensus Corridor would substantially diminish the attractiveness of its entrance and harm the marketability of lots and homes within The Concession. Although The Concession did not join in the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the Consensus Corridor, the Consensus Corridor was designed to reduce the potential impacts of the BWM Line on The Concession’s entrance and property. FPL has agreed to locate the BWM Line along the west side of four-lane Bourneside Boulevard, the opposite side of Bourneside Boulevard from The Concession’s entrance. The transmission line would not cross over The Concession’s entrance road. In this area, the BWM Line would be 450 feet from The Concession golf course and 832 feet from the nearest residential lot. The Concession has opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the line with landscaping. The Concession’s entrance is not currently unblemished. A 250-foot telecommunications tower is located on SMR’s property several hundred feet from The Concession entrance. The tower was constructed before The Concession purchased its property, and the tower operator has a lease which allows the tower to remain there for many years. The telecommunications tower affects the siting of the BWM Line in this area. Telecommunications towers must be separated from high voltage power lines by a distance equal to the tower’s height. Therefore, the BWM Line must be located at least 250 feet from the tower. The Concession presented no direct evidence that the prospect of the BWM line near the entrance to The Concession residential development has harmed lot or home sales. The presence of the telecommunications tower was not shown to have affected sales. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(D): In the area of the planned Dam Road/Bourneside Boulevard extension (“Extension”), south of SR 64 and north of University Parkway and connecting with SR 70, FPL shall coordinate to the extent practicable with Manatee County Transportation Department and the underlying property owners regarding the location of the ROW for the Extension and the ROW for the BWM Line. If either Manatee County or the property owner(s) decline to participate in the coordination effort, FPL shall coordinate with the cooperating entity. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(E): During design of the BWM Line, FPL shall locate poles, to the extent practicable and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices, to maximize the space between a pole and the primary entrance of a major residential subdivision, using typical structures, and within the ROW alignment. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8 as No. XXVII(B): To the extent practicable and consistent with safe operation and ongoing maintenance practices for the BWM Line, and in compliance with the requirements of Section 163.3209, F.S. (2007) and FPL’s Transmission Vegetation Management Procedures [which have been filed with NERC and are mandatory], after construction of the BWM Line is complete, FPL shall allow underlying property owners along the BWM Line ROW to plant vegetation within the ROW. Vegetation planted within the ROW shall not have a mature height of more than 14 ft from natural ground grade and must maintain at least 75 ft of clear space around the base of the structure and must not be located so as to impede access to the BWM Line for routine and emergency maintenance. Plans for vegetation planting along the BWM Line ROW shall be reviewed and approved by FPL to ensure compatibility with the access, operation and maintenance of the facility; if compatible, the planting must be permitted. These three conditions of certification would provide opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the BWM Line in the Consensus Corridor on The Concession’s entrance. The Concession proposes a condition of certification that would require the BWM Line to be constructed several hundred feet west of Bourneside Boulevard, on SMR property. However, this would create substantial interference with SMR’s Lake Club development, part of an approved Development of Regional Impact. The adverse impacts to the Lake Club would be disproportionately greater than the adverse impacts to The Concession’s entrance caused by the Consensus Corridor. University Parkway FPL and SMR have agreed to work together on the design of the BWM Line, including ROW location, pole height, and framing configuration, in the areas of University Parkway and Bourneside Boulevard to minimize the visibility of the poles. With respect to the area south of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor has fewer impacts on existing and future residences than the FPL Original Corridor because the Consensus Corridor is more distant from residences. It avoids crossing lands designated for future Village Land Use on the Sarasota 2050 Plan and as RES-1 on the Manatee Future Land Use Map. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road The Concession Corridor is close to and would adversely impact more existing homes and approved future residential lots than the FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road have narrow rights-of-way, with homes closer to the roads, and less opportunity for landscaped screening. The Falkner Corridor The number and proximity of existing and future homes along the Falkner Corridor was not shown. There already are multiple transmission lines in the Falkner Corridor, so for many persons living near the corridor, the incremental increase in the visual impact of adding another transmission line in the corridor should be relatively small. Nevertheless, the overall impact of the Falkner Corridor in this respect is unknown. Electric and Magnetic Fields Some members of the public expressed concern at the public hearings and through letters submitted to the Administrative Law Judge about the potential for health effects from electric and magnetic fields (EMF). However, EMF standards have already been established for the protection of human health and safety and would apply to a transmission line constructed in any corridor certified by the Siting Board. Neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Siting Board has authority in this certification proceeding to determine the appropriateness of any EMF standard. FPL provided reasonable assurances that the BWM Line, if built within any of the corridors proper for certification, will comply with the EMF standards. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. Environmental Impacts No matter what corridor is certified, FPL has agreed to follow a number of procedures to avoid and minimize the impacts to wetlands. For example, wetlands will be spanned wherever possible so poles or pads are not placed in wetlands. The transmission line will follow disturbed areas when possible. FPL has agreed to use restrictive clearing practices in forested wetlands, removing only trees taller than 14 feet and leaving the understory vegetation in place. Where fill is required, FPL will install culverts to maintain water movement. FPL will appropriately mitigate for wetland impacts that cannot be avoided. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor are wide in some areas for the purpose of providing flexibility to avoid natural vegetated communities and waterbodies to the greatest degree possible. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor can be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. The Concession Corridor is narrower, but generally follows areas that are already disturbed and can also be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. Based on a simple calculation of total wetlands that are crossed by the corridors, The Concession contends that it would have the least environmental impact. That is a simplistic analysis that fails to account for the fact that, in any of the corridors proper for certification, FPL will probably be able to avoid significant impacts to the wetlands. All of the corridors proper for certification cross the Manatee River and Gilley Creek on existing bridge crossings without any poles needing to be placed in open water or wetlands. These crossings would be accomplished by spanning over the water, upland-to-upland. The BWM Line in the three corridors proper for certification would be collocated with CR 675 at the Edward Chance Preserve, adjacent to the Preserve’s parking lot. The pristine, natural areas of the preserve would not be disturbed. For most of the Falkner Corridor, a new transmission line in the existing ROW would appear to have no wetland impacts, but the Falkner Corridor crosses the Manatee River at a much wider point than the other three corridors. Building the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would require placing at least four structures within the Manatee River, and 7-to-8 structures in the adjacent floodplain. Four miles south of SR 64, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor cross the Braden River. The river is narrow within these corridors and can be spanned. The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor do not cross the Braden River. The Concession Corridor crosses Gum Slough and Cow Pen Slough on Fruitville Road, and Wolf Slough on CR 675 south of SR 64. The other proposed corridors do not cross these sloughs. However, no significant impacts to these wetlands are expected to occur if the BWM Line is constructed in The Concession Corridor. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification is not expected to adversely impact any listed species or their habitats. There are no known listed plant species within the proposed corridors. However, there are conditions of certification which require FPL to survey for and protect any listed plant species found after certification of the BWM Line. Much of the wildlife habitat within the proposed corridors has been disturbed by roads, farming operations, and other man-induced impacts. No listed wildlife species are known to use the lands within the proposed corridors. FPL is required by the conditions of certification to protect any listed species that are found after certification of the BWM Line. The significant wildlife habitats (for non-listed species) in the corridors proper for certification are either avoided or, in the case of the Consensus Corridor’s location in the HRCE, the impacts are mitigated by measures to protect more wildlife habitat. There are some large live oak trees along CR 675. FPL can avoid or minimize impacts to those trees. In addition, FPL has agreed to the following additional condition of certification to be added as Condition No. XVIII(G) to the Conditions of Certification: When establishing the ROW location and constructing the transmission line, the Licensee shall minimize impacts to pre- existing natural features and minimize tree removal and trimming of vegetation, to the extent feasible and in compliance with Section 163.3209, Fla. Stat. (2007), which incorporates by reference National Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) standard FAC-003-1, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards A300 (Part I)-2001 and Z133.1-2000, and NESC standards adopted by the Florida Public Service Commission. Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE) and Mitigation The Consensus Corridor is the only corridor that goes through the HRCE. The BWM Line would involve 18-to-28 acres of transmission line ROW in the 1,972-acre HRCE, depending on pole height and EMF-related ROW width requirements. The Consensus Corridor is near the western edge of the HRCE, which is primarily improved pasture and pine flatwoods, and follows jeep trails and fire breaks for much of its length. No unique or significant wildlife habitat exists in the corridor. No wetlands or important environmental features of the HRCE would have to be disturbed. The environmental functions of the HRCE would not be impaired. Although the HRCE is in a conservation land use designation, the portion of the HRCE within the Consensus Corridor is not environmentally sensitive, but serves as a buffer to the environmentally sensitive Gum Slough system. Sarasota County, the holder of the HRCE conservation easement, has approved the construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line within the HRCE in the Consensus Corridor. SMR has agreed to add 140 acres to the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified. These 140 acres include portions of Gum Slough and large isolated wetlands. Protection of these additional lands would provide wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. SMR would also protect 470 acres of additional lands contiguous to the HRCE with restrictive covenants. The 470 acres include wetland systems, such as Cow Pen Slough, which would be protected from future development. The restrictive covenants require SMR to ensure that these wetlands are maintained in as good an ecological condition and functionality as currently exists, or better. The restrictive covenants would aid in the protection and preservation of the natural drainage pattern in the area, and would provide a benefit to the Gum Slough system for wildlife habitat and water quality. Summary of Environmental Impacts At this level of analysis, it is impossible to predict the unavoidable environmental wetland impacts that would be associated with each of the corridors proper for certification. As required by the Conditions of Certification, the construction of the BWM Line in any certified corridor must comply with the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. The three corridors proper for certification have some potential for environmental impacts, but for all of these corridors, the environmental impacts should be relatively minor. However, the Consensus Corridor is the best of the three proposals because it presents an opportunity for a net environmental benefit with SMR’s offer to protect 600 more acres of sensitive lands. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse environmental impacts because of the need to place structures in the Manatee River and its floodplain. Costs The FPL Original Corridor is estimated to cost about $25.5 million, the most of the three corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor is estimated to cost $3.3 million less, primarily due to the agreements with Taylor & Fulton and SMR regarding ROW acquisition. The Concession Corridor is estimated to cost $500,000 less than the Consensus Corridor. The difference between the estimated costs for the Consensus Corridor and The Concession Corridor, $500,000, represents a small percentage of the total project costs, especially in light of the margin of error in these cost estimates. Even a cost differential of $3 million, at this early stage of planning and cost analysis, is not a substantial difference. The estimated cost of placing the BWM Line within the existing common ROW in the Falkner Corridor was not clearly established in the record. Falkner used 2006-2007 cost estimates to argue that the Falkner Corridor would cost millions less than the other corridors. FPL states that the FPL Corridor would require that transmission lines be looped in and out from the existing common ROW to FPL’s future distribution substations, adding over $7 million of costs when compared to a geographically separate corridor. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record regarding the costs associated with future substations and connecting transmission lines to meaningfully compare the four corridors with regard to these and other future system components. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would probably cost the least to build. However, the record evidence is not sufficient to state how much less the Falkner Corridor would cost. Other Issues The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor avoid impacts to Lake Manatee State Park. The potential impacts of the FPL Corridor and Consensus Corridor on the park would be small, but the Consensus Corridor would have less impact because it avoids the Park’s entrance and reduces the BWM Line’s length along the park boundary on SR 64 by about one mile. Within the park, the BWM Line would likely be screened from view by trees in the park. There should be no adverse ecological impacts to the park. If the BWM Line is located in the Consensus Corridor or FPL Original Corridor, FPL would first try to place the line in the road ROW. If that were not possible, FPL would locate the line just inside the Park’s fence in an area already cleared. With respect to traffic interruption during construction of the BWM Line, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor would have equally small impact. Construction of the BWM Line in The Concession Corridor along CR 675 (south of SR 64), SR 70, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road would likely require intermittent closure of at least one lane of traffic for the 2-to-3 month construction period. Summary Regarding The Balancing of Need and Impact All three corridors proper for certification would cause adverse impacts to the public which can be avoided without jeopardizing the objectives of the TLSA and without losing the benefits associated with integrating the BWM Line with existing and future land uses. However, the TLSA clearly contemplates that a proposed corridor can cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment, but still meet the criteria for certification. The three corridors proper for certification are found to meet this criterion because none would cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment that are so great that they outweigh the need or benefits of constructing the BWM Line. The evidence submitted for the Falkner Corridor, however, was insufficient to make a finding regarding this particular criterion. I. The Corridor that would have the Least Adverse Impact Section 403.529(5)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that the Siting Board shall deny certification if it determines that a rejected corridor has the least adverse impact with regard to the certification criteria. The Falkner Corridor has more potential for adverse impact regarding some of the certification criteria than the corridors proper for certification. For some certification criteria, insufficient evidence was presented regarding the Falkner Corridor to make a meaningful comparison with the corridors proper for certification. Therefore, the record evidence does not support a finding that the Falkner Corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. If two or more corridors proper for certification meet the statutory criteria, certification must be granted to the corridor that has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4) Florida Statutes, including costs. § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat. Because the FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor meet the certification criteria, it must be determined which of them would have the least adverse impact. During the certification hearing, the parties promoted one corridor over another based on the advantages and disadvantages associated with their various segments. However, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the best combination of corridor segments, creating a corridor that has the least adverse impact and effects the best balance between the need for the BWM Line and impacts upon the public and the environment, is not one of the corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor does not effect the best balance between the need for the transmission line and the impact on the public because it includes substantial adverse impacts on the public in the area of the notch on Taylor & Fulton’s property that are unnecessary and avoidable. The avoidance of these impacts, the opportunity to collocate the BWM Line with the Dam Road extension, and several other advantages described by FPL in its corridor application and in the evidence presented by FPL during the first part of the certification hearing, make the FPL Original Corridor preferable in this area of Manatee County. The best combination of corridor segments is the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation.
Conclusions For Applicant, Florida Power & Light Company: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Virginia Daily, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32333-3000 For Manatee County: Sarah A. Schenk, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Manatee County Attorney’s Office 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 969 Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206-1000 For Sarasota County: Stephen E. DeMarsh, Esquire David Pearce, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 LLC: For the Department of Transportation Leon M. Biegalski, Esquire Kimberly Menchion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc., and Lake Club Investors, W. Douglas Hall, Esquire H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Dianne Triplett, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 For Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC; FC, LLC; Sarasota One, LLC; John Cannon Homes - Eastmoor, LLC; Schwartz Farms, Inc.; Michael and Jo Anne Schwartz: Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire R. David Jackson, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1001 Third Avenue West, Suite 670 Bradenton, Florida 34205 For Gum Slough Preservation Foundation; Kittie L. Chapman; East County Homeowners Organization, Inc.; and Hi Hat Ranch, LLP: Robert S. Wright, Esquire Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For ManaSota-88, Inc.: Barbara G. Hines, Esquire 117 81st Street Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 For John Falkner: Roy W. Cohn, Esquire 2406 Watrous Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 For Pacific Land, Ltd.: Maureen M. Daughton, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For The Concession Land Development, LLC; and The Concession Golf Club, LLC: Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Anchors Smith Grimsley The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Michael, David, and Doanld Hunsader: Paul F. Grondahl, Esquire Mackey Law Group, P.A. 1402 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 For Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc.: Keith Colabella, pro se . c/o Miller Management 2848 Proctor Road Sarasota, Florida 34231 For Taylor & Fulton, Inc.: Joel E. Roberts, Esquire V. Nicholas Dancaescu Gray Robinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order that certifies the corridor for the BWM Line as consisting of the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation; and that is subject to the Conditions of Certification that were entered into the hearing record as DEP Exhibit 8; and that is subject to the additional conditions agreed to by FPL and cited in paragraphs 161 through 163, and 183, of this Recommended Order; and that incorporates the terms set forth as paragraphs 5A through 5D of the Settlement Agreement entered into the record as FPL Exhibit 91, or comparable terms that provide for the environmental mitigation described therein, as conditions of this certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 11th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The principal issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether certification should be issued to Florida Power Corporation (FPC) for approval to operate a nominal 269 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle generating unit located at FPC's Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility west of Ft. Meade, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.501(2), Florida Statutes. The second issue to be resolved in this consolidated proceeding is whether the site of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is in compliance and consistent with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances of Polk County, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Florida Power Corporation is an investor-owned utility that provides electric service to more than 1.2 million customers in its Florida service area. Tiger Bay Limited Partnership completed the construction of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility in late 1994. FPC entered into a power purchase agreement to purchase the power provided by the Tiger Bay Facility. On January 20, 1997, FPC agreed to purchase the Tiger Bay Facility from the Tiger Bay Limited Partnership. FPC now operates the Tiger Bay Plant as one of its electric generating facilities. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is an existing combined-cycle electrical generating plant which has been in operation since January 1995. The Facility consists of a combustion turbine (CT) and a steam turbine generator, that is currently limited to generating no more than 74.9 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The steam turbine has been specifically operated to produce no more than 74.9 MW. Therefore, the Plant was not subject to the Power Plant Siting Act. However, FPC has determined that the generating capacity of the steam turbine is nominally 10-15 MW greater than the capacity currently being used at the Plant. The Tiger Bay Facility is currently operating under separate environmental and other permits and approvals issued by FDEP, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), Polk County and other agencies. The Tiger Bay Facility has been operated in compliance with those permits and approval, and no violations of those permits have occurred since the Plant began operation. By this certification application, FPC is seeking to consolidate the current permits and approvals for the Tiger Bay Facility into a single PPSA certification to authorize the use of the Plant's incremental steam-electric generating capacity. FPC proposes to utilize the additional steam-electric generating capacity in the steam turbine which would increase the generating capacity above the 75 MW threshold of the Power Plant Siting Act. Therefore, certification under the PPSA is required before FPC can obtain the additional electricity from the Plant. No physical changes to the facility or new construction are required to obtain the additional electricity. Only a minor operational change in the steam turbine controls is required to produce the incremental electricity through more efficient utilization of the steam. The Tiger Bay Facility is located on a 6.2 acre tract of land that is leased from the U. S. Agri-Chemical (USAC), Ft. Meade Chemical Complex. The lease extends until 2025 and may be renewed for an additional 25 years. The project's site boundaries will not be expanded to obtain the additional electrical generation. The site is located in southwest Polk County, Florida, approximately 3 miles west of Ft. Meade. The site is bounded on the north by S. R. 630. The project site is in the unincorporated area of Polk County. Ft. Meade is the only local government within a 5-mile radius of the Facility. The area surrounding the Tiger Bay Facility has been dominated by phosphate mining operations. Most of the land within a 5-mile radius of the Plant consists of active phosphate mining, reclaimed mine land, and lands in various stages of reclamation. Other land uses in the area include pasture land and citrus groves, along with limited residential, commercial and industrial uses. The nearest residence is over one mile from the project site. Land use in this area of Polk County is in transition as the phosphate industry completes mining phosphate deposits in the County. The Tiger Bay Plant site contains no significant environmental features. No wetlands, trees, shrubs or listed species or habitats exist within the site. Site vegetation consisted of ruderal and grassy communities prior to development for this project. No jurisdictional natural wetlands exist on the project site. No archaeological or historical sites were found on the project site when developed for this facility. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility consists of one combustion turbine and electric generating unit, and one heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and one steam turbine generator. In the CT, compressed air and fuel are ignited to provide energy to the air as it passes through the expansion section of the CT. The CT drives an electrical generator which has a nominal electrical output of 184 MS. Exhaust gases from the combustion turbine are then routed to the HRSG where water is boiled into steam. The steam from the HRSG powers a steam turbine which drives a second electrical generator, which will now generate 85.5 MW (nominal) of electricity. As a Cogeneration facility, the Tiger Bay Plant also exports up to 75,000 pounds per hour of low-pressure steam to the adjacent USAC Plant for use in its processes. This steam is extracted from the steam turbine part way through the steam electric generation process. The combined cycle facility is fired primarily with natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup fuel. Natural gas is supplied by a pipeline connected to the Florida Gas Transmission System. Oil will be stored in an onsite tank. The increase in steam generating capacity will be obtained by more efficient use of the steam that is already being produced in the HRSG. Currently, the steam is not fully utilized because its pressure is throttled by an internal control valve. To obtain the additional steam-generated electricity, the controls on this valve will be adjusted to increase the volume and pressure of the steam passing through the steam turbine. This increased steam pressure will generate additional electricity in the steam turbine generator. However, no physical modifications to the Tiger Bay Facility are required to obtain this additional steam generating capacity. Further, no increase in fuel use is required to obtain this additional capacity, and no increase in air emissions will result. All of the air emissions form the Facility are associated with the operation of the combustion turbine, which operates independently from the heat recovery steam generator. The main plant cooling-system begins with a steam condenser which cools the steam exhausted from the steam turbine. Heated cooling water is circulated to the on-site cooling tower where it is sprayed within the cooling tower to release the heat to the atmosphere. Fans at the top of the tower pull air into the tower in the opposite direction to the falling water. Cooled water collects in the bottom of the cooling tower and its returned back to the steam condenser. Approximately five percent of the cooling-water is lost in the cooling tower through evaporation and through drift, or water entrained in the air flowing through the tower. Two deep wells on site supply the makeup water for the cooling-water system. The other on-site water use is the potable water system, permitted for up to 1,000 gallons per day. Water is piped from an on-site well, filtered, and treated in a chlorinator before being distributed for use in the Plant. Wastewaters from the Plant consist of blowdown, or water withdrawn from the cooling tower and the heat recovery steam generator. This blowdown is necessary to prevent a buildup of dissolved solids in the waters from scaling in the circulating water system. Process wastewater and stormwater that contacts industrial processes are collected and recycled or routed to the adjacent USAC Plant where the wastewater is used in the phosphate production process. The Tiger Bay Facility has no off-site discharges of wastewater to either surface water or groundwater. The Facility also includes a back-up zero liquid discharge unit, which treats cooling-tower blowdown and process waters to remove the solids. The recovered high-quality water is recycled back into the Plant's process water stream. Domestic wastewater is treated and disposed on site through a septic tank system. Solid wastes that are generated at the Plant are typical of those associated with a light industrial facility. These wastes are re-cycled or re-used as much as possible. Solid wastes not re-cycled are picked up and disposed of in the Polk County landfill. The back-up zero liquid discharge system, when operational, produces a filter cake as result of drying the wastewater discharge. The non-hazardous material is also sent to the Polk County landfill for disposal. Electricity generated at the Plant is distributed from an on-site switchyard into the Florida Power Corporation transmission system. No changes to this transmission system are required for the additional electricity to be produced. Project Impacts: The Tiger Bay site is located in an area classified by FDEP as in "attainment" of all criteria air pollutants. The area is designated as Class II from a "prevention of significant deterioration" standpoint. The nearest Class I air-quality area is over 100 km to the northwest of the project site. The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility operates under an existing FDEP-issued Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions are controlled with the use of low NOX burners when using natural gas, and with steam or water injection when firing oil. Particulate matter (PM) emissions are controlled through the use of clean fuels and combustion controls. Carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound emissions are also controlled through good combustion practices. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and metals, such as lead, mercury, beryllium and arsenic, are controlled through the use of clean fuels. PSD increments and ambient air-quality standards will be protected when the facility is being operated. The operation of the Plant at its increased steam generating capacity of 85.5 MW will not require any changes or additions to the facility. No increase in environmental impacts will result from the 10-15 MW (nominal) increase in steam generating capacity. The Plant will continue to operate within the currently permitted quantities of water for the facility, under the existing SWFWMD consumptive use permit. The project will not result in an increase in project- related traffic. The project also will not result in an increase in noise levels at the Plant site. The benefits of the project are that additional electricity is obtained without increasing either fuel use or environmental impacts from the Tiger Bay Plant. These "free megawatts" result from enhancing the efficiency of the Tiger Bay Plant, resulting in savings to FPC's customers. The project also conserves energy by using the additional existing generating capacity without increasing fuel use in the Plant. Consistency with Local Land-Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances: The Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility is located in a future land-use classification of "PM" or phosphate mining on the Polk County future land-use map. Electrical power plants like the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility are permitted in that land- use category. The project site is zoned by Polk County as "RC" or rural conservation, which allows electric power generating facilities as a conditional use in that zoning district. Polk County issued a conditional use permit and site approval for the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility on November 20, 1992. The continued operation of the Tiger Bay Plant with its increased electrical output under site certification will be consistent with the land-use and zoning designations for the project site as well as the conditional use permit since there will be no physical changes made to the facility. The Polk County development approvals for the Tiger Bay Facility were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time the approvals were granted. Further amendments to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan are not retroactively applied to projects once they have received necessary development approvals. Agency Positions and Stipulations: The DEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (FG&FWFC), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Polk County each prepared written reports on the Project, and all recommended approval of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Project. The DCA determined the project, if certified, would be consistent and on balance with the state comprehensive plan. In its report, Polk County indicated that no changes to zoning at the project site were required as a result of certification of the project. Polk County also determined that the Facility would still meet the conditions of the County's original conditional use permit for the project and no further actions would be required by the Applicant. The Central Florida Regional Planning Council did not submit a report to the Department of Environmental Protection as part of its review of the project. No state, regional or local agency has recommended denial of certification. The recommended Conditions of Certification incorporate the existing permits for the Facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the Evidence of Record, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted final certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location and continued operation of the existing Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility and its increased steam- electric generation capacity, as proposed in the Site Certification Application, and subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto; and The Siting Board find that the site of the Tiger Bay Cogeneration Facility, as described in the Site Certification Application, is consistent and in compliance with the existing land-use plans and zoning ordinances of Polk County, as they apply to the site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Doug Roberts, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 James V. Antista, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Earl Peterson, Director Division of Forestry Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3125 Conner Boulevard, C-19 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Hamilton Oven, Administrator Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Boulevard Mail Station 48 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Brian Sodt Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Mary Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 George W. Perry, Director Director of Historical Resources Archives and History R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Pepe Menendez, P.E. Department of Health Environmental Health Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0070 Rich Tshantz, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Merle Bishop Polk County Florida Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830 W. Jeffrey Pardue Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 MAC H2G St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Doug Roberts, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526
