The Issue The principal issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether certification should be issued to the City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities (Lakeland or Lakeland Electric) to construct and operate the steam electric equipment needed to create a nominal 350-megawatt combined-cycle generating unit located at Lakeland’s McIntosh Power Plant site in Lakeland, Florida in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.502, et seq., Florida Statutes. The related issues concern whether the site for the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project is consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Project Operations and Impacts Project Overview The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities is a municipal utility that supplies electric service to approximately 106,000 customers, which represents approximately 200,000 residents in its service area within Polk County. Lakeland’s electric utility commenced operation in 1891, making Lakeland one of only three Florida cities with electricity at that time. Lakeland currently operates power plants at two locations in the City of Lakeland with a combined generating capacity of 785 megawatts (MW). The McIntosh Power Plant site is the larger power plant site and contains six electrical generating units. McIntosh Unit 3 is a 365-megawatt, coal-fired electrical generating unit, which was originally certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act in 1978. In 1998, Lakeland obtained approvals to construct a new 250-megawatt, simple-cycle combustion turbine (CT) at the McIntosh site. These approvals consisted of a modification of the site certification for McIntosh Unit 3 and a separate Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit, both issued by FDEP. That modification of the site certification for the new Unit 5 CT was required because the new CT was to be located within the site certified for McIntosh Unit 3. Pursuant to FDEP rules, the approval for that new unit was required to be obtained under the PPSA’s modification rules. The new McIntosh Unit 5 CT is completing construction and will be placed into service in the near future. The original permits for the Unit 5 CT anticipated that the CT would later be converted to a combined cycle configuration. The City of Lakeland considered a number of generating options before selecting the Unit 5 project to meet the City’s required 15 percent reserve margin. Siemens Westinghouse submitted a proposal to the City that Lakeland be the host site for the first 501G simple-cycle combustion turbine. The City concluded that this proposal was the best alternative available to meet the City’s needs for additional electricity. The conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will expand Lakeland’s natural gas-fired generating capacity to 76 percent of Lakeland’s total electrical generating capacity. No energy conservation measures exist that would affect the need for the plant. The 250-megawatt CT in Unit 5 is one of the most efficient generating units currently operating. In the CT, compressed air is introduced into a combustion zone and fuel, typically natural gas, is combusted within the forward portion of the CT. The resulting hot gases expand in the turbine and turn an electrical generator. For Unit 5, this electrical generator produces approximately 250 MW of electricity. The hot exhaust gases then are exhausted out the existing stack. Under the proposed Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, the combined cycle configuration for Unit 5 involves the construction of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which captures the exhaust gas from the CT and produces steam by extracting the heat from the flue gases. In the HRSG, the hot gases are used to convert water into steam in a closed system of piping. The steam is then used to turn a new steam turbine, which then turns an electrical generator. Other equipment required for the steam cycle project includes: a new, taller exhaust stack; a new cooling tower; and other plant equipment. The addition of the new HRSG steam turbine and electrical generator to McIntosh Unit 5 will produce an incremental 100 MW of electricity produced through the use of steam. The PPSA requires an increase of steam-generating capacity at the McIntosh site to undergo the full permitting proceedings of the PPSA. Therefore, Lakeland was required to submit its application for site certification to add the steam cycle to Unit 5. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be located on a 3-acre tract of land within the larger 530-acre McIntosh Power Plant site. The site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Lakeland, along the northern shore of Lake Parker. The McIntosh plant site is generally surrounded by undeveloped lands, including reclaimed and vacant phosphate lands used, in part, as a recreational and fishing area managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). There are no residential or commercial properties adjacent to the project site. The nearest residence to the project site is over one mile away. The site for the McIntosh Unit 5 contains no significant environmental features. No wetlands are found within the site. The Unit 5 site is an open field, containing grasses and low-quality, weedy vegetation. Further, no archaeological, or historical resources were found on the site. No sensitive local, regional, state or federal parks, wilderness areas, forests, or areas of critical concern are located within 5 miles of the site. No threatened, endangered, or protected plant or animal species are known to be present at or near the project site. The combined cycle unit will be fired primarily with natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup fuel. Natural gas is supplied by a 10-mile long pipeline owned by the City of Lakeland, which connects to the Florida Gas Transmission gas pipeline system. No alterations to those pipelines are required for the project. Fuel oil for the unit will be delivered by truck and stored in an existing on-site fuel storage tank. The capture and utilization of waste heat from the CT exhaust in the new heat recovery steam generator will significantly increase the efficiency of the electrical generation process for Unit 5. Use of the waste heat will not require any increase in fuel use and will not result in any increase in air emissions from the power plant. When considered on the basis of electrical output, the amount of emissions per megawatt hour of electricity will actually decrease by approximately 30 percent. All of the air emissions from Unit 5 are associated with the operation of the combustion turbine; and the addition of the heat recovery steam generator does not result in any increase in those emissions. Water Use, Wastewaters and Other Impacts The addition of the HRSG requires the use of a cooling tower to remove the heat from the circulating steam. Once the steam exits the steam turbine, it passes through a condenser in which the heat from the steam is transferred to circulating cooling water. The steam is condensed back to water and then recycled into the HRSG in a closed loop system. The heated cooling water is then routed to the cooling tower where forced air evaporation removes the heat. Periodically, a portion of the cooling water in the cooling tower system is removed to prevent the buildup of solids and other constituents which could impair the performance of the cooling tower. Replacement of this "blowdown water" and of the water lost through evaporation will be achieved through the use of treated domestic waste water (reuse water) supplied from the City of Lakeland’s wastewater treatment plants, including a plant adjacent to the McIntosh plant site. The cooling tower will require approximately 3.24 million gallons per day (mgd) to replace water lost in the cooling process. FDEP adopted Rule 62-610, Florida Administrative Code, to encourage the beneficial use of reuse water from domestic wastewater systems as a means of water conservation. The rule sets out certain treatment and design criteria that must be met when reuse water is used, including water used in cooling towers. The Lakeland Unit 5 cooling tower meets these rule requirements because the cooling tower is located more than 300 feet from the nearest property boundary, and the reuse water receives secondary treatment by the City of Lakeland. In the event reuse water is not available because of supply or quality problems, groundwater from on-site wells will be used as a backup source of cooling water makeup until reuse water is available again. The needed quantity of groundwater, up to 3.24 mgd, has been approved by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) under the existing consumptive use permit issued by SWFWMD for the McIntosh plant site. That quantity of water has been shown to not have adverse effects on area users of groundwater. In addition to cooling water, the plant requires high quality service water to replace water lost in the operation of the HRSG and for other plant processes, including control of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions during oil firing. This water is obtained from groundwater wells and is treated in on-site water treatment facilities. Conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will reduce the use of groundwater by approximately 250,000 gallons per day during normal operations due to increased recycling of water within the unit. Wastewater from the plant is generated from the cooling tower, as a result of the periodic blowdown of the water in the cooling tower. This blowdown water is routed to an on-site collection sump and then routed to the City of Lakeland wastewater treatment system. Industrial-related wastewaters from plant operations, including wastewaters from plant water treatment, are also collected and routed to the City of Lakeland Wastewater Treatment system. There is no direct discharge of wastewater from McIntosh Unit 5 to adjacent surface waters. The project will not have any effect on area surface waters. There will be no increase in the need for potable water or domestic wastewater treatment. The addition of the new HRSG and related equipment for the steam-cycle project will not require an increase in permanent employment at the project site. The on-site stormwater management system is already sized to accommodate the addition of the steam-cycle equipment Minor amounts of solid and hazardous wastes will be generated by the project, mainly during construction. Any hazardous wastes will consist mainly of small amounts of spent solvent. Systems are already in place to dispose of these wastes in an approved manner. Electricity generated at the site is distributed from an on-site switchyard into the City of Lakeland transmission system. This system is interconnected to other Florida utilities. The addition of the Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project will not require any changes to the existing electrical transmission system. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be compatible with the other surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The project represents a logical expansion of the existing power plant site. It is well buffered from residential land uses. Noise from Plant construction and operation will not adversely impact nearby residents. Existing noise levels in the residential areas near the plant are low, even with the existing generating units at the McIntosh site in operation. Noise levels during construction and operation will comply with the applicable local noise ordinance, as well as the existing noise limitations in the McIntosh site certification conditions. Construction will generally occur during daylight hours, and construction equipment has to comply with noise limits set by the manufacturers. Addition of the new HRSG and other equipment will act to buffer noise from the existing CT. Operation of the plant will not be noticeable at the nearest residence, which is almost one mile away. Air Quality Analyses Required Polk County has not been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or FDEP as a nonattainment area for any federal or Florida ambient air quality standards. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements applied to the simple cycle portion of McIntosh Unit 5. Because it was a major source of air pollution Because there were no significant net emission increases of any regulated air pollutants due to the conversion of McIntosh Unit 5 to combined-cycle operation, the PSD requirements did not apply to the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5. Under the PPSA, air quality impacts associated with the new, taller stack and the new cooling tower associated with the combined-cycle operation of Unit 5 were required to be evaluated. However, no changes to the PSD permit itself were necessary to address the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5, although some updated information reflecting the increased stack height and the addition of the cooling tower was provided to FDEP. Emission Impacts Under FDEP’s rules, air emissions from McIntosh Unit 5 must not cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state ambient air quality standards or PSD increments. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I area to the McIntosh Power Plant is the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, located approximately 90 kilometers (60 miles) from the Plant. The ambient air quality analysis demonstrated that McIntosh Unit 5's emissions, including operations in combined- cycle mode with the taller stack and cooling tower, will not have a significant impact on air quality near the McIntosh Plant or in the Chassahowitska Class I area. The maximum predicted impacts from Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode are below the EPA and FDEP significant impact levels. Unit 5's emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any state or federal ambient air quality standards. The 250-foot stack height for McIntosh Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode represents "good engineering practice" (GEP), calculated in accordance with FDEP and EPA rules. McIntosh Unit 5's air emissions are not expected to cause any adverse impacts on vegetation, soils, or visibility in the McIntosh Power Plant site vicinity or in the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area. Air emission impacts of McIntosh Unit 5 on water bodies in the vicinity of the McIntosh Power Plant will be insignificant. No adverse air emission impacts are expected to result off-site during the construction of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, and appropriate control methods will be used to minimize emissions during construction activities. The cooling tower plume could cause temporary and localized ground-level fog on occasion. The majority of these relatively rare instances will be of short duration and occur when fog is already naturally occurring. BACT and Emission Rates A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis, required under the PSD program, is intended to ensure that the air emissions control systems selected for a new project reflect the latest in control technologies used in a particular industry based on a cost-benefit approach, taking into account technical, economic, energy, and environmental considerations. A BACT determination was made for emissions from Unit 5, including operation of the unit in combined-cycle mode, as part of the PSD permit previously issued for the simple-cycle operation on the Unit 5 CT. High efficiency drift eliminators are being installed on the McIntosh Unit 5 cooling tower to minimize particulate matter emissions from solids contained in the water released from the cooling tower. While the NOx emission limits in the PSD permit will not change due to the addition of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, the projected emission rate in terms of pound-per-megawatt- hour (lb/mwhr) are actually lower when in combined-cycle mode because of the increase in electricity generated with no additional emissions being created. Compliance McIntosh Unit 5 in the combined-cycle mode will comply with all applicable federal and state air quality standards, including the conditions contained in the PSD Permit for Unit 5 and in FDEP is proposed conditions of certification. Consistency with Local Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinances The Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 project site, as well as the entire McIntosh Plant Site, is located in a future land use map designation of "Industrial" on the City of Lakeland’s Future Land Use Map. That map is part of the locally-adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lakeland. Electrical power plants are a permitted use in that Industrial land use category. McIntosh Unit 5 meets the locational criteria in the future land use element, in that it is well buffered and served by adequate, available public facilities. The McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle project site is zoned I-3, or Heavy Industrial under the City of Lakeland’s zoning regulations. That zoning district allows electrical power plants, subject to further review under the City’s zoning requirements. This additional zoning review consists of a conditional use permit, which is intended to provide an additional layer of review for these types of facilities. On September 7, 1999, the City of Lakeland City Council issued a conditional use permit for the entire McIntosh plant site, which includes the site for McIntosh Unit 5. McIntosh Unit 5, when converted to combined-cycle operation, will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Lakeland’s land use plans and zoning designations for the project. Further, the project will be consistent with the conditional use permit issued for the project site. McIntosh Unit 5 will also be consistent with the other provisions of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan. The project meets the local Plan’s concurrency requirements, promotes the use of treated wastewater for cooling of power plants, and meets the provisions for protection of local air quality. Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission each prepared written reports on the project, and all recommended approval of the City of Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project. (Amended FDEP Exhibit 3). FDEP has proposed Conditions of Certification for the project, which Lakeland agrees to accept and comply with in plant construction and operation. The Department of Community Affairs determined that the project, if certified, would be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) did not submit a report to FDEP as part of its review of the project. However, CFRPC entered into a prehearing stipulation with the City of Lakeland in which it stated that the project would be consistent with the CFRPC’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. DCA entered a similar stipulation indicating its agreement that the project was consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Transportation entered into a prehearing stipulations indicating it did not object to certification of the project. No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities be granted certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location and operation of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, representing an expansion of the electrical generating capacity of the existing McIntosh Unit 5, as proposed in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Amended FDEP Exhibit 3, and subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto; The Siting Board find that the site of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the hearing, is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland as they apply to the site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Gerald Gunter Building 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Frank Anderson, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Thomas B. Tart, Esquire Orlando Utilities Commission 500 South Orange Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire East Lake Parker Residents Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33845-2039 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-1.002 is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Florida Crushed Stone Company, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, has filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for certification of a power plant site to be located at its existing Brooksville complex in Bernando County, Florida. The applicant proposes to construct a cogeneration facility (one which sequentially uses energy to produce energy) which will consist of a 125 megawatt power plant and a 600,000 ton per year cement plant. The project includes associated coal unloading and handling facilities and a directly associated transmission line connecting the proposed facility to an existing Florida Power Corporation transmission line to the west of the proposed site. Separate permit applications for the cement plant component have been submitted to the DER. The project area is located on approximately 6,400 contiguous acres owned entirely by the applicant and currently utilized as an aggregate and line operation. The actual site to be modified is approximately 30 acres within a 100 acre area previously disturbed by mining operations. The proposed site is located approximately 3.25 miles northwest of downtown Brooksville and some 3,100 feet west of the intersection of State Roads 485 and 485B (Yontz Road) in unincorporated Hernando County. The subject site has previously been mined and was originally a hill. The site is recessed within a large earthen dike which will provide a physical and visual buffer of the power generating plant and cement manufacturing plant from the surrounding areas. The dike would project from fifty to one hundred feet above the site itself. When this application was filed, the entire area was zoned for mining operations. Although utility structures are permissible on land zoned for mining, it was determined that rezoning was necessary because the project was a cogenerator and involved a cement plant. The applicant therefore petitioned the Hernando County Commission for a rezoning of the actual project site to industrial, with a special exception for heavy industry. The request for rezoning was approved. The Board of County Commissioners indicated that it felt that the power plant and the power line corridor were consistent with the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations. The land use of the immediate area surrounding the applicant's 6,400 acre tract is primarily mining, agricultural or barren and vacant. There is a small industrial site and a small commercial site to the southeast of the property. The other active mining sites exist in the area north and northeast of the applicant's property and the other lands in the area, particularly to the north, west and south are primarily either vacant or in agricultural use. Most of the existing residences in the vicinity are located to the southeast toward Brooksville and to the south. A survey of existing residences within the immediate area indicates that within a one-mile radius of the site, there are 16 residences, of which 13 would be occupied. Within a two-mile radius, it is estimated that there are 227 residences, of which 189 are occupied. Based upon the average household size for Hernando County, it is estimated that the total population within a one-mile radius of the site would be 33 persons and would be 468 persons within a two-mile radius. The Hernando County Comprehensive Plan has among its objectives provisions for a balanced variety of land use activities in the county, along with attempts to create compatibility among conflicting land use activities. Particular concern is expressed with regard to conserving agricultural lands and avoiding conflicts between agricultural activities and urban-type developments. The proposed plant site is located in a mining area classified to a large extent as being barren lands. It thus provides for conservation of agricultural land and the reuse of what otherwise may be unusable land. Notice of the land use hearing was published in The Tampa Tribune on November 25, 1982, and copies were provided to the West Hernando News, a local newspaper in Brooksville and to the Hernando County Department of Planning and Zoning and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board determining that the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 10th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Graham Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802 C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs Howard Building 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynne C. Capehart, Esquire Sierra Club 1601 NW 35 Way Gainesville, Florida 32605 Arthur Shell, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Cone, Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33061 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 112 North Orange Avenue P.O. Box 2060 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue At issue is whether respondent's motion for summary recommended order should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue a final order granting certification to Progress Energy Florida (“PEF”), to construct and operate a new 530 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired electrical power plant in Polk County, Florida. The proposed site for the Project is located at PEF’s existing Hines Energy Complex, southwest of Bartow, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Progress Energy Florida, previously known as Florida Power Corporation, is an electric utility that provides electricity in a 35-county service area in Florida. This service area stretches from the Panhandle through the center of the state and includes the western coast of Florida north of Tampa Bay. PEF currently serves approximately 1.5 million customers in this service area. PEF has been providing electric service in Florida for over 100 years. PEF’s current generating capacity is 9,174 megawatts. The Company currently operates 14 different power plant facilities in the state. PEF has a customer growth rate of 1.7 percent per year. (Hunter, Tr. 14- 15; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 2). The PEF Hines Energy Complex is located in the southwest portion of Polk County, Florida, approximately 3.5 miles south of the city of Bartow. The community of Homeland is located one mile northeast of the Hines site. County Road 555 runs through the Project site. The Hines site contains approximately 8,200 acres of reclaimed phosphate mine lands. The area around the larger Hines site has been dominated by phosphate mining operations, including mines, settling ponds, sand tailings, gypsum stacks, and chemical beneficiation plants. The adjacent land uses consist almost entirely of active phosphate mining or mined and reclaimed lands. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5-6; PEF Ex. RZ-2; PEF Ex. 1 at 2-1). In the late 1980’s, PEF began planning to meet the needs of future growth in customer demand for electricity and decided to identify a site that allowed for a wide variety of possible generation technologies, while at the same time meeting the ecological and regulatory requirements for building new generation. PEF solicited the help of a team of local community, educational, and environmental leaders to evaluate over 50 potential sites in Florida and South Georgia. This two- year process culminated in 1991 with the selection of the Hines site, then known as the Polk County site. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 4). In January 1994, the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Siting Board, certified the Hines Energy Complex for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity fueled by either natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil, and also granted certification for the construction and operation of an initial 470 MW combined cycle unit known as Power Block 1. Power Block 1 began operation in 1999. In 2001, the Siting Board also granted certification for the construction and operation of Hines Power Block 2, a 530 MW combined cycle unit. Power Block 2 began operation in 2003. In 2003, certification was granted by the Siting Board for Power Block 3, which is currently under construction, and expected to be in service by late 2005. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 5; PEF Ex. 1, Preface at 1-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1). The original certification proceeding that culminated in the 1994 certification included extensive evaluations of the worst case capacity constraints and potential environmental effects of the operation of the expected 3,000 MW of capacity. Those evaluations included assessments of air quality impacts, water quality and wildlife impacts, water use, noise impacts, socioeconomic impacts and benefits, traffic impacts of construction and operation, and other impacts of the entire planned capacity of 3,000 MW. This original evaluation significantly reduces the time and expense for processing the Supplemental Site Certification Application and allows PEF to respond more quickly to the growth in demand for electrical generating facilities. The ultimate site capacity determination assures PEF that the Hines Energy Complex site has adequate air, water, and land resources to accommodate additional electrical generating facilities. The 1994 certification also established that the full 3,000 MW of generating capacity and the Hines site are consistent with the local land use plans and zoning regulations of Polk County. (PEF Ex. 1, Pre-1 to Pre-2 at 2.4 to 2.5). The Hines Energy Complex contains a number of existing facilities and is divided into several major areas. The plant island is the location for the existing and future power generation facilities. It is approximately 704 acres. A 722- acre cooling pond, that is being expanded to approximately 1200 acres, has been constructed on the site, along with a 311-acre brine pond. A buffer and mitigation area has been created along the eastern portion of the Hines site containing approximately 2,498 acres. These areas serve as a wildlife corridor as well. Approximately 3500 acres of the site are designated for water crop areas to supply captured rainfall for use in the power plant. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 3; PEF Ex. JJH-4; PEF Ex. 1 at 2- 1). The Hines Energy Complex is interconnected to the electrical grid through multiple existing electrical transmission lines. A new 20 mile long 230 kV transmission line to connect the Hines Site to the existing PEF West Lake Wales Substation is being permitted separately. Natural gas is delivered to the Hines Energy Complex by two existing natural gas pipelines, which will serve Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Fuel oil is also burned in the existing units and is delivered by truck and stored in an onsite storage tank. A new fuel oil unloading station and a new fuel and storage tank will be added to serve Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 6, 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-1; Tr. 17). Project Overview The Hines Power Block 4 is a 530 MW combined-cycle power plant to be fueled primarily with natural gas. Fuel oil will be used as a backup fuel. The proposed Power Block 4 will be located entirely within the existing Hines Energy Complex site. The unit will be located west of Power Blocks 1, 2 and 3. All construction activities for Power Block 4 will occur within an approximately 5-acre portion of the plant island. (PEF Ex. 1, at 3-2, 4-1; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 5; Exs. JMR 4 and 5). Need for Power Block 4 On November 23, 2004, the FPSC issued a Final Order determining the need for the PEF’s Hines Power Block 4 Project. The FPSC determined that the Hines Power Block 4 will be needed by 2007 to maintain electric system reliability and integrity for PEF. This was based upon an evaluation of PEF’s load forecast and maintenance of its required 20 percent reserve margin of generating capacity above the firm demand of PEF’s customers. Power Block 4 adds to the diversity of PEF’s generating assets in terms of technology, fuel, age, and functionality. Operational flexibility is provided by Power Block 4’s dual fuel capability. The FPSC also found that the Hines Power Block 4 will contribute to the provision of adequate electricity at reasonable cost. The FPSC concluded that PEF, in proposing the Hines Power Block 4, had identified the least cost alternative compared to other options, including outside proposals from third parties. There are no cost-effective conservation measures available that might mitigate PEF’s need for Hines Power Block 4. In conclusion, the FPSC determined that PEF met the statutory requirements under Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, for the Commission to grant the determination of need for Hines Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 3). Project Schedule and Construction The proposed Power Block 4 is similar to the existing Hines Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, which exist or are currently under construction at the Hines site. The proposed combustion turbines for the new unit are two advanced General Electric 7FA combustion turbines, designed for dual fuel operation. Engineering of the units will commence in December 2005 and on- site construction will begin no later than the first quarter of 2006. The new unit is proposed to be in service by December 1, 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4, 13-14). Construction activities will be initiated by the preparation of the five-acre site for construction. This will include mobilization of contractors and subcontractors along with plant construction project management personnel. Existing construction laydown and parking areas will be utilized for Power Block 4. On-site construction will begin with the installation of the circulating water piping and pilings for structural foundations. Power Block 4 will be mechanically complete by June 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14). The construction workforce for Power Block 4 is expected to average about 145 employees over the two-year construction period. Peak construction employment is estimated at 350 employees. The construction payroll is expected to be $15 million annually. Based upon prior experience during construction of Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3, it is expected that most construction workers will be drawn from the Polk County and Central Florida areas. Construction employees are expected to commute daily to the job site. Traffic improvements have already been made in the vicinity of the Hines Energy Complex. Traffic impacts related to construction of Power Block 4 will not require additional road improvements. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-16 to 4-17). No new roads will be required to support construction of Power Block 4 as the existing plant access road will be used during construction. Major project components will be delivered to the Hines site by rail or by truck. No off-site upgrade of rail or road facilities is expected to be necessary. All oversized deliveries will receive necessary Florida Department of Transportation (“DOT”) approvals. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-20, 4-3; PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 14-15). Most major earthwork activities for construction for the Power Block 4 construction area were performed during initial site development activities that were completed in 1996. There are no expected impacts to land in the Project area except for minor grading, installation of foundation systems and infrastructure piping, the new control/administration building, and the new fuel oil tank. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-1). Heavily loaded and structural foundation loads such as the heat recovery steam generators, combustion turbines, steam turbines, and step-up transformers will be supported by deep foundations. These foundations will include deep foundations such as pilings similar to those used for Power Blocks 1, 2, and Lightly loaded foundations will use spread foundations. Construction dewatering will occur primarily at excavations for the circulating water intake structure and the discharge head wall in the cooling pond. Other additional limited dewatering may occur, depending upon the amount of rainfall and the depth of other excavations onsite. Dewatering would be performed using well points or open pit sump pumps, which have a very localized impact area. Dewatering effluent will be routed to the existing on-site stormwater collection ditches for return to the existing cooling pond. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12-13; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-7). The entire Project area is outside the 100-year flood zone. There will be no construction impacts to either on-site or off-site water bodies or wetlands as a result of construction activities. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-2, 4-5). On-site construction activities will not have any measureable adverse ecological impacts. The five-acre Project area has already been cleared and graded in anticipation of construction of Power Block 4 and other future units. The Power Block 4 area is primarily bare soil, with very sparse weedy vegetation of low-ecological functional value. This habitat is suitable for few animals and exhibits low plant species diversity. It will not support populations of threatened and endangered species or species of special concern. There are no jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands that would be impacted by the development of Power Block 4 and the on-site portion of the new transmission line. Mitigation for wetland impacts on the Hines Energy Complex occurred as part of the original permitting process for the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Bullock at 5-6; PEF Ex. 1 at 4-10 to 4-12). Construction noise impacts from construction of all phases up to the 3,000 MWs of ultimate site capacity were analyzed as part of the 1992 certification application. It was shown at that time that the applicable noise criteria would be complied with during construction of each future phase. An updated analysis of construction noise from Power Block 4 reaffirmed the earlier analysis and demonstrated no adverse impacts from construction noise. The nearest residences are approximately 2.9 miles from the plant site. The Project construction noise levels will be less than the existing noise levels measured near these residences. Construction noise will have an insignificant effect on noise levels. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex 1 at 4-17 to 4-19). During construction, the most prevalent construction air emissions will be fugitive dust, generated by site grading, excavation, vehicular traffic, and other construction activities. Dust control measures will be used and will typically require moisture conditioning of construction areas and roadways. Disturbed areas will also be stabilized by mulching or seeding as soon as practical. Crushed rock may also be used in high traffic areas. It is not expected that these air emissions from construction will present any significant air quality problems during the construction period. (PEF Ex. 1 at 4-14 to 4-16). Project Description Power Block 4 will be similar to the existing Power Blocks 1, 2, and 3 at the Hines site. Power Block 4 is a new combined cycle unit of approximately 530 MWs. It will consist of two advanced GE 7 FA combustion turbines (“CT”) designed for dual fuel operation, using primarily natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil as a backup fuel. Each CT will connect to an electrical generator, capable of generating approximately 170 MWs of electricity. Each CT in Power Block 4 will be paired with a heat recovery steam generator (“HRSG”) which will extract heat energy from the CT’s exhaust gas. The HRSG is essentially a boiler that turns heat in the CT’s exhaust, which would be otherwise wasted, into steam. The steam produced in both HRSGs is used to drive a single steam turbine, which will produce an additional 190 MWs of electricity. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4 to 5; PEF Ex. JMR-2; FDEP Ex. 2 at 1-10). The normal operating mode for Power Block 4 will be for both CTs to be in operation providing steam from their respective HRSGs to the single steam turbine. However, Power Block 4 can be operated in other ways, depending on the need for electricity. One CT can be operated at full load, producing steam from its HRSG that would power the steam turbine at half load while the other CT and HRSG are idle. The unit will be operated between 30 percent load and full load in the combined cycle mode while meeting its air emission permit requirements. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 4-5). Natural gas will be the principal fuel used in Power Block 4. Gas will be delivered by two existing gas pipelines that serve the Hines Energy Complex. A new on-site gas pipeline will be constructed to supply natural gas to the new Power Block 4 from the two on-site natural gas meter regulation stations. Fuel oil will be delivered by truck to a new fuel unloading facilities and stored in a new on-site fuel storage tank adjacent to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-4; Tr. 27). The existing on-site electrical switchyard will be expanded to provide electrical transmission interconnection for Power Block 4. The on-site segment of a new 230 kV transmission line between the Hines Site and the PEF West Lake Wales electrical substation is included in the project for certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 6; Tr. 17). Pursuant to the authorization under the 1994 site certification, a 10,000 gallon per day domestic wastewater treatment plant will treat additional on-site domestic and sanitary wastewaters from on-site showers, lavatories, toilets, and drinking fountains for Power Block 4. The treated effluent is directed to the on-site cooling pond as makeup water. Potable water is provided from an existing on-site approved potable water system which is adequate to support Power Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Potable water is supplied from well water and is treated and chlorinated for on-site uses such as drinking, washing, showers, and other uses. A new on-site water distribution line will be installed to support Power Block 4 and the new control and administration building. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-11 to 3-12). Solid wastes that may be generated by Power Block 4 include circulating water systems screenings, sanitary waste solids, water treatment filter backwash solids, and solid wastes produced in the course of operating and maintaining the unit. Office wastes are expected to be the biggest component of these wastes. These wastes will be disposed of in differing ways. Circulating water systems screenings and water filter backwash will be recycled on-site to the extent possible. All other solid wastes will be disposed of off-site in appropriate facilities. PEF has a corporate commitment to waste minimization. This includes extensive recycling of waste products, reduction at the source, and elimination of most hazardous waste storage. This corporate commitment will be implemented on a continuing basis at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 12; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-18). Water Use and Supply The existing cooling pond will supply cooling water and other water needs for Power Block 4. Makeup water to the cooling pond is obtained from direct precipitation, reclaimed treated municipal effluent, on-site stormwater runoff, recycled plant blowdown and wastewaters, water cropping, and groundwater. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9). The process steam in the steam turbine is cooled to the liquid state in a steam condenser. The rejected heat from the steam is transferred to water pumped from the existing cooling pond into the circulating water system and then returned to the cooling pond. The heat rejected from the power plant results in forced evaporation above and beyond the natural evaporation that occurs in the cooling pond. The circulating water system equipment for Power Block 4 will include two new circulating water pumps capable of pumping 60,000 gallons per minute. An additional intake structure will be constructed at the cooling pond to support these pumps. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9 to 3-10). All process water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from the existing cooling pond. Water is pumped from the pond to the water treatment area located east of the existing power blocks. The water is processed for use either as service water or as demineralized water. Service water is used for washdown of equipment and other uses. The higher quality demineralized water is used for makeup to the steam-condensate- feedwater cycle in the HRSGs to replace steam cycle losses. Demineralized water is also used when firing low sulfur fuel oil in the CTs to control NOx emissions. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 8- 9, Osbourn at 7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-13). The reverse osmosis equipment in the demineralized water system produces a brine reject that will be pumped to the existing on-site brine pond for evaporation. The only other wastewater streams from Power Block 4 will come from the boiler blowdown and from floor drains located throughout the facility. Boiler blowdown results from removal of a portion of the water cycling in the HRSG to control the buildup of solids in that water. Boiler blowdown is collected and pumped back to the cooling pond without further treatment. Areas that contain lubricating oil equipment or where fuel lines run above ground will have containment curbs or walls. Wastewater streams from these areas that may contain oil will be routed to the existing oil water separator to remove oil contamination prior to being pumped to the cooling pond. Any collected oil is properly disposed. All wastewaters are collected and processed as appropriate and pumped back to the cooling pond. The cooling pond has no discharge to area surface waters. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 9-10; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-12 to 3-16; FDEP Ex. 2 at 13). The cooling pond at the Hines Energy Complex experiences both natural and forced evaporation. The forced evaporation is that additional evaporation above and beyond natural evaporation and is caused by the heat rejected from the power plant. The total annual average evaporation rate from the cooling pond from natural evaporation and from heat rejected by Power Blocks 1, 2, 3 and the proposed Power Block 4 is approximately 10 million gallons per day. This is an increase in evaporation of 2.2 million gallons per day for Power Block 4. This loss of water needs to be replenished to keep the cooling pond operating and keep the plant continuing in operation. (PEF Ex. 6, Robinson at 7-8; PEF Ex. 1 at 3-9). It has been determined that, over the long term, Power Block 4 will require an average annual daily water supply of 2.4 million gallons per day. This is needed to replace evaporation from the pond and to supply the process water needs for the new unit. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-8). The existing Conditions of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex authorize the use of up to 17.5 million gallons per day of groundwater beginning with the third generating unit at the Hines Energy Complex. The water needs for Power Block 4 will be supplied from these previously approved quantities of groundwater. The existing Units 1 and 2 utilize a mix of treated wastewater from on-site and off-site sources and captured rainfall to supply cooling and process water needs for Power Blocks 1 and 2. (PEF Ex. 1 at 3-7 to 3-9; PEF Ex. 6, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, Appendix IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 7). Under the Conditions of Certification, no groundwater will be withdrawn to supplement the cooling pond until the operating level in the cooling pond falls to 160 feet. The proposed on-site withdrawals were previously evaluated as part of the initial certification proceeding in 1994 and were found to have no adverse impacts. The proposed on-site withdrawals of groundwater for Power Block 4 will not have any adverse impacts on existing legal users of water in the vicinity of the Project, on- and off-site wetlands, or to off-site land uses. PEF has investigated other reasonably obtainable sources of water in the region and found none that could meet the needs for Power Block (PEF Ex. 1, Vol. 2, Appendix 10.6; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8-9). PEF has undertaken several efforts to minimize the use of groundwater through the use of water conservation practices, as required by the Conditions of Certification in the 1994 site certification. These measures include the use of water conserving electric generation technologies, recycling of all wastewater streams, and the design of the power plant as a “zero discharge” facility. PEF is also continuing to investigate other sources of water supply for the Hines site. (FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 8). Power Blocks 1 and 2 are supplied water from the on- site water cropping system and on-site and off-site treated wastewaters. The capture and reuse of rainfall is an integrated part of PEF’s efforts to reduce dependence on the Upper Floridan aquifer as a source of water. In addition, recycled plant wastewaters, treated wastewater from the City of Bartow, and nearby industrial and power plants are the other primary sources of water for Hines Power Blocks 1 and 2. The City of Bartow currently provides approximately 2.0 million gallons per day of treated wastewater for use at the Hines Energy Complex. (PEF Ex. 1, Hunter at 7; FDEP Ex. 2, App. IV, SWFWMD Agency Report at 6-8). Air Emissions The primary air pollutants emitted from Hines Power Block 4 will include nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), particulate matter (“PM”), and sulfur oxides such as sulfur dioxide. The primary cause of the air emissions from the new unit will be the combustion of natural gas and distillate oil in the CTs. Emissions of NOx and CO will result from the combustion process. Emissions of PM and sulfur dioxide result from trace impurities in the fuel itself. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 4-5; Tr. 35-37). Air emissions from Power Block 4 will be minimized through the inherent efficiency of the combined cycle technology, as well as the use of natural gas and light oil, use of combustion controls, and use of post-combustion control technology for nitrogen oxide emissions. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels and contains minimal amounts of impurities. Light oil is also very low in impurities and its use will be limited to up to 1,000 hours per year per combustion turbine. Natural gas and light oil burn very efficiently, thus minimizing the formation of air pollutants. Emissions are also minimized through the use of advanced combustion control technology in the combustion turbine, specifically dry, low NOx combustion controls for firing natural gas, and use of water injection when firing light oil. A post-combustion control technology, selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) will be used to further reduce NOx emissions from Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 5-6; Tr. 35). The Hines Power Block 4 is required to meet best available control technology (“BACT”) requirements, which limits air pollution emission rates. The Project must also comply with ambient air quality standards (“AAQS”) and prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) increment standards, which establish levels of air quality which must be met. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; PEF Ex. 1 at 3.5 to 3-6; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6, 17). Hines Power Block 4 is required to undergo PSD review because it is a new source of air pollution that will emit some air pollutants above the threshold amounts established under the PSD program. PSD review was required for air emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide, NOx, CO, and sulfuric acid mist because these emissions are greater than the established PSD thresholds. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7). The BACT analysis for Hines Power Block 4 is part of the evaluation of air emissions control technology under the PSD regulations and is applicable to all pollutants for which PSD review is required. BACT is a pollutant-specific emission standard that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 6-7; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6). For NOx, FDEP has preliminarily determined for this facility a BACT emission limit of 2.5 parts per million when firing natural gas, and 10 parts per million when firing low sulfur fuel oil. These emission levels will be achieved by the use of dry low NOx combustion technology when firing natural gas, use of water injection when firing fuel oil, and use of SCR technology. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8; FDEP Ex. 2 at 9, 21, Table 4). Emissions of carbon monoxide will be controlled using good combustion techniques. Sulfur dioxide emissions, including sulfuric acid mist, will be controlled through the use of clean fuels. Particulate matter emissions will be controlled through the use of clean fuels, natural gas, and low sulfur fuel oil. Fuel oil firing will be limited to a maximum of about 1,000 hours per year. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 7-9; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 15; Tr. 36-37). The air emissions from Power Block 4 cannot be permitted at a level that would cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state AAQS for the six criteria air pollutants or PSD increments for sulfur dioxide, NOx, and PM. The PSD increments refer to the amount of incremental air quality deterioration allowed from a new air pollution source. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I PSD area within which limited increases in air pollutant concentrations are allowed is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 9-11; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 were principally analyzed for emissions from fuel oil firing as representing the maximum air quality impact. The air quality impact analysis was performed using approved air quality models and five years of historical hourly meteorological data. This analysis indicated that Power Block 4 will not cause any violations of federal or state AAQS and will comply with applicable PSD Class II and Class I increments. The maximum impact of the Project was estimated to be well below the applicable PSD Class II increments. Maximum ambient air impacts were also estimated to be well below the applicable AAQS. Using worst case air emissions during oil firing, it was shown that the Project impacts would be less than the PSD Class I increments, as well as less than the Class I significant impact levels, and therefore were concluded not to be significant in the PSD Class I area. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 8-14, Exs. SO-3 and SO-4; FDEP Ex. 2 at 7-8, 16-17). Air emissions from Power Block 4 are not expected to have any impact on vegetation or to cause any growth-related air quality impacts. The results of the visibility impact analysis of the Project’s emissions in the nearest PSD Class I area demonstrated no adverse impact on visibility at that location due to Power Block 4. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 14-15; FDEP Ex. 2 at 6-7, 17). Noise Noise impacts during operation of Power Block 4 were shown not to be significant. Noise monitoring was originally conducted at various locations around the Hines Energy Complex site prior to construction and operation of Power Block 1. Additional noise monitoring was conducted at these locations in 2000 and 2004 during the permitting of Power Blocks 2 and 4, to determine any changes since the original permitting. There are only a few isolated rural residences in the land area surrounding the site. The nearest residence is about 2.5 miles from the proposed Power Block 4. Industrial activities in the surrounding area result in considerable traffic on nearby roads, causing noise levels to exceed the EPA guideline of 55 dBA. Without the area traffic, ambient noise levels meet the EPA guidelines. (PEF Ex. 1 at 2-65 to 2-72). Using a conservative approach which tends to overstate the Project impacts, noise impacts due to operation of Power Block 4 would increase by less than 2 dBA at the nearest receptor and will not be significant. Therefore, the Project will meet applicable noise criteria and no significant noise impacts will occur as a result of the Project. (PEF Ex. 6, Osbourn at 15-16; PEF Ex. 10, Slide 23; PEF Ex. 1 at 5-9 to 5-12). Land Use and Socioeconomic Impacts The Plant Island, where Power Block 1 is in operation and where Power Block 4 will be constructed, is located near the southern end of the site. The northern boundary of the Plant Island is about two miles south of CR 640. The western limit of the City of Fort Meade is about 3.9 miles east of the Plant Island, and the unincorporated community of Homeland is more than 3.5 miles northeast of the Plant Island. The nearest residential use is three homes located approximately 2.5 miles from the southern boundary of the Plant Island. Otherwise, the entire area surrounding the proposed power plant site consists of existing or former phosphate mines. The site is buffered from surrounding populations at Homeland and Fort Meade by an extensive buffer area on the eastern perimeter of the site. There has been almost no change in land use and very little change in the landscape in the area of the Hines Energy Complex since the original site certification. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 5- 6). There have not been any changes in the area surrounding the Hines Energy Complex that would change the land use and socio-economic conclusions reached in the Final Order of Certification issued for the site by the Siting Board on January 27, 1994. The most significant change has been the completion of another nearby power plant approximately three miles southeast of the Hines site. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6). No land use or socio-economic impacts will be associated with construction of Power Block 4 that were not previously addressed in the Final Order of Certification for the Hines Energy Complex in 1994. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 6-8). The land use impacts from development and construction of Power Block 4 will be quite minimal, and the economic benefits will be substantial. Current operating employment at the Hines Energy Complex is 29. The staffing level at the plant is expected to increase by six employees with the addition of Power Block 4. Annual payroll was $2.7 million in 2002. The annual payroll will increase by about $493,000 when Power Block 4 becomes operational in 2007. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8). The estimated increase in property taxes for Power Block 4 is $5.0 million. Over one-half of this revenue goes to support the Polk County school system. (PEF Ex. 6, Zwolak at 8; PEF Ex. 1 at 7-1). Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the FDOT, and the SWFWMD each prepared written reports on the Project. (FDEP Ex. 2). Each of these agencies either recommended approval of Hines Power Block 4 or otherwise did not object to certification of the proposed power plant. The FDEP has proposed a series of Conditions of Certification for the Project that incorporate the recommendations of the various reviewing agencies. At hearing, the FDEP added one additional condition related to air emissions monitoring. (Tr. 54-55). PEF states that it can comply with these Conditions of Certification in the design, construction, and operation of the Hines Power Block 4. (Tr. 21, 56). No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the Project or has otherwise objected to certification of the Project. (PEF Ex. 4). Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions of certification, the proposed design of Hines Power Block 4 offers reasonable assurance that the standards of the FDEP and other affected regulatory agencies will be met and that the operation safeguards are technically sufficient for the protection of the citizens of the state. The Hines Power Block 4, as proposed, minimizes through reasonable and available methods the adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. (FDEP Ex. 1 at 28; Tr. 57-59).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification to PEF to construct and operate a new 530 MW natural gas-fired electrical power plant (Hines Power Block 4 Project) in Polk County, Florida, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification, FDEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Michael Duclos, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Wm. Cochran Keating IV, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Steven Palmer Siting Coordination Office Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the South Florida Water Management District’s (“District”) intended award of a contract for aerial spraying services, granular application services, and aerial transport services, to Coastal Air Services, Inc. (“Coastal”), is contrary to the District’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The District is an independent taxing authority created pursuant to section 373.069, Florida Statutes, with the authority to contract with private entities to maintain real property controlled by the District. See § 373.1401, Fla. Stat. HAI is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 1090 Airglades Boulevard in Clewiston, Florida. Coastal is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 7424 Coastal Drive in Panama City, Florida. The RFB On February 7, 2018, the District issued the RFB, soliciting bids for qualified respondents to provide the following: [F]urnish all labor, equipment, perform data entry and perform all operations for spraying of aquatic, ditchbank and invasive vegetation by helicopter and provide aerial flight services for site inspection and plant surveys. Both HAI and Coastal submitted timely bids, which the District deemed responsive and responsible under the terms of the RFB. The District deemed Coastal the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for aerial spraying, granular application, and aerial transport services. The District deemed HAI the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for spot spraying services. On May 11, 2018, the District posted its Notice of Intent to Award the respective contracts to Coastal and HAI. HAI challenges the award to Coastal because it is not a responsible bidder under the terms of the RFB. HAI’s challenge focuses on two items required to document the bidder’s responsibility to perform the requested services. First, the RFB requires the bidder to provide at least two helicopters certified pursuant to 14 CFR Part 133, Rotocraft External-Load Operations; and 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations (Part 137 Certificate). Second, the RFB requires the bidder to demonstrate its ability to obtain required insurance coverage. Part 137 Certificate HAI contends that Coastal’s bid does not meet the responsibility provisions of the RFB because it did not include sufficient Part 137 Certificates for its subcontractor, HMC Helicopters (“HMC”). HAI contends the Part 137 Certificates are required to expressly state that aircraft are certified to dispense economic poisons. Petitioner’s argument fails for three reasons. First, the RFB does not require the bidder’s Part 137 Certificate to expressly endorse aircraft to dispense economic poisons.3/ Second, assuming the express endorsement was required, the requirement does not apply to HMC. The RFB defines the term “Bidder” and “Respondent” as “[a]ll contractors, consultants, organizations, firms or other entities submitting a Response to this RFB as a prime contractor.” (emphasis added). In its bid, Coastal is listed as the prime contractor, and HMC as a subcontractor. The RFB requires each Respondent to list at least two aircraft which are Part 133 and 137 certified. The requirement applies to Coastal as the primary contractor, not to its subcontractor. Coastal’s bid listed five aircraft with both Part 133 and 137 Certificates, actually exceeding the requirement for two such certified aircraft. Third, assuming an express endorsement for dispensing economic poisons was required, and that the requirement applied to HMC, HMC’s Part 137 Certificate documents HMC’s authority to dispense economic poisons. Pursuant to 14 CFR 137.3, “Agricultural aircraft operation” is defined as follows: [T]he operation of an aircraft for the purpose of (1) dispensing any economic poison, (2) dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propagation of plant life, or pest control, or (3) engaging in dispending activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects. To obtain a Part 137 Certificate, the operator must pass a knowledge and skills test, which includes the safe handling of economic poisons and disposal of used containers for those poisons; the general effects of those poisons on plants, animals, and persons and precautions to be observed in using those poisons; as well as the primary symptoms of poisoning in persons, appropriate emergency measures in the case of poisoning, and the location of poison control centers. See 14 CFR § 137.19. However, if the operator applies for a Part 137 Certificate which prohibits dispensing of economic poisons, the applicant is not required to demonstrate the knowledge and skills listed above. See Id. HMCs’ certificates do not contain an express prohibition against dispensing economic poisons. The authorization for HMC’s aircraft to dispense economic poisons is inherent in its Part 137 Certificate. Coastal’s bid meets the solicitation requirement for at least two aircraft with Part 137 Certificates. Insurance Requirements The RFB requires each Respondent to “provide evidence of the ability to obtain appropriate insurance coverage.” Respondents may meet the insurability requirement by having their insurance agent either (1) complete and sign an insurance certificate which meets all of the requirements of Exhibit H to the RFB; or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency’s letterhead stating that the Respondent qualifies for the required insurance coverage levels and that an insurance certificate meeting the District’s requirements will be submitted prior to the execution of the contract. In response to this requirement, Coastal submitted a letter from Sterlingrisk Aviation, dated March 6, 2018, stating, “All required coverage amounts are available to Coastal Air Service, Inc. to fulfill the requirements of this contract.” In the Re: line, the letter refers to the specific RFB at issue in this case. Coastal also submitted a certificate of insurance from Sterlingrisk Aviation demonstrating the levels of insurance coverage in effect at the time the bid was submitted, although the coverages are less than the amounts required under the RFB.4/ HAI takes issue with Coastal’s evidence of ability to obtain the required coverage because the letter from Sterlingrisk does not state “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers that Sterlingrisk’s letter omits the language that a certificate “will be provided” prior to contract execution, because Sterlingrisk will issue an insurance certificate only when Coastal applies, and pays the premium, for the increased coverage limitations. The letter from Sterlingrisk substantially complies with the insurance requirements of the RFB, and constitutes competent, substantial evidence of Coastal’s ability to obtain the required insurance coverage. HAI introduced no evidence that Coastal obtained an economic advantage over HAI by failing to include language from its insurance agent that “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Instead, HAI argued that by failing to enforce that provision of the RFB, the District cannot ensure the winning bidder will be responsible to undertake the contract. HAI argued that the District’s failure to adhere to this RFB requirement may create inefficiencies that “would result in the event that Coastal were unable to obtain the required insurance coverage” before execution of the contract. Coastal’s bid documents its eligibility for insurance coverage in the amounts required by the RFB. If Coastal does not provide said certificates, it will not be qualified for final execution or issuance of the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing Helicopter Applicator, Inc.’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact During 1974, Beker Phosphate Corporation applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County for a development order approving proposed phosphate mine operations. Beker is seeking to engage in phosphate mining on over ten thousand acres of land located in Manatee County in the watersheds of the Manatee and Myakka Rivers. The TBRPC is the regional planning agency which reviews development of regional impact applications in Manatee County. On December 9, 1974, the TBRPC recommended that the proposed mine be approved with modifications. On January 28, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County issued a DRI Development Order. The order approved the application submitted by Beker subject to thirteen specified conditions which are set out in the order. A copy of this development order was received in evidence at the final hearing as a Appellant's Exhibit 3. Neither the Division of State Planning nor any appropriate regional planning agency appealed the development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County did attempt to appeal the order; however, on June 17, 1975, the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission accepted the Hearing Officer's recommended order and dismissed the appeal. This action was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1975). In its application for development order, Beker had proposed to construct two secondary dams prior to commencing mining activities. One of these was to be constructed on the East fork of the Manatee River, and one on Wingate Creek. The dams were located down stream from initial waste clay settling areas. One of the purposes of the secondary dams was to serve as a back up system in the event that there was a break in the primary dam. In approving the application, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County required that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary motivation of Manatee County in requiring construction of the secondary dams was not protection from leaks in the primary dam system, but rather a desire to plan for the County's long term water needs. The Board anticipates that a reservoir would eventually be constructed behind the secondary dams, and that these reservoirs would serve the long-term water needs of the people of Manatee County. Since the secondary dams were to be constructed in wetland areas, Beker needed to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation in order to construct the dams. An application was submitted. On November 29, 1976, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Beker subsequently petitioned for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp). The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A final hearing was scheduled, but due to subsequent action taken by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, and due to this proceeding, the hearing was postponed and the case has been held in abeyance since April 5, 1977. No formal hearing has been conducted with respect to the application to construct the secondary dams, and no final order has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. While the Department of Environmental Regulation matter was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Louis Driggers, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, became concerned that the proceeding could have an adverse effect upon the county's long-range desire to construct a reservoir which would serve water supply needs. Mr. Driggers had a conference with Secretary Landers of the Department of Environmental Regulation, and learned that the agency's initial objections to the secondary dams were that the dams themselves would cause destruction of wetlands areas, and that since the primary dams were being constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, there would be no need for the secondary dams. This opinion was set out in a letter from Mr. Landers to Mr. Driggers dated March 14, 1977 (Beker Exhibit 1). Mr. Driggers subsequently relayed this information to other members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on April 12, 1977, the Board adopted a resolution modifying a portion of the DRI development order which it had issued on January 28, 1975. The earlier order was specifically amended to delete the requirement that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the beginning of mining operations. The requirement that the secondary dams be constructed has not been altogether deleted; however, it is no longer a purpose of the dams to provide any secondary protection from a putative phosphate spill. The dams now have as their primary purpose long-range water supply and flood control. Manatee County is in effect now able to insist that Beker construct the dams at any time that the county so desires, assuming that all proper permits can be obtained. It is unlikely that the county will ever request that a secondary dam be constructed in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County did not submit the issues resolved in the April 12 order to the appropriate regional planning agency, and did not, through its order specifically consider all of the potential regional impacts of the order. The Commission concluded that the amendment did not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Following entry of the order the SWFRPC filed this appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The SWFRPC, and Sarasota County contend that the April 12 amendment constitutes a substantial deviation from the original development order, and that the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County should have entered the order only after conducting all of the proceedings contemplated in Florida Statutes Chapter 380. Beker Phosphate, Manatee County, and the TBRPC contend that the April 12 order does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Testimony presented at the hearing related primarily to the secondary dam originally proposed for construction in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. An initial waste clay settling area with a capacity of 8,848 acre- feet is proposed for construction primarily within the Myakka River watershed adjacent to Wingate Creek. Phosphate slimes would be stored above ground and permitted to settle in this area. The proposed secondary dam would have been located approximately three miles downstream from the settling area. The secondary dam would have had a capacity of 260 acre-feet. The secondary dam would thus have the capacity to contain a limited spill from the primary settling area. The secondary dam would provide no protection from a complete destruction or break down of the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of any spill from the primary area greater than 260 acre-feet. Such a spill would result in destruction of the secondary dam. Spills of less than 40 acre- feet of material from the primary settling area would have no substantial impact on areas below the secondary dam whether the dam was constructed or not. Spills of a volume between 40 acre-feet and 260 acre-feet could, without the construction of secondary dams, have an impact upon areas below the secondary dams. Turbidity caused by such a spill, and deleterious substances contained in the slime could result in substantial environmental impacts, including destruction of vegetation, and short-term and long-term fish kills at least as far down the system as upper Myakka Lake, which is located in Sarasota County. No evidence was presented to indicate that a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet from the primary settling area is likely or more than a mere hypothetical possibility. The only testimony respecting the likelihood of any spill was that if the dams surrounding the primary settling area were constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, and were properly inspected, there is no likelihood of a breakdown in the dams or of a spill. Argument was presented at the hearing to the effect that phosphate slimes could escape the settling area, or other areas within the mining operation, but there was no evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence that such leakages or minor spills would be as large as 40 acre-feet. Deletion of the requirement for construction of secondary dams prior to commencement of mining activities as set out in the January 28, 1975 development order, would constitute a substantial deviation from that order only if there were some likelihood of a breakdown in the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of some leakage at some point in the mining operations that would result in a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet of material into the Myakka watershed. No evidence was offered that would serve to establish even the remotest likelihood of such an event. The evidence does, however, establish that construction of the secondary dam in Wingate Creek would have adverse environmental consequences. The construction would take place in a viable wetlands area. The natural flow of water through the Myakka watershed would be disturbed. Construction of the dam would appear to constitute a concession that more than 4 acres of valuable and viable flood plain along Wingate Creek would be given up for the sake of the phosphate mining operations. It is possible that without the dams the result of any spill could be confined to a smaller area than that surrounded by the secondary dams. Without the dams the normal flow of water through the system will not be disturbed, and areas below the primary settling area can remain in their natural condition.
The Issue Pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes, the sole issue for determination in this case is whether the proposed site for the Petitioner’s electrical power plant “is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.” (All statutory references are to the 2001 codification of the Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Calpine intends to license, construct, own, and operate a new electrical power plant in unincorporated Indian River County, Florida. Calpine filed an application with DEP under the PPSA for the proposed electrical power plant, which is known as the Blue Heron Energy Center ("the Project"). The Site for the Blue Heron Energy Center The site (“Site”) for the Blue Heron Energy Center is located in southeastern Indian River County, approximately 5 miles southwest of the City of Vero Beach. The Site is approximately 50.5 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. The primary vegetation on the Site is pine flatwoods. The Site contains two small wetlands that will be preserved. The general area surrounding the Site is a mixture of agricultural, industrial, institutional, utility and residential land uses. The Interstate 95 ("I-95") corridor is adjacent to the west side of the Site. Just west of the I-95 corridor are two existing electrical transmission line corridors operated by Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL"). There is an existing natural gas pipeline owned by Florida Gas Transmission Company located between the two electrical transmission line corridors. The Indian River County Correctional Institution is located directly northwest of the Site. Farther to the north are Indian River County's landfill and several industrial (citrus processing) facilities. There also is one single-family residence located north of the Site. The eastern boundary of the Site is adjacent to 74th Avenue, which is adjacent to a drainage ditch known as the Lateral C Canal. A citrus grove and an industrial wastewater sprayfield are located on the east side of the Lateral C Canal. The southern boundary of the Site abuts the border between Indian River County and St. Lucie County. The I-95 corridor and undeveloped lands lie south of the Site in St. Lucie County. Southeast of the Site, in St. Lucie County, is a residential development known as Spanish Lakes Fairways. The Site is separated from this residential development by a drainage ditch, a berm, and an existing buffer of mature trees and dense vegetation. Description of the Proposed Blue Heron Project The Blue Heron Energy Center will involve the construction and operation of a combined cycle, natural gas- fired, electrical power plant that will generate approximately 1080 MW (nominal). The Blue Heron Project will be built in two phases, each generating approximately 540 MW (nominal). The first phase of the Project will include two combustion turbines, two heat recovery steam generators, a steam turbine, exhaust stacks, cooling towers, a treatment and storage system for process water, a treatment system and detention basin for storm water, an operations control center, transformers and related switching gear, and other ancillary structures and features. The second phase of the Project will be similar to the first phase. The Blue Heron Energy Center will connect to Florida's electrical grid with two overhead transmission lines that will extend west from the Site approximately 1400 feet (over I-95) to the existing FPL transmission lines. The Project will obtain natural gas by installing an underground pipe that will extend from the Site approximately 1400 feet to the west (under I-95) to where the Project will interconnect with the natural gas pipeline systems operated by Gulfstream and Florida Gas Transmission Company. Calpine has obtained options to purchase the land west of the Site where Calpine's gas pipeline corridor and electrical transmission line corridor will be located. The primary source of cooling and process water for the Blue Heron Energy Center will be surface water (storm water), which will be obtained from the Lateral C Canal or the County's proposed stormwater park. Potable water and domestic wastewater services will be provided by Indian River County. No groundwater will be used by the Project. The Blue Heron Project will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Existing Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The Site is designated Agricultural (AG-1) in Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the AG-1 designation allows for the construction of electrical power plants, like the Project, as "public facilities." Indian River County has adopted land development regulations and zoning districts that implement the intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the zoning code, like the Comprehensive Plan, the Site is located in an Agricultural (A-1) district. The County’s zoning code expressly allows the construction of "public and private utilities, heavy" as a special exception use in A-1 zoning districts. The County's zoning code defines "utilities, public or private, heavy" to include "all major electrical generation plants (generating fifty (50) megawatts or more)." Thus, the A-1 zoning designation for the Site allows the development of the Project as a special exception use. Special Exception Use Section 971.05 of the County Code sets forth the procedures and criteria for obtaining the County's approval of a special exception use. Among other things, Section 971.05(9) of the County Code requires an applicant for a special exception use to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. Calpine has worked with the County to ensure that every aspect of the Blue Heron Energy Center will comply with the County's criteria. Consistent with the requirements of Section 971.05 of the County Code, Calpine filed an application with the County for approval of a special exception use and conceptual site plan for the Blue Heron Project. The Special Use Exception Application ("SUEA") fully described the Project, including the corridors for the proposed transmission lines and natural gas pipeline. The County’s staff reviewed Calpine’s SUEA and recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. On August 9, 2001, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and then recommended approval of Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. On September 18, 2001, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ("County Commission") held a duly noticed public hearing and then approved Calpine’s SUEA, with conditions. It is "typical" for the County to include conditions as part of the County's approval for a special exception use. If Calpine complies with the County's conditions for its special exception use, the County will "automatically approve the final site plan" for the Blue Heron Project. No one appealed the County Commission's approval of Calpine’s SUEA and the deadline for filing an appeal has passed. Consistency With Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The County staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the County Commission considered whether the Project is consistent and in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances, pursuant to Section 971.05 of the County Code, and then they approved the Project, with conditions. The evidence presented in the Land Use Hearing demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s Comprehensive Plan. The evidence also demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with Indian River County’s zoning ordinances. In the Prehearing Stipulation, Indian River County, St. Lucie County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Public Service Commission, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the St. Johns River Water Management District either agreed with or did not dispute Calpine’s assertion that the Site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. Indian River County also stipulated that it supports Calpine’s plan to construct and operate the Blue Heron Project on the Site. Public Notice of the Land Use Hearing On December 11, 2000, Calpine published a “Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Indian River County, Florida. On October 9, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge issued an “Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Land Use Hearing” and served a copy of his Order on all of the parties to this proceeding. The Judge’s Order stated that the Land Use Hearing would be conducted on February 6, 2002. On December 14, 2001, Calpine published a “Notice of Land Use and Zoning Hearing on Proposed Power Plant Facility” in the Vero Beach Press-Journal. On December 14, 2001, the Department published notice of the Land Use Hearing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The public notices for the Land Use Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, and Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Conclusions For Petitioner Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P.: David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Audubon of Florida and the Pelican Island Audubon Society: Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Land Use Final Order in this case finding that the Site of the Blue Heron Energy Center is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Paul Bangel, Esquire County Attorney's Office 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Kathy Beddell, Esquire Harold Mclean, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin S. Doty, Esquire Hatch & Doty, P.A. 1701 Highway A1A, Suite 220 Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2206 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Charles Lee, Sr., Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1331 Palmetto Avenue Suite 110 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel S. McIntyre, Esquire St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue 3rd Floor Administrative Annex Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 Cari L. Roth, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Roger G. Saberson, Esquire 70 Southeast Fourth Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should grant certification to New Hope for the expansion of the Okeelanta cogeneration facility to a total net steam electrical generating capacity of 140 megawatts (”MW”).
Findings Of Fact The Applicant The Applicant, New Hope Power Partnership, is a Florida partnership that owns the existing Okeelanta cogeneration Facility. Ex. 1 at 1-1, 3-1. New Hope will also own the Project. See id. The Site The Facility is located in an unincorporated area in western Palm Beach County, Florida. Ex. 1 at 2-1; Ex. 4 at 6; T It is approximately six miles south of South Bay and two miles west of U.S. Highway 27. Id. The Facility is located on a site (the ”Site”) that is approximately 82.1 acres in size. Ex. 1 at 2-1; Ex. 4 at 8; T 19. The Site is adjacent to Okeelanta Corporation’s existing sugar mill, sugar refinery, and sugarcane fields. Ex. 1 at 2-1; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17, 20. The Surrounding Area There are large buffer areas around the Site. See Ex. 1 at 2-1, 2-2, 2-4; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17-18. Almost all of the land within five miles of the Site is used for agricultural purposes (sugarcane farming). Id. The community nearest the Site is South Bay. Ex. 1 at 2-2; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17. The nearest home is more than 3.5 miles northeast of the Site. Ex. 1 at 2-4; Ex. 5 at 9; T 17-18. The Facility is adjacent to an existing electrical substation (Florida Power & Light Company’s Okeelanta Substation). See Ex. 1 at 1-2. An existing electrical transmission line connects the Facility to the substation. Ex. 1 at 3-1. The Existing Facility The Facility uses biomass fuels (e.g., bagasse from the sugar mill; clean wood waste) to generate steam and up to 74.9 MW of electricity (net). Ex. 1 at 1-1, 3-1; Ex. 4 at 6-7; T 18. The Facility supplies steam to the sugar mill during the sugarcane harvest (October through March) and it supplies steam to the refinery throughout the year. Ex. 1 at 1-2, 3-1; Ex. 4 at 7; see T 18. Excess steam from the Facility is used to generate electricity, which is sold to utility companies, including Florida Power & Light Company. Ex. 1-3; Ex. 4 at 7; See T 50-51. The existing Facility includes three steam boilers, one steam turbine/electrical generator, a cooling tower, an electrical switchyard, materials handling and storage facilities for biomass fuels, and ancillary equipment. Ex. 1 at 2-1, 3-1; Ex. 4 at 7; T 20-21. The Expansion Project The Expansion Project will increase the Facility’s electrical generating capacity by 65 MW (net), creating a total generating capacity of 140 MW (net). Ex. 1 at 1-1, 1-3, 2-1; Ex. 4 at 7; T 18. The Expansion Project will involve the installation of a new turbine/electrical generator, a cooling tower, and related equipment at the Site. Ex. 1 at 1-3, 2-1; Ex. 4 at 8; T 19. Construction of the Expansion Project Approximately 0.5 acres of the Site will be occupied by the new equipment that will be installed for the Expansion Project. Ex. 1 at 2-1; Ex. 4 at 8; T 19. The construction of the Project will occur in disturbed upland areas that already are used for industrial operations. Ex. 1 at 3-2, 4-1; Ex. 4 at 9; T 20. No construction will take place in any wetland, wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive area, or 100-year flood plain. Ex. 1 at 2-2, 2-18, 4-1; Ex. 4 at 9; T 20. No new electrical transmission lines will need to be built to accommodate the additional electrical power generated by the Expansion Project. See Ex. 1 at 3-1, 6-1. During construction, there will be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the heavy equipment associated with the construction process. Ex. 1 at 4-9 through 4-10; Ex. 5 at 9; T 42-43. Given the remote location of the Site, the sounds generated by the construction of the Expansion Project will not interfere with human activities or otherwise cause a nuisance at any residential locations. Id. The construction of the Expansion Project will result in a temporary increase in traffic on some roads near the Site, but these roads will continue to operate at acceptable traffic levels. Ex. 1 at 4-8 through 4-9; Ex. 5 at 9; T 42. Operation of the Expansion Project The Facility currently operates at its full capacity during the sugarcane harvest. See Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 2. The Expansion Project will enable the Facility to operate at its full capacity year-round. See Ex. 1 at 3-1 through 3-2; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 2. Although the Facility will generate more electricity after the Expansion Project is completed, the basic operation of the Facility will not change. Ex. 4 at 10; Ex. 5 at 6; T 22. The Facility has a water use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District, which authorizes the Facility to use water from the Miami/North New River Canal System, the surficial aquifer, and the Floridan aquifer. Ex. 1 at 3-11; Ex. 5 at 7; T 40-41. The Okeelanta Corporation also may provide water to the Facility, in accordance with the SFWMD water use permit for the Okeelanta Corporation’s sugar mill. Ex. 5 at 7; T 41. After the Expansion Project is completed, the amount of water used by the Facility will increase, commensurate with the increased use of the Facility. Ex. 5 at 7; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 3; T 41. The additional water will be obtained from the cooling pond/rock pit located at the adjacent sugar mill. Id. In March 2005, the SFWMD issued a water use permit that allows the Okeelanta Corporation to increase the amount of water provided to the Facility from 0.4 mgd to 2.0 mgd. Ex. 37; see T 41. The Facility’s stormwater and process water are routed to a 600-acre area that is divided into four percolation basins. Ex. 1 at 3-16; Ex. 5 at 8; T 41. Each basin is used on a rotating basis--i.e., the basin is used for percolation for one year and then it is used for growing sugarcane for three years. Ex. 5 at 8; T 41. Each percolation basin is designed to hold all of the Facility’s process water, plus all of the contact and non-contact stormwater runoff from a 100-year, three-day storm event. Id. The Facility does not discharge any stormwater or process water to any surface water. Ex. 1 at 5-9; Ex. 5 at 8; T 41-42. The Facility’s use of the percolation ponds has not caused and is not expected to cause any violations of any ground water quality standards. Ex. 5 at 8. The Facility generates fly ash and bottom ash from the combustion of biomass fuels. Ex. 1 at 3-16, 5-10; Ex. 5 at 9; T 42. These materials are taken to a landfill for disposal. Id. The operation of the Expansion Project will not have any significant impacts on traffic. Ex. 1 at 5-17; Ex. 5 at 9; T 42. The local roads will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Id. Air Quality Regulations The Facility must comply with New Source Performance Standards (”NSPS”) and Best Available Control Technology (”BACT”) requirements, both of which impose strict limits on the Facility’s airborne emissions. See Ex. 1 at 3-5; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 3. The Facility also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards (”AAQS”) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (”PSD”) standards, which establish criteria for the protection of ambient air quality. Id. The Facility previously was reviewed and approved under the PSD program. Ex. 1 at 3-5; Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 2; T 39-40. The DEP has determined that the Expansion Project is not subject to PSD pre-construction review. Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 5; T 38. The cooling towers will be the only new source of air pollution associated with the Expansion Project. Ex. 1 at 3-5; Ex. 5 at 6; T 38. The water droplets leaving the cooling tower will evaporate, causing small amounts of particulate matter to enter the atmosphere near the Site. Ex. 5 at 6; T 38. However, the emissions from the cooling tower are so small that the cooling tower is exempt from the permitting requirements established by the DEP. Id. Best Available Control Technology A BACT determination is required for each pollutant for which PSD review is required. Ex. 1 at 3-5; Ex. 5 at 7; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 15. BACT is a pollutant- specific emission limit that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. Ex. 1 at 3-5; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-210.200(38). As part of its BACT analyses for the Facility, DEP determined that mechanical cyclone dust collectors and an electrostatic precipitator (”ESP”) will control the Facility’s emissions of particulate matter, a selective non-catalytic reduction system (”SNCR”) will control oxides of nitrogen (”NOx”), use of low-sulfur fuels will control sulfur dioxide emissions, and proper facility design and operating methods will control other pollutants. Ex. 1 at 3-6 through 3-8; Ex. 30, Draft Permit at D-1; T 40. Accordingly, these air pollution control systems and techniques are utilized at the Facility. Id. The Facility also uses an array of continuous emissions monitors to ensure that the Facility is continuously in compliance with the BACT emission limits. Ex. 1 at 5-14; Ex. 30, Draft Permit at E-1 through E-2. Protection of Ambient Air Quality The EPA has adopted ”primary” and ”secondary” National Ambient Air Quality Standards (”NAAQS”). See Ex. 1 at 2-21. The primary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the health of the general public with an adequate margin of safety. See Ex. 1 at 2-21; see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409(b) (1997). The secondary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the public welfare, including vegetation, soils, visibility and other factors, from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. Id. Florida has adopted EPA’s primary and secondary NAAQS, and has adopted some Florida AAQS (”FAAQS”) that are more stringent than EPA’s NAAQS. See id. The Facility’s potential impacts on ambient air quality were evaluated by DEP, based on the continuous operation of the Facility at full load, following completion of the Project. Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4. DEP concluded that the maximum impacts from the Facility will not cause or contribute to any violations of AAQS. Ex. 1 at 5-10 through 5- 14; Ex. 5 at 6-7; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4; Ex. 5 at 6; T 39. Other PSD Analyses The PSD program provides protection for those areas that have good air quality. See Ex. 1 at 2-22; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 3-4. Different areas of Florida have been designated as PSD ”Class I” or ”Class II” areas, depending upon the level of protection that is to be provided under the PSD program. Id. In this case, the Project is located in a PSD Class II area. Id. The nearest PSD Class I area is the Everglades National Park (”Everglades”), which is approximately 92 kilometers (”km”) south of the Site. Ex. 1 at 2-22. The DEP’s analyses demonstrate that the Facility’s impacts on ambient air quality will not violate any applicable PSD requirement for the Class I and Class II areas. Ex. 1 at 5- 14; Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 16-17; T 39. Compliance With Air Standards New Hope has provided reasonable assurance that the Expansion Project and the Facility will comply with all of the applicable air quality standards and requirements. Ex. 5 at 7; Ex. 30; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 17; T 38-40. Environmental Benefits of the Project The Expansion Project will provide environmental benefits. Ex. 1 at 7-3 through 7-4; Ex. 5 at 10; T 43-44. For example, the Project will be capable of producing approximately 65 MW (net) of electricity in Southeast Florida, which needs new electrical generating capacity. Ex. 1 at 7-3 through 7-4; Ex. 5 at 10; T 43-44. The Expansion Project will also enhance fuel diversity by using renewable biomass fuels to generate electricity. Id. Over 20 years, the Project may displace the use of approximately 5,600,000 barrels of oil worth nearly $170,000,000 (assuming oil prices of $30 per barrel). Id. In addition, the Expansion Project will beneficially reuse clean wood waste, which otherwise would likely be placed in a landfill for disposal. Ex. 1 at 7-4; Ex. 5 at 10; T 44. The Facility receives wood waste and biomass materials from Miami-Dade County, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority, and approximately 25 private recycling companies, thus assisting them with their solid waste management programs. Ex. 5 at 10; T 44. The Facility also burns melaleuca trees that have been removed pursuant to land clearing programs for the eradication of this nuisance species. Ex. 5 at 10. Socioeconomic Benefits of the Project The Expansion Project will provide jobs for an average of 70 construction workers during the 12-month construction phase of the Project. Ex. 1 at 7-1 through 7-2; Ex. 5 at 10; T 43. Approximately $3.5 million will be paid in wages for construction employees working on the Expansion Project. Id. Consistency with Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances The proposed use of the Site is consistent and in compliance with Palm Beach County’s comprehensive land use plan and zoning ordinances. Ex. 1 at 2-2 through 2-4; Ex. 4 at 16; Ex. 23; Ex. 24; Ex. 38; Ex. 39; T 28-29. The Facility and Project have both been reviewed and approved by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. Ex. 4 at 11-12; Ex. 23; Ex. 24; T 23-25. Compliance with Environmental Standards New Hope has provided reasonable assurance that the Facility and Project will comply with all of the nonprocedural land use and environmental statutes, rules, policies, and requirements that apply to the Project, including but not limited to those requirements governing the Project’s impacts on air quality, water consumption, stormwater, and wetlands. Prehearing Stipulation at 24, paragraph 5.B.3.; Ex. 5 at 11; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 22; T 44-45, 60. The location, construction and operation of the Facility and Project will have minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the State’s lands and wildlife, and the ecology of the State’s waters and aquatic life. Ex. 5 at 12; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 20; T 45-46, 61-62. The Facility and Project will not unduly conflict with any of the goals or other provisions of any applicable local, regional or state comprehensive plan. Ex. 4 at 16; Ex. 23; Ex. 24; Ex. 38; Ex. 39; T 28-29. The Conditions of Certification establish operational safeguards for the Facility and Project that are technically sufficient for the protection of the public health and welfare. Ex. 5 at 13; T 46-47, 61. Agency Positions and Conditions of Certification On November 18, 2004, the PSC issued an Order (No. PSC-04-1105A-FOF-EI) granting New Hope’s petition for determination of need for the Expansion Project. Ex. 22; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 4-6, 12-13. The PSC determined, consistent with the criteria of Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, that the Expansion Project is needed. Id. The DEP, DOT, DCA, and SFWMD all recommend certification of the Expansion Project, subject to the Conditions of Certification. Prehearing Stipulation at 10-11, 13-16. New Hope has accepted, and has provided reasonable assurance that it will comply with, the Conditions of Certification. Prehearing Stipulation at 24-25, paragraph V.B.4; Ex. 5 at 11-12; T 45, 61-62. Public Notice of the Certification Use Hearing On September 29, 2004, New Hope published a ”Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Palm Beach Post, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Palm Beach County, Florida. Ex. 31; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49. On October 1, 2004, the Department published ”Notice of Receipt of Application for Power Plant Certification” in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Ex. 35; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49. On February 2, 2005, New Hope published notice of the Certification Hearing in the Palm Beach Post. Ex. 33; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49. On February 4 and 11, 2005, the Department published notice of the Certification Hearing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Ex. 36; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49. The public notices for the Certification Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4). Prehearing Stipulation at 24, paragraph V.B.2,3; Ex. 5 at 17; T 49, 63-64.
Conclusions For Petitioner New Hope Power Partnership (”New Hope”): David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification for the expansion of the Okeelanta Cogeneration Facility to a total capacity of 140 MW (net), in accordance with the Conditions of Certification, DEP Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Dee, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott Goorland, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Roger Saberson, General Counsel Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 70 Southeast 4th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Jennifer Brubaker, Esquire Public Service Commission Division of Legal Services 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863 Leslie Bryson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Sarah Nall, Esquire 9341 Southeast Mystic Cove Terrace Hobe Sound, Florida 33455 Denise M. Nieman, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 302 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4705 Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
