Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of connecting a 230 kV line from the City of Tallahassee's existing system to the Georgia Power Transmission grid. The southern terminus of the corridor is in Leon County where the City's 230 kV line running north from the Hopkins' Power Plant makes a right angle turn toward the east, following Interstate Highway 10 (Section 13, Range 1 West, Township 1 North). The northern terminus of the corridor is that point where it ties to the Georgia system in Gadsden County, Florida, just south of the Florida State line in close proximity to the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 157 (Section 90, Range 1 West, Township 3 North, north of the Watson line). The corridor generally follows a center line conjunct with the Range 1 West range line, except that approximately 2.75 miles north of its southern terminus the corridor bends approximately 25 degrees to the east for a distance of approximately one-half mile before turning north for approximately 1.4 miles at which point the corridor turns west approximately 25 degrees for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles, and then turns east approximately 35 degrees for approximately 8 miles before once again turning north. The corridor encompasses several major highways, including Interstate Highway 10 and U.S. Highway 27. It also encompasses part of the Ochlocknee River, the Gadsden County, Florida landfill, part of the Tallahassee Commercial Airport, and part of the Ochlocknee Wildlife Management Area and Lake Talquin State Recreation Area. Just north of the rest stop on Interstate Highway 10, the corridor includes an area known as Riverwood Acres, a non-platted subdivision. The center line of the corridor bisects the subdivision. From its southern origin north, for approximately the first one mile of the corridor, the width of the corridor is approximately 9/16 mile. Thereafter the width of the corridor is approximately 1/2 mile. The location of the corridor is depicted in Figures 2-3, 2-6A, 2-6B, and 2-6C of the application. There being no more definitive a description of the location of the corridor than that shown in the maps comprising figures 2-6A, B, and C of the application, it is found as a matter of fact that those figures define the parameters of the proposed corridor. The length of the corridor is approximately 15 miles. The purpose of the corridor is to provide a 100 foot right-of-way for a 230 kV transmission line constructed upon H-frame wood poles, with an approximate span of 600 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated March 31, 1981, found that: The construction of the proposed transmission line will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The proposed transmission line will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The point at which the City of Tallahassee proposes to connect to the construction of Georgia Power Company, and the point at which it proposes to connect to its own system, are the appropriate starting and ending points of the line. The Public Service Commission then concluded that the proposed transmission line is needed. Approximately 11.0 miles of the corridor's center line traverses land that is wooded and undeveloped. The remainder of the corridor center line, 3.9 miles, crosses land that reflects some type of human development or use. That includes land that is currently agricultural, in improved pasture, or simply open, cleared land. Although no residences lie within the corridor's center line, houses do lie elsewhere within the corridor. Several houses are located near the southern end of the corridor just north of Interstate Highway 10 in the area referred to as Riverwood Acres. Several houses are located near the Gadsden County Sanitary Landfill, and scattered houses are located in the corridor to the west of the Concord and to the south of the Darsey communities. Immediately beyond the eastern corridor boundary, but not within the corridor, is a developing neighborhood located in Township 1 north, Range 1 West, Section In that area residential property boundaries abut the eastern corridor boundary. Because of the objection by homeowners in the Riverwood Acres area, the width of the corridor has been slightly extended along the western and eastern boundaries so that the right-of-way may be placed with least impact upon the homes in that area. Approximately 0.05 acres of agricultural land will be directly disturbed by placement of transmission structures. It is expected that agricultural land can continue to be farmed between transmission structures. Where possible, existing road crossings or roads adjacent to the right-of-way will be utilized for maintenance and construction purposes. Where necessary, new access roads will be developed, but only to the extent needed for construction and maintenance of the line. The only major water body crossed by the proposed corridor is the Ochlocknee River. Impacts to the river should be negligible since the line structures on each side of the river will be physically located away from the river banks, and the lines and structures spanning the river will be situated well above the ordinary high water mark as defined by the United States Corps of Engineers. The uncontradicted evidence presented indicates that other streams or small water bodies crossed by the corridor will not be adversely impacted. Similarly, the uncontradicted evidence established that the two wetland areas to be crossed by the corridor center line will not be adversely impacted. A 230 kV transmission line is not considered an extra high voltage transmission line. Lines at 345 kV or larger are considered extra high voltage lines. The uncontradicted evidence establishes that there will be no significant noise impacts from the proposed transmission line operation. Except as otherwise noticed in the Findings of Fact herein, the uncontradicted evidence established that the proposed transmission line, if constructed along a right-of-way in the proposed corridor, pursuant to the conditions of certification, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment. Its impact on the environment will be minimal. Although none of the parties to this proceeding posed any objection to the proposed transmission line corridor and the transmission line to be constructed therein, three members of the public gave testimony in opposition to the site certification at the final certification hearing. The three persons were all residents of Riverwood Acres and were generally expressing the concerns of the neighborhood. Their sincere concern is evidenced by the excellent quality of their presentation. They expressed their opinion that their land value would be diminished by the construction of a transmission line adjacent or over their property. While it is difficult to consider the construction of such a transmission line as an enhancement to the property, as established by the testimony of their property will be diminished by the construction of the transmission line. These public witnesses also expressed a concern for the aesthetic damage to their neighborhood by the construction of this transmission line. It is found as a matter of fact that should the transmission line be constructed over or adjacent to these residential owners in Riverwood Acres, the aesthetic value of their environment would be diminished by the visual impact of the transmission line. Finally, these public witnesses expressed their concern and belief that the effects of the electric and magnetic fields generated by the transmission line would effect the health and welfare of the residents of the neighborhood. However, as established by the testimony of two witnesses expert in the areas of electrical engineering, radiation biology, and biophysics, the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect, and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. These members of the public presented a thoughtful, well conceived proposed alternative routing which would take the proposed transmission line around their residential neighborhood. However, the evidence presented in this proceeding does not establish that the existence of the alternative proposed by these members of the public by itself indicates that the corridor for which site certification has been requested, will not produce minimal adverse effects on the environment, public health, safety and welfare. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veterans and Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Northwest Florida Water Management District have all recommended that the proposed transmission line corridor will have minimal, if any, adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety and welfare. Those agencies have recommended no reason why the site should not be certified subject to the conditions proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation, which conditions are attached to this Recommended Order. Notice of the final certification hearing was published on May 13, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, a daily newspaper published at Tallahassee, in Leon County, Florida.
Recommendation Having reviewed the record of this proceeding, and based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that certification, pursuant to the Transmission Lines Siting Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), be GRANTED to the City of Tallahassee for the transmission line corridor and the construction of the subject transmission lines as proposed in the application as amended and the evidence admitted to the record. It is further RECOMMENDED that certification be made subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto and the further condition pursuant to the requirement in Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), that the City of Tallahassee shall be required to seek any necessary interests in state lands, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, from the Board prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting such lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Veteran and Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Sexton, Esquire Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Stowell, Esquire Northwest Florida Water Management District Route 1, Box 3100 Havana, Florida 32333 Kenneth Gilleland, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Williams, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3300 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida Ted Steinmeyer, Esquire Leon County Attorney Leon County Courthouse, Room 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Shaw Curry, Esquire Gadsden County Attorney Post Office Box 469 Quincy, Florida 32351 Barrett Johnson, Esquire c/o Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams Post Office Box 471 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James R. Brindell, Esquire Post Office Box 3103 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (Representing Riverwood Acres Neighborhood Association)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, American Cable Systems of Florida, Ltd., d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward County (Continental), is a supplier of cable television services. Petitioner, Daniel J. Cellucci (Cellucci), filed an application for employment as a Service Technician I with Continental on or about January 13, 1993. Cellucci gave the receptionist at Continental his completed application form, his resume, and letters of reference. Bernard Dorsett (Dorsett) and Richard Jacobi (Jacobi), both Supervisors of Technical Operations at Continental, shared the responsibility for interviewing applicants for the position of Service Technician I. Dorsett called Cellucci and set up an interview. Cellucci was interviewed by Dorsett and Jacobi on January 15, 1993. During the interview, Cellucci wore a back brace underneath a loose fitting shirt. Dorsett and Jacobi explained the requirements and the benefits of the position to Cellucci. It was standard practice of Continental to show all applicants a copy of the position description during the interview. Dorsett showed Cellucci a copy of the position description for a Service Technician I during the interview. The position description listed the following as essential job functions of a Service Tech I: Monitors customer's reception and radio frequency with test meters to ensure cable is in proper working condition. Replaces any or all parts of drop as necessary to resolve customer problems or leaks, back to the line extender. Makes necessary adjustments and repairs to equipment to resolve customer problems or leaks. Handles difficult or confrontational customer situations tactfully. The position description required that the applicant possess the following skills: Ability to lift and climb 70 pound ladders, ability to climb a pole and work at heights up to 25 feet, basic mathematics skills, good verbal and written communications skills. Needs tack and ability to handle difficult customers. Ability to crawl, bend, stoop, crouch. The 70 pound ladder, which is used by a Service Technician I throughout his workday, is transported to the job site on top of a service van. In order to remove the ladder from the top of the service van, the Service Technician I must lift the ladder from the top of the service van. The Service Technician I then carries the ladder to the location where the work is to be performed and puts the ladder in position. In addition to being able to lift a 70 pound ladder, a Service Technician I must be able to lift spools of cable which weigh from 25 to 50 pounds. Service Technician I's work alone. Being able to lift up to 70 pounds is an essential function of the job of a Service Technician I. Based on his past experience in the cable industry, Cellucci knew that he would have to be able to lift ladders which could weigh up to 70 pounds in order to carry out the functions of a Service Technician I. Sometime during the interview, Cellucci voluntarily advised Dorsett and Jacobi that he had a back problem and provided them with a letter dated January 4, 1993, from his treating physician, Dr. George Bonis. The letter stated, "Lifting is limited to 25 pounds at the present time and he should be able to change positions between standing, walking and sitting at will." At the time of the interview, Cellucci could lift more than 25 pounds; however he did not advise either Jacobi or Dorsett that he could lift more than 25 pounds at that time. Cellucci did advise them that he was undergoing physical therapy, that he was improving and that he expected the lifting restriction to be a temporary one. At the time of the interview Cellucci, Jacobi, and Dorsett, viewed Cellucci's lifting restrictions to be temporary. Neither Dorsett nor Jacobi perceived Cellucci's back injury or his lifting restrictions to be a disability. On January 30, 1993, Dr. Bonis discharged Cellucci. Cellucci was able to lift more than 70 pounds at the time he was discharged. Additionally, he was no longer required to wear the back brace which he had worn during his interview. He did not advise anyone at Continental that he no longer had a lifting restriction after he was discharged by Dr. Bonis. Cellucci was not hired because he could not meet the 70 pound lifting requirement. Cellucci's back injury does not limit one or more major life activities. When asked at hearing whether his disability prohibited him from doing any major life activities, Cellucci replied, "None whatsoever. In fact I work out on a day-to-day basis. I run every evening, I swim." In June of 1993, Cellucci became employed as a sales manager for Inter-Continental at a rate of pay of $17.00 per hour plus commissions. In November of 1993, Petitioner became a full-time student and became employed by Production Arts at a rate of pay of $10.00 per hour. In that job, Cellucci currently lifts objects which weigh up to 200 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Daniel Cellucci's claim of handicap discrimination against American Cable Systems of Florida, Ltd., d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 29th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1614 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The first part of the paragraph is accepted in substance. The second half of the paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 2-12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 15-17: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 18-31: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ronald Renzy, Esquire Ronald Thomas Spann, Esquire 1600 Southeast 17th Causeway, Suite 414 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 William C. Thomas, III, Esquire 120 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of locating a 500 kV transmission line to provide dispersion of the additional power generated at the Crystal River Electric Power Plant when Unit 5 becomes operational in the fourth quarter of 1984. The northern terminus of the corridor is in Sumter County at the Central Florida Substation, located immediately south of State Road 44 in Section 24, Township 19 South, Range 23 East. The southern terminus of the corridor is in Polk County at the proposed Kathleen Substation, to be located north of U.S. Highway 98 in either Section 8 or 17, Township 26 South, Range 23 East. The length of the corridor is approximately 43 miles. The purpose of the corridor is to provide a 190 foot wide right-of-way for a 500 kV transmission line constructed upon steel lattice guyed V structures and four-legged, self-supporting steel lattice tower structures, with an approximate span between the structures of 1,200 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated July 21, 1981, concluded that: The construction of the proposed transmission line will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The proposed transmission line will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The Central Florida Substation and the proposed Kathleen Substation are the appropriate starting and ending points of the transmission line. The Public Service Commission then determined that the proposed transmission line is needed. Notice of the final certification hearing was published on October 9, 1981, in the Leesburg Commercial, a daily newspaper published at Leesburg in Lake County, Florida, and on October 11, 1981, in The Ledger, a daily newspaper published at Lakeland in Polk County, Florida. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, the corridor for which FPC seeks certification will be broken down into three segments -- the North Corridor Segment, the Central Corridor Segment, and the South Corridor Segment. The entire corridor for which FPC seeks certification is depicted on Attachment 1 hereto. The segments are generally described as follows: The North Corridor Segment begins at the Central Florida Substation and continues to the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and is 2,600 feet wide; The Central Corridor Segment begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and goes to a point which is the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, which is generally 2 miles east of State Road 471 and south of the Withlacoochee River; and The South Corridor Segment begins at the termination of the Central Corridor Segment and continues to the proposed Kathleen Substation north of U.S. Highway 98. The three segments are described in detail in the application (Applicant's Exhibit No. 22). Parties to this proceeding agree that the North Corridor Segment and the South Corridor Segment, with certain Conditions of Certification about which the parties also agree, meet the requirements for site certification under the Transmission Line Site Certification Act. However, a dispute exists between the parties with regard to the certification of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Applicant, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Transportation and C. M. Overstreet, et ux., argue in favor of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Department of Environmental Regulation has proposed an alternative alignment to the Central Corridor Segment for which FPC seeks site certification. For purposes of this Recommended Order, this proposal by DER shall be referred to as the "DER Proposed Corridor." The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs argue in favor of the DER Proposed Corridor. The DER Proposed Corridor begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and, proceeding in a westerly direction, the corridor parallels the northern boundary of the Withlacoochee State Forest and crosses North Grade Road. After approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers), the corridor crosses SR 471 and the Little Withlacoochee River, enters Hernando County, and turns due south, entering the Withlacoochee State Forest. Proceeding south on the west side of Route 471, the corridor crosses an unnamed dirt road in Section 1 (Hernando County), Richloam Clay Sink Road, and Center Grade Road, enters Pasco County 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) south of the Little Withlacoochee River crossing, and crosses unnamed roads in Section 25 (Pasco County), and exits the State Forest on the north side of Section 36, Township 23 South, Range 22 East. This alignment continues south along the west side of SR 471 to the west southern boundary of the State Forest and crosses SR 471 to the east side at the northwest corner of Section 7, Township 24 South, Range 23, East. It continues south along the east side of SR 471 to the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, where it turns east southeasterly to go along the northeasterly side of a straight line connecting the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East and the northeast corner of Section 17, Township 25 South, Range 23 East where it joins the southern segment. This southeastern diagonal alignment crosses the Withlacoochee River in the vicinity of Trail Ford Bridge and enters Polk County. This corridor is 1,000 feet wide. The Department of Environmental Regulation has also proposed, as a second alternative to the Central Corridor Segment, deflections of that Central Corridor Segment in the area of Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp. For the purposes of this Recommended Order this proposal will be referred to as the "DER Preferred Alternate Corridor." The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor is the same as the Central Corridor Segment proposed by FPC except that the Central Corridor Segment is routed around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp as follows: The Bayroot Slough bypass begins at the northeastern corner of Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the south of a line from that point to the southwest corner at the same section, hence it parallels on the east a line from that point to the northeast corner of Section 24. This bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The Cross Creek Swamp bypass begins at the northeast corner of the southeastern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 32, Township 24 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the northern side of a southwesterly line from that point to the northeast corner of the southwestern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 5, Township 25 South, Range 23 East; and then parallels on the west a due south line to the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 and then parallels on the southern side of a southeasterly line to the southeast corner of Section 5 and joins the FPC preferred corridor. The bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The land uses in the North Corridor Segment consist primarily of agricultural uses, improved pasture, orange groves, row crops and some hardwood hammocks. The prevalent land uses in that part of the Central Florida Segment within the Withlacoochee State Forest are timber management and game management. The prevalent land uses within that part of the Central Florida Segment south of the Withlacoochee State Forest are private timber management and cattle operations. The DER Proposed Corridor and the Central Corridor Segment, south of the Withlacoochee State Forest, are composed of approximately the same types and amounts of wet land and forested areas. The proposed corridor in the Central Corridor Segment crosses two large wetland systems, Cross Creek Swamp and Bayroot Slough. The entire corridor proposed by the Applicant contains approximately 1,100 acres of cypress wetland. Altering the FPC corridor in the manner suggested by DER in the DER Proposed Corridor would increase the cypress wetland acreage encompassed by the corridor to 1,300 acres. A similar comparison of the two corridors with regard to fresh water marsh indicates that the DER Proposed Corridor would reduce the acreage of fresh water marsh encompassed by the corridor from 800 acres in the FPC corridor to 600 acres. Both corridors contain similar amounts of fresh water swamp. There are three large wetland systems in the FPC Proposed Corridor. They are Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp, and Cross Creek Swamp. Bayroot Slough is approximately 3,600 acres in area, Devils Creek Swamp is 8,800 acres in area and Cross Creek Swamp, 1,145 acres in area. The Applicant proposes to build an access/maintenance road completely through Devils Creek Swamp on the eastern most 20 feet of its right-of-way. This access/maintenance road would be used as a partial base for a levee proposed to be constructed in the area by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This access/maintenance road would require the filling of approximately 9 acres, or one-tenth of one percent, of Devils Creek Swamp. In Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, as well as all other major wetland areas, with the exception of Devils Creek Swamp, the Applicant proposes to use keyhold fills for the placement of its towers and to leave the span between towers open with no placement of fill. These construction techniques are designed to permit sheet flow to continue in a near natural state, thus minimizing adverse impact on those wetland areas. In Bayroot Slough, approximately six acres, or less than two-tenths of one percent, are proposed to be filled in connection with construction of the subject line. In Cross Creek Swamp, approximately four acres, or less than four-tenths of one percent of the total swamp area, will be filled for the construction of an access/maintenance road. The DER Proposed Corridor would require approximately four additional miles of transmission line than would the corridor proposed by FPC. That would increase the cost of construction of the transmission line from approximately $23,174,000.00 to $25,824,000.00 Thus, the DER Proposed Corridor would cost $2,650,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor, which contains deflections around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, would require approximately .87 miles more transmission line than would the FPC Proposed Corridor and because of that additional length and the number of turning angles necessary,, would cost approximately $1,344,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor as proposed by FPC. The wetland systems in the region which contain Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp and Cross Creek Swamp are interrelated with regard to wildlife. This region is approximately 25,000 acres in size. Approximately 96 acres would be cleared and 19 acres filled with the construction of a transmission line along the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The right-of-way required for the proposed 500 kV transmission line will measure 190 feet in width. The transmission line will consist of one single circuit 500 kV line. The basic structure type selected for the proposed transmission line is a steel lattice guyed V. This structure will be used to support the conductors on straight portions of the line. At angles in the transmission line, the conductors will be supported by a four-legged, self- supporting steel lattice tower. These angle structures are significantly more expensive than the steel lattice guyed V structures. The structures will be constructed of steel angle sections and will be galvanized. The guy wires for the guyed V structure will be either aluminum coated steel cable or an aluminum cable with an approximate diameter of 1.0 to 2.0 inches. A four-legged self- supporting steel lattice structure may be used on some straight portions of the transmission line where required, due to soil conditions, clearances, or other engineering or environmental considerations. The structures will support a single three-phase alternating current, 500,000 volt circuit. Three conductors will be included in each phase, resulting in a total of nine conductors for the circuit. The structure also supports two overhead ground wires which protect the circuit from lightning strikes. The conductor will be supported in the structure by insulator and hardware assemblies. A typical foundation for the guyed V structure will be a cast-in-place reinforced concrete foundation. Guy wires will be attached. The angle structure will be supported on cast-in-place reinforced concrete cylinder foundations. The structures will be electrically grounded. The minimum conductor to ground clearance will be 37 feet at 120 degrees Fahrenheit. A typical span between structures is 1,200 feet. The transmission line will be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code, 1973 and 1981 Editions. Construction of the transmission line will be done in three phases. The first phase will consist of clearing the right-of-way and access/maintenance road construction. The second phase will consist of construction of the towers, and the third phase will consist of the actual stringing of the conductors. Because of the very small amount of the total aquifer recharge area proposed to be filled by the Applicant, there will be no significant adverse impact to aquifer recharge capabilities because of the construction of the transmission line. If constructed with an adequate amount of culverting, the access/maintenance roads proposed to be constructed by the Applicant will not significantly affect the surface regime in the areas within the FPC Proposed Corridor. Outside of the 190 foot transmission line right-of-way there will be essentially no change in-existing vegetation. Within the 190 foot right-of-way, only the inside 150 feet will be cleared with the outer 20 feet on each side being cleared only of "danger" trees; that is, trees that might fall on to the line because they are diseased, dead or leaning toward the line. Benthic organisms (microscopic, microinvertebrates, which are aquatic organisms on the lower levels of the food chain) could be adversely impacted if the wetland they inhabit is relatively small compared to the amount of fill required in that wetland for the construction activities associated with the transmission line. If the wetland is relatively large, however, there will be no discernible impact on the standing crop of benthic organisms because they can migrate to other portions of the wetland which are not filled. The DER Proposed Corridor has a greater number of relatively small wetland areas than does the FPC Proposed Corridor. No evidence was presented to establish any adverse impact by construction of a transmission line to upland wildlife habitat or upland wildlife species with the exception of the American wood stork. Although the evidence did establish that construction of a transmission line through wetland wildlife habitat could adversely affect some wildlife species within that habitat, the evidence did not establish that the extent of such an impact on any species would be significant in either the FPC Proposed Corridor, the DER Proposed Corridor or the DER Preferred Alternate Corridor. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission expressed a concern that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor will allow increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor. The evidence considered overall, however, does not establish that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor" will in fact result in any significant increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor or that such access per se would result in some significant adverse environmental impact. In order to attenuate potential flood damage along the Withlacoochee River, the Southwest Florida Water Management District proposes the construction of a levee to capture and hold 25-year and greater storm events in head-water areas of the Withlacoochee River. This is an ongoing project of SWFWMD which, at best, is several years from construction. In the area of Devils Creek Swamp, the Central Corridor Segment proposed by the Applicant would co-locate the transmission line with the SWFWMD proposed levee, thus minimizing the amount of fill to be placed in that area by the two projects and minimizing the adverse impact of the wetland system by the transmission line. Should such co-location occur, it would have the minimizing effect outlined above. However, because of the prospective nature of the SWFWMD project, the ultimate co-location of the transmission line and the SWFWMD levee is too speculative to assign much weight to its significance. Should a transmission line be placed adjacent to Highway 471 as proposed as an alternative by the Department of Environmental Regulation, some of that transmission line would cross property which is intended for residential development by its owners. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Division of Forestry, has indicated its hope that the alignment of the transmission corridor as proposed by the Applicant in the area of the Withlacoochee State Forest would provide a fire break beneficial to the Division for forest management purposes. There are three endangered species to which special attention should be paid with regard to the construction of a transmission line and associated faciliti es. These are the scrub jay, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and the wood stork. The scrub jay is found in vegetation typically less than 25 feet tall so that except for tower placement, scrub jay habitat will be essentially unaffected. The Applicant has agreed to a Condition of Certification to further protect the scrub jay and its habitat by avoiding colonies where found or by leaving the oak scrub in place under the wires. The red-cockaded woodpecker nests and roosts in mature and over-mature pines. Such trees may occur within the proposed corridor. To protect colonies that may exist, a survey needs to be performed prior to final right-of-way selection and if a colony is found, a right-of-way should be chosen to avoid that colony if at all possible. It could be very costly to divert the transmission line around such a colony by angles in the line. None of the proposed corridors cross a known wood stork rookery. However, a former rookery exists at Clay Sink wading bird site and will probably again become a rookery in the future when favorable conditions again exist. The FPC Proposed Corridor is more than a mile from any known wood stork rookery which should eliminate any significant adverse impact on such a site. A 500 kV transmission line is an extra high voltage line. The highest electrical field strength directly underneath the proposed Central Florida-to- Kathleen 500 kV transmission line at ground level will be less than 10,000 volts per meter, and the field strength will diminish with distance from the line. The magnetic field associated with the proposed transmission line will be less than 0.5 gauss. Testimony and evidence establishes that the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. Because of the size of the conductors to be used on the proposed transmission line, the ozone produced by that line will be negligible and will be well below the maximum ozone concentration level (0.12 ppm) recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. During fair weather, the line will be virtually silent. During wet weather, when the conductors are wet, the noise level will be approximately 38 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. This is a low noise level. At locations near the edge of the right-of-way, some interference with the reception of AM radio signals will experienced, particularly during wet conductor conditions. No interference to reception of FM radio broadcasts is expected from the proposed transmission line at any time. Television reception may be affected similarly-to that of AM radio signals. No hazardous induced currents are expected to occur in structures or vehicles beneath the line. Except as otherwise noticed in the Findings of Fact herein, the testimony and evidence in this cause establishes that the proposed transmission line, if constructed along a right-of-way in the corridor as proposed by the Applicant, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. Similarly, neither the DER Proposed Corridor nor the DER preferred Alternate Corridor would have any significant adverse effect on the environment, public health safety or welfare. The evidence does not establish that the two alternative corridors proposed by DER would have an appreciably reduced effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. The evidence does establish, as set forth in Paragraph 13 above, that the two DER alternatives would be significantly more expensive to construct than would the FPC proposed corridor. The corridor as proposed by FPC and depicted on Appendix 1 is 2,600 feet wide from its starting point at the existing Central Florida Substation to the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 23 South, Range 23 East, also the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest. At that point, the corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and continues to proceed southerly immediately west of the Sumter/Lake County line. At a point identified as the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor narrows to 500 feet and proceeds in a southwesterly direction with 250 feet-on either side of a line running from the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, to the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East. At a point identified as the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor turns due south, expands to 1,020 feet with the eastern 20 feet inside the SWFWMD west property line, and proceeds directly south paralleling the SWFWMD proposed levee for approximately one and one-half miles through "Devils Creek Swamp" to a point where the transmission line corridor end the SF4D proposed levee diverge. The corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and proceeds directly south immediately west of the SWFWMD west property line to the proposed Kathleen Substation site.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are: whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the application of Progress Energy Florida (PEF) to certify and license the construction and operation of a 2200 megawatt (MW) (nominal) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines; and, if so, what conditions of certification should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), provides electricity and related services to approximately 1.7 million customers in the state of Florida. PEF's retail service area spans 35 counties over about 20,000 square miles in central and west Florida. In Florida, PEF operates and maintains more than 43,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines that serve a population of more than 5 million people. PEF owns and operates a diverse mix of electrical generating units in Florida, including approximately 47 combustion turbines, 5 combined cycle units, 12 fossil units, and one nuclear unit at PEF's Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). The CREC is located in northwest Citrus County approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 19 on the Gulf of Mexico. There are five generating facilities within the CREC; four units are coal-fired and one is a nuclear unit. PEF considered locating new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC, but determined that would concentrate too much electrical generation at one site. PEF proposes to build and operate a two-unit nuclear- powered electrical generating facility in Levy County (LNP). Directly associated facilities include a heavy haul road used for construction (Levy County), two site access roads (Levy County), and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines (Levy and Citrus Counties). PEF also seeks certification of nine transmission corridors associated with eleven electrical transmission lines: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed LNP to proposed Citrus Substation, two 500-kV Transmission Lines (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LPC" Lines; Crystal River Transmission Line — proposed LND to existing CREC Switchyard, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LCR" Line; Sumter Transmission Line — proposed LNP to proposed Central Florida South Substation, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter and Lake Counties and Municipalities of Wildwood and Leesburg), also referred to as the "LCFS" Line; Levy North Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-High Springs Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County), also referred to as the "IS" Line; Levy South Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-Ocala Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County and Town of Inglis), also referred to as the "IO" Line; Brookridge Transmission Line — existing CREC Switchyard to existing Brookridge Substation, one 230 kV Transmission Line (Citrus and Hernando Counties), also referred to as the "CB" Line; Brooksville West Transmission Line — existing Brookridge Substation to existing Brooksville West Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Hernando County), also referred to as the "BBW" Line; Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed Citrus Substation to existing Crystal River East Substation, two 230-kV Transmission Lines (Citrus County), also referred to as the "CCRE" Lines; and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line — existing Kathleen Substation to existing Lake Tarpon Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and municipalities of Tampa, Plant City and Oldsmar), also referred to as the "Kathleen" Line. Need for the Project The PSC issued its Final Order determining the need for the Project on August 12, 2008. The PSC found: "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for fuel diversity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for base-load generating capacity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost"; "[t]here are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to PEF which might mitigate the need for Levy Units 1 and 2"; and "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide the most cost-effective source of power." The PSC also found a need for the associated transmission lines. New transmission lines are required to interconnect and integrate the proposed plant into PEF's existing transmission grid and to reliably deliver bulk power to PEF's load centers. Load flow studies were conducted by PEF system planners to identify the appropriate transmission end- points and voltages. The proposed transmission lines in PEF's proposed corridors satisfy the need for transmission lines as determined by the PSC. Public Notice and Outreach PEF has engaged in extensive public outreach for the selection of the LNP site and for the transmission line corridors. With regard to the plant portion of the Project, PEF's outreach efforts have included communications with local community leaders, press releases, communications with state and federal legislators, dissemination of information to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the plant via mailings and open houses, and participation in community and advisory groups. With regard to the electrical transmission line portion of the Project, public involvement has been key to the corridor selection process. PEF developed a Community Partnership for Energy Planning (CPEP) process to gain feedback from members of the community in a manner that would most effectively involve the community in the transmission line corridor selection process. Through the CPEP process, PEF established leadership teams in three geographic regions: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties; Citrus, Hernando, and Levy Counties; and Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The leadership teams identified and selected more than 100 community representatives to participate in regional Utility Search Conferences. The Utility Search Conferences involved intensive two-day discussions of local issues and the future of electricity supply in the region. The purpose of the conferences was to inform the participants about the Project, to gain public input, and to allow participants to nominate community members to become part of the Community Working Groups for the remainder of the Project. PEF formed the Community Working Groups to further study and refine the recommendations of the conferences as well as to provide ongoing input to PEF throughout the Project. PEF also held open houses in February and March 2008 to involve the public in the transmission line corridor selection process. PEF used newspaper advertisements, press releases, and direct mail letters to facilitate public awareness of the open houses. Over 2,900 people attended the open houses, and PEF received completed written questionnaires from 2,071 attendees. The goal of PEF's public outreach program (with regard to both the plant and transmission lines) was to provide information in a transparent manner to the public and to provide ample opportunity and many avenues for the public to provide input during all phases of the Project. In total, PEF has conducted over 40 public presentations and sent communications to more than 125,000 property owners and stakeholders regarding the Project. Many of PEF's outreach efforts have been beyond the efforts required by law. Pursuant to Section 403.5115(6), Florida Statutes, PEF provided direct notice by mail of the filing of the SCA to all landowners whose property and residences are located within: three miles of the proposed main site boundaries of the LNP; one-quarter mile of a transmission line corridor that only includes a transmission line as defined by Section 403.522(22), Florida Statutes; and (3) one-quarter mile for all other linear associated facilities extending away from the main site boundary. PEF timely submitted a list of the landowners and residences notified to DEP's Siting Coordination Office (SCO), as required by Section 403.5115(6)(b), Florida Statutes. PEF made copies of the SCA available at two of its offices and ten public libraries. In addition, PEF provided copies to all local governments and agencies within whose jurisdiction portions of the Project will be located. DEP made an electronic version of the document available on its website. On June 19, 2008, PEF published notice of the filing of the SCA in the Ocala Star-Banner, the Hernando Today, the Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Villages Daily Sun, the Levy County Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, the Citrus County Chronicle, the Sumter County Times, the Hernando Times, and the North Pinellas Times, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(3). On December 18, 2008, PEF published notice of the certification hearing in the same newspapers, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(7). PEF published amended notices of the site certification hearing in the same newspapers on February 17, 2009. DEP also published notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All notices required by law were timely published and/or provided in accordance with Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes. Agency Reports and Stipulations Agency reports and proposed conditions of certification on the plant-related facilities of the Project were submitted to DEP by: (1) the PSC; (2) DCA; (3) SWFWMD; (4) Levy County; (5) FWC; (6) the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council; and (7) DOT. All of these agencies either recommended approval of the Project or otherwise did not object to certification. Although Citrus County did not file an agency report, it recommended approval of the LNP in the prehearing stipulation of the parties. Affected state, regional, and local agencies reviewed the SCA and submitted to DEP reports concerning the impact of the transmission lines on matters within their respective jurisdictions and proposed conditions of certification, as required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes. None of the agencies involved in the review process have recommended that the proposed electrical transmission line corridors be denied or modified. On September 25, 2008, DEP issued its written analysis on the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of conditions of certification. The conditions of certification were subsequently revised to reflect agreed-upon language. DEP recommended that the PEF proposed transmission line corridors be certified subject to the conditions of certification. On January 12, 2009, DEP prepared a Staff Analysis Report (SAR) compiling all of the agency reports on the power plant, proposing conditions of certification, and making an overall recommendation. DEP recommended certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification. The conditions of certification attached to the SAR have been superseded by the Fourth Amended Conditions of Certification filed by DEP as DEP Exhibit 1 on March 23, 2009. PEF is committed to constructing the LNP in accord with these conditions. Plant and Associated Facilities2 Project Overview PEF's proposed nuclear-powered electric generating facility (the LNP) will be located in Levy County. The LNP site is east of U.S. Highway 19 and approximately four miles north of the Town of Inglis and the Levy-Citrus County border. The LNP site contains approximately 3,105 acres, with the two reactors and ancillary power production support facilities located near the center of the site. The majority of the LNP site is currently active silviculture and is unimproved. The proposed heavy haul road and pipelines will be located in corridors south of the LNP site. Two site access roads will tie into U.S. Highway 19 west of the site and proceed east to the main plant area. PEF also owns a second 2,000-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the LNP site, which provides access to a water supply in the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as well as containing the heavy haul road and electrical transmission line corridors that exit the LNP site. Project Description The LNP will include two 1,100 megawatt (MW) (nominal) generating units (LNP 1 and LNP 2) designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The reactor design has received an official design certification from the NRC and is referred to as the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (AP1000). The AP1000 is a standardized, advanced passive pressurized-water nuclear reactor. PEF proposes to place LNP 1 in commercial service by 2016 and LNP 2 in commercial service by 2017. In the AP1000, the reactor core heats water which flows through the reactor cooling system in the primary loop. The reactor coolant pump circulates water through the reactor core. A pressurizer is used to maintain a constant pressure in the primary loop. The heated water flows to the steam generator and through a combination of U-shaped tubes, transferring heat to a separate, independent closed-loop water system, or the secondary loop. Inside the steam generator, the water in the secondary loop boils and is separated in dryers which produce high quality steam. The reactor, the four coolant pumps, and the two steam generators are contained in the containment shield building for each unit. Within the shield building, a steel containment structure surrounds the reactor and steam generators. A passive cooling water tank, which will provide emergency cooling, sits in the top of the containment shield building. The steam in the secondary loop is routed to the adjacent turbine building where it goes into a high-pressure turbine and then three low pressure turbines. The steam produces the force to turn the turbines, which then turn the electrical generator. Electricity is then sent to the on-site switchyard for transmission. The steam exhausting from the turbines moves into the condenser where it comes into contact with the cold surfaces of the tubes in the condenser, which contain water circulating from the cooling tower. The steam condenses back to water. The condensed water is collected in the bottom of the condenser and pumped back into the steam generator. The cycle then repeats. Other components of the AP1000 design include an annex building which contains the main control room; a fuel handling area where new fuel is received and spent fuel is stored; and a diesel generator building. Two cooling towers, three stormwater runoff ponds, and one electrical transmission 500 kV switchyard serving both units are also to be located near the generating units. Each LNP unit will be equipped with a recirculating cooling water system, including a cooling tower, that supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers. The cooling tower makeup water system supplies water to the cooling tower to replace water consumed as a result of evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The LNP's cooling water intake will be located on the CFBC. Cooling water will be conveyed to the LNP site via pipelines. The proposed corridor for the cooling water intake and wastewater discharge pipelines is approximately 13 miles long and 0.25 miles wide. The intake pipeline corridor extends south from the LNP site to the CFBC. The wastewater discharge corridor then turns westerly along the CFBC for six miles before turning south along the western side of an existing PEF transmission line and enters the CREC. As part of its pending application for an NPDES permit, PEF has proposed that LNP wastewater be released into the existing CREC discharge canal. Materials needed to construct the LNP will be delivered via: (1) U.S. Highway 19; and (2) a barge slip on the CFBC in conjunction with the heavy haul road for large components. The heavy haul road, to be used primarily during construction, will be co-located with the makeup and blowdown pipeline corridor south of the LNP site. Federally-Required Approvals The LNP is also subject to the construction and operation approval of the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, PEF has submitted a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) to the NRC. PEF submitted the COLA for the LNP on July 30, 2008. The NRC's review is in progress, and a decision on the application is expected in late 2011. PEF has also requested a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) from the NRC. The LWA request covers the installation of a perimeter diaphragm wall and preliminary foundation work for the two units, and related buildings that are not nuclear safety-related items. An NRC-certified design for the AP1000 allows an applicant for NRC COL approval to avoid readdressing matters that the NRC has already considered when reviewing an individual COLA that uses that standard design. This approach is expected to provide more predictability and reduce the NRC's licensing review process. For PEF, the advantages of a standard design include the ability to apply lessons learned from other projects being constructed ahead of the LNP, as well as improved performance in cost and scheduling. PEF is seeking certification under the PPSA prior to completion of the NRC approval because state site certification will allow PEF to begin early site preparation (such as access roads) and will allow PEF to proceed to acquire property rights within the electrical transmission corridors. The NRC regulates radiological effluents and monitoring at nuclear power plants. The state of Florida does not have regulations specifically applicable to regulation of spent nuclear fuel. Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plants are required to have radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMPs). Part of the REMP is an offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Bureau of Radiation Monitoring, performs much of the monitoring in the ODCM at nuclear power plants under an agreement with the NRC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b); Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-5. The FDOH also monitors groundwater wells in the vicinity of a nuclear plant for numerous parameters, including radiological releases. In addition to the separate NRC approvals, PEF has filed applications with DEP for [a federally-required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit under the federal Clean Air Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] permit under the federal Clean Water Act, and (in accordance with 403.506(3), Florida Statutes) a state-required environmental resource permit (ERP) from DEP for construction of a new barge slip on the CFBC. DEP issued the final PSD air construction permit on February 20, 2009. DEP has not taken final agency action on the pending NPDES permit application. Federally-required permits issued by the DEP under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not subject to the PPSA. The PPSA provides that federal permits are reviewed and issued separately by the DEP, but in parallel with the PPSA process to the extent possible. Upon issuance, these federal permits will be incorporated into the conditions of certification. The separate DEP-issued ERP will also be incorporated by reference into the final site certification. Water Use The LNP has two primary needs for water: (1) saltwater to cool the steam condensers (circulating water); and (2) freshwater for power generation and component cooling (service water). Freshwater will be drawn from the upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater will be supplied from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC. A circulating water system can be designed to use either freshwater or saltwater. Common design practice is to use the most abundant source; so saltwater was selected for the LNP. The service water system components for the LNP are established by Westinghouse for the AP1000 standard design and require freshwater. The service water system for the AP1000 reactor has been designed to provide an efficient means of cooling plant components with a relatively small demand for freshwater. Most of the water to be used at the LNP site will be needed for steam condenser cooling which will take place in two cooling towers; one for each unit. The source for cooling tower makeup water will be surface saline water withdrawn from the CFBC. Approximately 122 million gallons per day (mgd) will be withdrawn from the CFBC for cooling water needs. A new intake structure would be constructed on the canal bank at a site south of the LNP site and west of the Inglis Lock on the CFBC, approximately 6.5 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Saltwater will be pumped from the CFBC and directed into the cooling tower basin. The circulating water system is a closed-cycle cooling system and is the primary heat sink for the plant during normal operation. Circulating water pumps direct water to the steam condenser to cool the steam after it passes through the main turbines. The heated saltwater is then returned to the cooling towers where it is cooled by air flow and returned to the cooling tower basin. The LNP recirculating cooling water will be cooled by induced draft, counter-flow, mechanical cooling towers. For each unit's cooling tower, there are 44 cooling tower cells, grouped into two banks of 22 cells each. Each of the cooling tower cells will be approximately 75-feet tall. The total length of each 22-cell cooling tower is approximately 1,200 feet. The LNP will have a continuous need to utilize cooling water. Most of the water loss in the cooling towers is a result of evaporation of the water being cooled in the cooling towers. A small amount of circulating water is lost from the cooling towers as liquid droplets entrained in the exhaust air steam. This is known as "drift." When water evaporates from the cooling tower, minerals and solids are left behind. As more water evaporates, the concentration of these materials increases. This concentration is controlled by continuously releasing and replenishing some water from the tower. Accordingly, both saltwater and freshwater are continuously discharged from the plant to help maintain proper water chemistry. This continuous release of water is called "blowdown" and, as proposed in PEF's pending NPDES application, it will be discharged to the discharge canal for the CREC and then into the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III marine water. The LNP will require up to 1.58 mgd, annual average, of freshwater. This freshwater will be used for plant operations, fire suppression, potable water needs, and demineralized water needs. Groundwater will be withdrawn from four supply wells at the south end of the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. The AP1000 service water system requires freshwater for use in component cooling. The service water system provides cooling water for the nonsafety-related component cooling water heat exchangers. Demineralized water is processed to remove ionic impurities and dissolved oxygen and is used for plant operations that require pure water, primarily the feed water and condensate systems used in power production. When operational, the LNP site must be capable of supplying potable water to approximately 800 employees and visitors daily. Potable water will also be needed for onsite construction. The fire protection system will be capable of providing water to points throughout the plant where wet system fire suppression could be required. The fire suppression system is designed to supply water at a flow rate and pressure sufficient to satisfy the demand of automatic sprinkler systems and fire hoses for a minimum of 2 hours. Cooling Water Intake Structure The LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) will be located on the berm that forms the north side of the CFBC approximately 3 miles south of the LNP, downstream of the Inglis Lock. The CWIS will withdraw surface water into four intake pipelines (two for each nuclear unit) that will convey water to the cooling tower basins for use in the cooling towers. These 54-inch diameter pipelines will generally be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipelines will cross over the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel located north of the CFBC on an approximately 33-foot-wide utility bridge. For each of the LNP units, the CWIS will contain three 50 percent capacity makeup pumps, each with a design flow rate of 23,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Two pumps will provide normal cooling tower makeup flow requirements for each unit. The third spare pump will be in standby mode and automatically start if one of the operating pumps shuts down for any reason. A dual-flow traveling screen upstream of each makeup pump will screen floating and suspended materials in the CFBC water. The screen opening will be 3/8-inch. The screens will be sized to ensure that the through-screen water velocity is no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that could enter the pump bay. The velocity of the water in the intake bay upstream of the traveling screens (the approach velocity) will be about 0.25 fps. Upstream of the traveling screens will be trash racks (also referred to as bar racks). These are a series of steel bars (4 inches apart) to prevent large objects from entering the CWIS. Potential Impacts of Surface Water Intake Cooling water will be withdrawn via the CWIS from a section of the CFBC that extends approximately 7 miles from the Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. Operation of the Inglis Lock was discontinued in 1999; the lock separates Lake Rousseau (to the east) from this section of the CFBC. This section of the CFBC has a continuous opening to the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC bisects the Withlacoochee River, severing the original hydraulic connection between Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River. To maintain flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River which is north of the CFBC, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel and associated Inglis Lock Spillway were built adjacent to the Inglis Lock (north of the CFBC). Flows in the CFBC are primarily a result of tides coming in and out from the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, rainfall. Periodically, freshwater is released from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC via the Inglis Dam. Also, there is some groundwater seepage into the CFBC as well as minor leakage from the Inglis Lock. Residence time for water in the CFBC near the proposed CWIS is currently over 200 days; there is very little outflow. Waters in the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock vary in salinity seasonally, with tidal influences, and depending on freshwater releases from the Inglis Dam. On average, the salinity in the area of the CFBC where the intake structure is proposed to be located is approximately 10 parts per thousand (ppt). As the CFBC approaches the Gulf of Mexico, salinity increases, averaging over 20 ppt and as high as 30 ppt. The CFBC ranges from approximately 200-to-260 feet wide. There is vegetation along the banks, as well as riprap, the latter consisting of huge rocks to limit erosion. The upper end of this section of the CFBC has algal blooms during the summer and muddy, silty bottom conditions that limit biological activity. The CFBC does not have seagrass beds that serve as aquatic habitat, except downstream where it joins with the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC does not serve as significant habitat for endangered fish species, such as the Gulf Sturgeon or Smalltooth Sawfish. Although freshwater and saltwater species may use the CFBC occasionally, it does not serve as significant spawning habitat for any migratory, sport, or commercial fish species. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of certification, pre- operational monitoring and sampling in the CFBC will be used to identify any changes in the use of that canal by such fish species. With regard to the remnant section of the Withlacoochee River between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC (Old Withlacoochee River, or OWR), the biota in the middle and lower reaches of that waterbody currently show the effects of variable salinity levels; these areas are characterized by organisms typically found in marine conditions. The upper reach of the OWR has species normally found in freshwater systems. Aquatic species in the OWR are affected by periodic releases from the Inglis Dam. The LNP CWIS hydraulic zone of influence on the CFBC extends about 5 miles to the west down the approximately 7-mile long CFBC. The hydraulic zone of influence defines the point at which the flow of the CFBC would be affected by the CWIS, under static conditions. In its biological analysis, PEF assumed that potential intake impacts would extend beyond this hydraulic zone of influence. After installation and operation of the LNP CWIS, the dominant forces affecting flow conditions in the CFBC will continue to be primarily tidal activity and releases from Lake Rousseau. The CFBC will become more saline. However, installation and operation of the LNP CWIS will improve flow conditions in the CFBC by adding consistent and very slow upstream movement of about 122 mgd. The LNP CWIS will cause the saline-freshwater transition zone to move up the remnant channel of the OWR, south of the CFBC. The increased salinity is not expected to affect the small enclave of freshwater organisms living in that upper segment of the OWR. Potential adverse impacts from a CWIS include entrainment (when organisms smaller than the screen openings enter the cooling water) and impingement (when organisms larger than the screen openings become trapped on the screen). Potential impacts of entrainment and impingement will be minimized because the LNP CWIS will utilize a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system which will reduce the amount of cooling water required by approximately 90 percent; the through-screen velocity will be 0.5 fps or less; and the LNP will not disrupt thermal stratification in the CFBC. Under federal law, DEP will make the final determination of compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requirements in the NPDES permit. The LNP CWIS is not expected to pose a threat to threatened or endangered species or migratory, sport, or other fish species. Monitoring for fish species in the CFBC will be undertaken under the FWC's proposed conditions of certification to identify any actual impacts to such species and the need for any mitigation for such impacts. Locating the CWIS near the Inglis Lock on the CFBC will result in less entrainment and impingement impacts compared to potential locations closer to the mouth of the CFBC or in nearby off-shore waters. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a post-certification survey and monitoring plan for the CFBC and Withlacoochee River to assess actual impacts of the withdrawals for the LNP on these water bodies. If, after review of the annual reports required by these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a CFBC and/or Withlacoochee River mitigation plan to mitigate those impacts. As part of its pending NPDES permit application, PEF submitted a "316(b) Demonstration Study" to address compliance with intake standards applicable to the LNP CWIS. Final agency action on the NPDES permit application, including a determination of compliance with Section 316(b) regulations, has not been taken by DEP. Under 40 C.F.R., Subpart I, Sections 125.80-125.89, if pre- and post-operational monitoring demonstrates unacceptable adverse impacts associated with the CWIS, operational and technological improvements to the CWIS may be required. Under the proposed conditions of certification, the final NPDES permit for the LNP will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Operation of the CWIS is expected to have a negligible impact on saltwater intrusion in the area bounded to the south by the CFBC and to the north by the Lower Withlacoochee River. The waters of the CFBC are marine waters. There currently is stratification in the CFBC, with higher salinity along the bottom of the water column. The change in density of water in the CFBC as a result of the increased salinity due to the LNP's proposed water use in the CFBC is not expected to affect freshwater resources. The tide in the CFBC currently fluctuates 2-3 feet twice per day. The construction of the CFBC and the bisection of the Withlacoochee River have resulted in reduced freshwater flows in the lower portion of the Withlacoochee River north of the CFBC. There is no direct connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River (north of the CFBC). The flow in the By- pass Channel provides less freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River than historically flowed into the lower portion of the River. This has caused saltwater to move up the Lower Withlacoochee River, particularly during periods of low flow. SWFWMD has evaluated restoration of the River to its original condition, but has not advocated reconnection. Reconnection of the Withlacoochee River or downstream impoundment of the CFBC probably would not prevent the impacts of increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River during periods of low freshwater flow. Although no agency is currently pursuing a project of this type, DEP has proposed a condition of certification to address future public projects for the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of surface waters requiring modifications to the CFBC. Potential Impacts to Manatees Manatees use the Withlacoochee River and the CFBC year round, but primarily during the warmer months. The CFBC, including the area of the LNP intake, is not listed as critical habitat for manatees under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction activities in the CFBC can take place in a manner reasonably likely to avoid adverse impacts to manatees. The FWC has proposed conditions of certification designed to protect manatees from adverse impacts of in-water construction through monitoring and mitigative measures. Compliance with these conditions will minimize impacts to manatees. The operation of the LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is not likely to adversely impact manatees. The potential impacts of the LNP CWIS on manatees will be minimized by the system design and location. Additionally, DEP and FWC have proposed conditions of certification requiring PEF to submit a final CWIS plan for review by FWC prior to construction of the CWIS with regard to manatee safety issues. Potential impacts to manatees from barge traffic on the CFBC related to delivery of Project components and materials for the construction of the LNP is not expected to adversely impact manatees. FWC has proposed conditions of certification to protect manatees during in-water construction. Compliance with the proposed conditions of certification will minimize potential impacts to manatees. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals The LNP's proposed groundwater use meets all of the SWFWMD's water use criteria. To demonstrate that the proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with LNP operations will comply with the SWFWMD water use criteria, including not causing unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, PEF performed a groundwater modeling analysis using the SWFWMD's District-Wide Regulation Model 2 (DWRM2) groundwater flow model. The DWRM2 is an acceptable groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of groundwater withdrawals. The DWRM2 modeling demonstrated that the proposed groundwater withdrawals would not lower surficial aquifer levels to the point of causing unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, or interfere with existing legal users. Groundwater pumping for the LNP is not expected to adversely impact Lake Rousseau, the Withlacoochee River, or other streams or springs in the Project area. Groundwater withdrawals for the LNP are likewise not expected to induce saline water intrusion, cause the spread of pollutants in the aquifer, adversely impact any offsite land uses, cause adverse impacts to wetland systems, or adversely impact any other nearby uses of the aquifer system. To confirm the values used in the groundwater flow model supporting the application, proposed certification conditions require that an aquifer performance testing plan be submitted by PEF, approved by the SWFWMD, and implemented. If leakance and transmissivity values derived from actual onsite well tests differ more than 20 percent from values determined through earlier modeling, PEF is required to revise its groundwater model to incorporate the aquifer test results and undertake further modeling. Updated groundwater modeling results will be used to determine whether alternative water supplies or additional mitigation will need to be implemented. To help ensure that the proposed groundwater use does not cause unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, SWFWMD and DEP recommended that conditions be included in the site certification requiring an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the condition of surface waters and wetlands in areas that could potentially be affected by groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after groundwater withdrawals reach a quantity of 1.25 mgd on an annual average basis. Annual monitoring summaries will be submitted. If, after five years, this monitoring demonstrates that no adverse impacts of groundwater withdrawals are occurring or predicted, PEF may request that monitoring be discontinued. Groundwater withdrawals will be metered and reported to DEP and SWFWMD on a monthly basis. Proposed conditions of certification require periodic water quality sampling be performed on the withdrawn groundwater to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality. Proposed conditions also address ongoing monitoring and compliance by requiring a full compliance report every five years throughout the life of the LNP, to demonstrate continued reasonable assurance that the groundwater use is meeting all of the applicable substantive water use requirements set forth in SWFWMD rules. The SWFWMD has not established water reservations or minimum flows or levels for any waterbody in the vicinity of the LNP. Therefore, the use of water from the CFBC and from the ground will not violate any currently established water reservation or minimum flow or level. Fracture sets (also called solution channels) are small openings through which groundwater moves. Fracture sets are only an issue in groundwater flow if preferential flow paths develop near one of the solution channels. Preferential flow paths tend to develop near existing springs. There are no springs on the LNP site, and subsurface investigations did not reveal any evidence of solution channels under the site. PEF also proposes to withdraw groundwater as part of the dewatering needed for plant construction. PEF proposes to install an impervious diaphragm wall around and below the foundation excavations for each nuclear unit to minimize water flow into the construction site. It is anticipated that dewatering at each unit could last as much as two years. Additional construction dewatering will also be necessary in some locations for installation of the pipelines and other linear facilities. Naturally-occurring groundwater collected during dewatering and excavation activities will be directed into stormwater runoff ponds and allowed to filter back into the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Dewatering is expected to cause only a modest amount of drawdown of the surficial aquifer. Construction-related dewatering activities will be approved by DEP and SWFWMD on a post-certification basis after final construction designs are submitted. Potential Surface Water Discharge Impacts The LNP will have a combined wastewater discharge comprised of several wastewater streams. Blowdown from the cooling towers will comprise about 98 percent of the LNP wastewater. The blowdown will be combined with significantly smaller quantities of plant wastewaters, treated plant sanitary wastewater, and occasionally stormwater. LNP wastewaters consist of effluents from process equipment, floor drains, laboratory sample sinks, demineralized water treatment system effluent, and treated steam generator blowdown. Wastewaters will be processed before discharge. The treatment systems include oil separators (to separate oily wastes from the rest of the waste stream) and a wastewater retention basin (to settle out suspended particles). The combined LNP wastewater, as proposed by PEF in its pending NPDES permit application, will be piped to the CREC and released into the existing CREC discharge canal which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The cooling tower blowdown discharges from the LNP will include saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system and freshwater blowdown from the service water cooling system; the vast majority of this will be saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system. The normal 2-unit recirculating water blowdown rate is expected to be 57,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 81.4 mgd, and the maximum blowdown rate is expected to be about 59,000 gpm or 84.9 mgd. The 2-unit service water blowdown rate is expected to vary from about 130 gpm during normal operation, to a maximum of about 400 gpm. The CREC currently has two NPDES permits authorizing discharges to surface waters of the State. CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 are cooled with once-through cooling water from the CREC intake canal that is then discharged into the Gulf of Mexico via the existing CREC discharge canal. Once-through cooling water is cooling water that is released after condensing the steam, without being recycled in a cooling tower system. CREC Units 4 and 5 have cooling towers that receive make-up water from the CREC discharge canal and release blowdown into the discharge canal. The discharges for all five CREC units are released to the Gulf of Mexico through a single discharge canal at the CREC site. PEF has proposed to utilize the CREC discharge canal for the LNP discharge; however, the final location will be subject to approval as part of DEP's final agency action on PEF's pending application for an NPDES permit. The wastewater flow at the CREC is limited under the existing CREC NPDES permits to 1,898 mgd during the summer and 1,613 mgd during the winter. The expected day-to-day total wastewater flow from the LNP will be 83.4 mgd, with a conservative maximum total flow rate of 87.9 mgd. The proposed LNP discharge would be equivalent to 4-5 percent of the permitted discharge from the CREC. The design temperature of the LNP wastewater discharge is 89.1ºF, which is expected to be met more than 99.5 percent of the time. This LNP design temperature is cooler than the existing permitted temperature of the existing combined CREC discharge (96.5ºF). Even the expected worst case temperature of the LNP discharge (96.4ºF), will be cooler than the existing temperature limit applicable to CREC. With the addition of the LNP discharge, the CREC is expected to continue to meet its existing thermal permit limit. The addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to significantly change the existing area of thermal impact associated with existing CREC discharges. Evaluation of the Project wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to flora and fauna, including seagrasses and shellfish beds, will be minimized. PEF has committed to a condition of certification requiring the post-certification submittal of a surface water monitoring plan to DEP to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to seagrasses. The finding related to shellfish beds is supported by a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the DEP stating that "[r]eclassification of the shellfish harvesting areas will not be necessary if the Project is built as proposed." The LNP wastewater is projected to meet the limits defined under 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater discharge in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to surface water quality will be minimized. Adding the LNP discharge to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to have an adverse impact on manatees. The LNP discharge structure at the CREC is likewise not expected to cause adverse impacts to manatees that may be present in the CREC discharge canal. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other organisms in the Gulf of Mexico will be minimized. The discharge is not expected to have adverse impacts on endangered fish species. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a discharge monitoring plan to ensure that the addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge does not cause adverse impacts. If, after review of the annual reports required under these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a mitigation plan to address those impacts. DEP's final agency action on PEF's application for an NPDES permit for the LNP, if issued, will include final action on compliance with water quality standards and will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Surface Water Management System The LNP surface water management system consists of pipes and ditches that collect and convey stormwater from the plant area into onsite wet treatment ponds before discharge. Stormwater along the heavy haul road will be collected in roadside swales. The plant area will be raised approximately eight feet. Stormwater will drain from this area into three stormwater ponds. Any cross-flows from the plant site toward the raised areas will pass around the site through culverts or ditches. The stormwater ponds and swales are sized to treat stormwater releases to meet SWFWMD rules. In addition, all construction-related surface water management facilities will comply with SWFWMD's surface water management criteria. The design and proper construction and operation of the surface water management system will satisfy SWFWMD's water quantity and water quality criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D- 4.302. PEF has committed to a post-certification submittal of detailed stormwater design information to address floodplain impacts as required by section 4.7 ("Historic basin storage") of the SWFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (adopted in Rule 40D-4.091, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 62-330.200(3)(e)). Solid Waste Disposal There will be no onsite disposal of hazardous waste during construction of the LNP. All hazardous waste will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Contractors will be responsible for having detailed procedures in place to handle hazardous waste. During operation, hazardous waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. PEF has procedures in place for management and control of hazardous materials; such materials will be disposed of offsite through permitted facilities. All solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at a permitted offsite landfill. There will be no onsite disposal of solid waste. Non-nuclear solid waste generated during operation of the LNP will be disposed of offsite at a permitted landfill. A proposed condition of certification precludes processing or disposal of solid waste onsite. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts The LNP is a nuclear-fueled power generating facility that will use uranium dioxide pellets in fuel rods. The LNP will also use a relatively small amount of diesel fuel in its emergency diesel generators, ancillary generators, and fire pump engines. Therefore, the LNP will not emit the typical types and quantities of air pollutants from fossil-fueled power generation such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of air emissions at the LNP will include the two banks of mechanical draft cooling towers and diesel- fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines. Air pollutants that will be emitted during normal facility operation will be limited to particulate matter (PM), both more than and less than 10 microns in diameter, which will be emitted from the low profile cooling towers. There will be a small amount of air emissions from the diesel-fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines; however, these emissions are only expected to occur during the few hours per month when the engines are run for maintenance and testing purposes. There will be no other significant sources of air emissions from operation of the LNP. PM emissions from the draft cooling towers will occur as a result of the entrainment of a small amount of water, as small-diameter droplets, in the exhaust stream from the towers. Particulate matter, consisting of the naturally occurring dissolved solids that will be present in the cooling water, will be contained in these entrained droplets. The droplets and the associated suspended solid particulate matter are known as cooling tower "drift." The amount of cooling tower "drift" is controlled through the use of very high efficiency mist eliminators that will be in the cooling tower. The use of high efficiency mist eliminators on the LNP cooling towers is consistent with state and federal regulations that require the use of Best Available Control Technology to limit such air emissions. The LNP will be located in Levy County which is currently attaining all ambient air quality standards for all pollutants. The LNP will not have an adverse or discernible impact on ambient air quality at the LNP site, or at any location, for any regulated air pollutant. The LNP will not generate power by combusting any fuel. Therefore, there will be no measurable greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, during normal plant operation. The estimated CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating the same amount of electricity as the LNP is approximately 6.4 million tons per year. For comparison, the estimated CO2 emissions from the LNP, which result from periodic testing of the facility's diesel-powered emergency equipment, is only 618 tons/year. Visible plumes from the cooling towers will remain very close to the cooling towers (within approximately 300 feet) under most meteorological conditions. The occurrence of visible vapor plumes at offsite locations is expected to be infrequent. The operation of the cooling towers is expected to have no significant or adverse impacts due to ground level fogging on any roadway or at offsite locations during plant operation. The maximum predicted offsite solids deposition rate from operation of the LNP cooling towers is six pounds per acre per month immediately adjacent to the nearest LNP property boundary. This is below the de minimis adverse impact threshold of nine pounds per acre per month published by the NRC. The rate of deposition is predicted to decrease rapidly and significantly with increasing distance from the plant. Operation of the LNP cooling towers is not expected to cause discernible impacts on any natural resources, including surface waters or wetlands. Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation The noise limits applicable to the LNP site are set by the Levy County Code of Ordinances. The noise limits defined by the County ordinance for the area surrounding the LNP site are 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There are no other local, state, or federal noise regulations that apply to the plant. PEF conducted noise impact evaluations for construction and operation of the LNP. Ambient noise levels were measured at six locations around the LNP site. Noise levels were conservatively estimated by adding the composite average noise levels that would be generated by construction equipment during the loudest phases of construction. Equipment sound propagation factors were obtained from industry references. The noise model known as CADNA/A was used to predict noise levels at onsite and offsite locations, including the nearest residences for both construction and operation. The noise levels during construction activities and during normal maximum operation of the LNP plant site are projected to be below the Levy County noise limits for all hours at all offsite locations, including the locations of the nearest residences. Due to the large buffer surrounding the developed area of the site, and the relatively low noise levels associated with the LNP, there are not expected to be any significant or adverse noise impacts during construction or operation of the LNP. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology (Plant and Transmission Line Corridors) The proposed LNP site has been used for many decades for the production of pine. The clearing of native vegetation, furrowing, bedding, planting, and harvesting (primarily for pine) has altered the site from a natural Florida landscape into a monotypical landscape in both upland and wetland areas with reduced functional attributes. There are no open water bodies or streams on the LNP site. There are some flow-way connections between some of the wetlands, but they are not of the kind that will support long- term fish habitat or aquatic insect communities. Due to the silvicultural nature of the site and recent clearing, the ideal complement of biodiversity on the LNP site is no longer present. The predominant wildlife species are those that tolerate a mono-specific pine tree habitat, such as deer, turkey, and wild hogs. While pre-application surveys indicate that protected species occur at and in the vicinity of the LNP site, several of Florida's listed species are not likely to extensively use the LNP site. Impacts to State-listed and important wildlife species that have been documented or may occur on the LNP site and adjacent uplands will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results and needed measures to avoid and mitigate such impacts. Historically, the 3,105-acre LNP site was dominated by forested cypress wetland systems. However, over the last century or more, those have been harvested and allowed to re- grow, so that many of the wetlands are no longer dominated by cypress trees. Today, most of the forested wetland systems in the footprint of development have been cleared of trees. The anticipated maximum wetland impacts for the entire Project, including the impacts from associated facilities and electrical transmission lines, are estimated to be 765 acres. These impacts are estimated to be: 13.3 acres of open water; 638.4 acres of forested wetlands; and 113.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands. Approximately one-half of the wetland impacts are expected to occur on the LNP site and one-half are expected to occur offsite. The Project's 765-acre wetland impact is a conservative estimate, including long-term and short-term impacts that are the result of direct dredging and filling as well as temporary disturbance. It is likely that the actual impact will decrease as the routing of facilities is refined within the electrical transmission and other corridors and on the LNP site. Based on these anticipated wetland impacts and the functions being provided by these wetlands, PEF calculated the proposed maximum wetland functional loss for the LNP to be 410.9 functional units, as determined under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) contained in Rule Chapter 62-345. The UMAM scoring indicates that, on average, the wetlands being impacted have approximately one-half of the functional ecological value of an ideal wetland system. To comply with the applicable SWFWMD ERP rules under the PPSA process, PEF must offset the wetland impacts caused by the construction and operation of the LNP, associated transmission lines, roads, and pipelines. PEF submitted to DEP a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines (WMP). A primary value of the WMP is an overall increase in ecological function provided across several thousand acres in a regionally-significant location. This regional landscape-level ecosystem benefit substantially augments the value of local-scale mitigation activities. The proposed mitigation for the LNP will potentially achieve greater offset of wetland impacts from a regional perspective and is expected to provide significant long-term ecosystem benefit. The WMP identifies a series of possible scenarios from which the appropriate and ultimate mitigation can be derived. Because impacts are still being refined as corridors are narrowed into actual routes, the information in the WMP is designed to demonstrate that there is available and desirable mitigation to affect the final degree of wetlands impacts, once calculated. The comprehensive mitigation plan, as described in the WMP, is an acceptable alternative to traditional "in-basin" mitigation. DEP conceptually approved this WMP with the understanding that more detailed information will be submitted when final routes are established and actual wetland impacts are known. The amount of mitigation PEF will undertake will be based on the amount of wetlands actually impacted. A condition of certification has been included to require submittal of refinements to the mitigation plan for DEP's approval following final certification. PEF looked at ways to reduce and eliminate wetland impacts at several levels, including site selection, routing of roadways, and commitments through discussions with agencies to further reduce impacts as transmission line routes are selected within the transmission corridors. The Project is designed to comply with SWFWMD ERP criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 4.302. There are not expected to be unacceptable secondary wetlands impacts due to the construction of the Project. Under SWFWMD rules, as long as a disturbance is at least 25 feet from a wetland, secondary impacts are deemed avoided. For the LNP site, unimpacted wetlands are dozens to thousands of feet away from Project development. Further, the rural and remote location of the facility, along with the high level of security associated with a nuclear facility (i.e., fencing, buffering, and reduced public access) makes causally-connected offsite development unlikely (with regard to the LNP site). The LNP will comply with the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The conceptual WMP is designed to be regionally significant and provides ecological benefits beyond the calculated UMAM functional value increase. For example, the WMP has the potential to connect the Goethe State Forest to the historic floodplain of the Withlacoochee River, which will maintain and enhance a large natural wildlife corridor. The LNP is not anticipated to adversely affect the value or functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species, including any aquatic and wetland species, or other related-water resources. There are no documented listed aquatic or wetland-dependent species that might be adversely affected by construction at the plant site. Impacts to wetland dependent species will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results. PEF has addressed all of the wildlife issues subject to the site certification process. The FWC has recommended certification, subject to conditions related to surveying of development areas and appropriate buffers for species prior to clearing, construction, and development to ensure appropriate relocation or mitigation opportunities and implementation of management activities to ensure the long-term well-being of the species. Project wetlands impacts are not expected to adversely affect the quality of receiving waters with respect to the applicable water quality criteria for those receiving waters, or adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. Through implementation of the WMP, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by wetlands. Transportation The primary roadways in the vicinity of the LNP are U.S. Highway 19 (U.S. 19) and County Road 40 (C.R. 40). U.S. Highway 19 is a Florida DOT-maintained, four-lane arterial roadway west of the Project site. C.R. 40 is a Levy County- maintained, two-lane roadway approximately five miles to the south of the plant site. The Levy County Comprehensive Plan has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roadways within Levy County. While LOS standards do not apply to temporary construction traffic, PEF evaluated the impacts of both LNP construction and operation traffic on adjacent roadways. This evaluation shows that future traffic levels with the addition of the Project construction and operation traffic are projected to be less than one-half the adopted LOS standards for U.S. 19 and C.R. 40. Roadway links during construction and operation of the LNP are projected to operate within adopted LOS standards. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits There is an approximate population of 4,700 persons within a five-mile radius of the LNP site. This equates to a population density of approximately 60 people per square mile. The closest towns to the LNP site are Inglis and Yankeetown, which are located approximately 4.1 miles and 8.0 miles southwest of the LNP site, respectively. The total cost of the LNP, including the proposed electrical transmission lines, is approximately $17 billion. The LNP construction workforce is expected to peak at approximately 3,300 workers in 2014. The operation workforce will consist of approximately 800 employees, with an additional 800 workers needed every 18 months for between 20 and 30 days to refuel the facility. PEF sees retention rate benefits when hiring locally and would like to employ the local workforce for construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has programs in place to train local residents to become part of the future workforce for the LNP. These programs focus on both construction and operation personnel and include programs or potential programs at Bronson High School, Chiefland High School, Dixie County High School, the Withlacoochee Technical Institute, and Santa Fe Community College. PEF is also working in partnership with Dunnellon High School (which draws students from Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties) on a Power Academy to prepare students for the construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has a successful nuclear engineering program partnership with the University of Florida to train both nuclear engineers and plant operators, including the use of a first-of-its-kind digital training simulator. PEF has provided grants to modernize the nuclear facilities at the University of Florida. In 2005, there were approximately 395,000 workers in the region (defined as a 50-mile radius around the LNP, including Levy, Citrus, Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Sumter Counties). Specific to construction of a nuclear power plant, there were 4,900 heavy construction workers in the region in 2006. It is probable that more of these 4,900 workers will be available due to rising unemployment rates across the region. Unemployment rates for the three counties immediately surrounding the LNP site have risen from around four percent in 2005 to eight percent in late 2008. There is sufficient housing available in the region to accommodate both LNP construction and operation employees. Construction of the LNP is not expected to significantly increase the number of pupils in the surrounding school systems. The school systems in the region of the LNP will be able to accommodate the increased number of pupils as a result of LNP operations workers and their families. Public services and facilities in the region of the LNP are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. Construction of the LNP will have little, if any, impact on recreational facilities and uses in the area around the LNP site in Levy and Citrus Counties. During LNP operation, recreational facilities and uses will not be impacted. There are no officially-designated landmarks within five miles of the LNP site. The peak construction workforce in 2014 will result in approximately $152 million in annual earnings. Construction earnings in other years will also be substantial. In addition to jobs and earnings, the construction of the LNP will contribute an estimated $263 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. The direct social and economic impacts of the LNP operation are expected to include approximately 800 direct jobs; 1,100 indirect or induced jobs; and associated increases in sales, property tax, and output revenues. These operations workers are expected to generate over $53 million in annual payroll. The LNP overall is expected to contribute nearly $521 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. Local property tax collections will begin when Unit 1 is brought on-line, resulting in approximately $63 million in tax revenue to Levy County in the first year of operation. Annual property tax collections in Levy County of approximately $18 million are projected to increase by $104 million once both LNP units are operational. Archaeological and Historic Sites Construction and operation of the LNP will not adversely impact archaeologically significant sites or historic standing structures. The Project complies with all federal and state standards for identification and protection of archaeological sites. Field surveys of the plant site, the corridor extending south to the CFBC, and the pipeline corridor to the CREC did not reveal any archaeological sites or historic standing structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with PEF's survey methodology and the determination that no sites are NRHP- eligible. PEF has guidelines designed to protect historic sites, landmarks, artifacts, and archaeological sites in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The Florida SHPO has concurred with PEF's approach to protect inadvertent discoveries during land-disturbing activities. Land Use PEF filed applications with Levy County for a comprehensive plan amendment and special exception zoning approval for the LNP. Those applications were approved and are now final. The majority of the existing land use on the LNP site is silviculture, and the property is unimproved. The primary existing land use of the property to the south of the LNP, where the heavy haul road, water pipelines, and other facilities will be located, is likewise silviculture and otherwise unimproved. The properties along the blowdown pipeline corridor to the CREC are primarily vacant and largely unimproved. The nearest residence to the LNP is approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the power block generating facilities, measured from the edge of the nearest power block to the residence. The electrical generating facilities are designed with a minimum 1,000-foot setback from the property line of any property not under the control of PEF. A natural 100-foot vegetative buffer is required to be maintained around the LNP's perimeter where the adjacent property is not under PEF's control. Given the setbacks, the perimeter vegetation, and the 250-foot maximum height limitation under Levy County's special exception for the LNP, the physical structures at the LNP site will not be visible from surrounding properties at ground level. The location of the LNP is consistent with the existing and future land uses surrounding the site. The cooling water blowdown pipelines are located to have the least impact on the existing land uses in the area. The LNP will have little impact on land uses in the vicinity. The LNP is consistent with the Levy County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations (LDRs), the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, and the State Comprehensive Plan contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Electrical Transmission Lines Project Description Generally, the purpose of electrical transmission lines is to transmit large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. Transmission lines operate at voltages above 69 kilovolts (kV). Bulk power, generally operating at 230-kV or 500-kV, is transferred from the generating plant to the substation. At the substation, the voltage of the electricity is changed through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or distribution directly to customers. PEF is seeking certification of nine proposed corridors for transmission lines associated with the LNP. A proposed corridor is associated with each of the proposed transmission lines identified in Findings of Fact 182-189. All of the proposed transmission lines will directly support the construction and operation of the LNP. Corridor Selection Methodology PEF established a multi-disciplinary team to identify a corridor for each of the proposed transmission lines. The role of this team was to select a proposed corridor for certification for each line based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multi-disciplinary team was composed of experts in transmission line design, land use planning, system planning, real estate acquisition, corporate communications, and environmental disciplines as they relate to transmission lines. The multi-disciplinary team engaged in four major steps in this process. The first was to establish and define a project study area for each transmission line. The second step was to conduct regional screening and mapping. The third step was to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The fourth step was to select the proposed corridors and identify the boundaries of those corridors. Data collection was performed in connection with this effort from the databases of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and organizations, as well as from the public in a series of conferences and open houses described in Findings of Fact 8-11. A number of field studies, internal meetings, and individual and small group meetings were held with members of the public as a part of the process. In defining the project study area for each transmission line, the multi-disciplinary team considered the starting and ending points for the lines and other linear facilities in these areas. Within each study area, the multi-disciplinary team gathered regional screening data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study areas, such as various environmental and land use features, existing infrastructure, archeological and historical sites, roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and similar features. The multi-disciplinary team evaluated each corridor using quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria. Relative weights for each quantitative criterion were developed and validated with input from agency representatives and the public during the public outreach portion of the corridor selection process. The weights were applied to the quantitative values for the criteria for each candidate corridor segment and the scores were tabulated for all candidate corridors. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on quantitative weighted scores. The high-ranking candidate corridors were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as the types of wetlands and vegetation present, safety, constructability considerations, and other similar considerations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the high-ranking candidate corridors, the multi-disciplinary team ultimately chose the nine proposed corridors. Once the proposed corridors were selected, the multi-disciplinary team refined the boundaries of each of the PEF proposed corridors. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths by narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints where practicable or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Transmission Line Design A transmission line generally consists of a steel or concrete structure, the conductor, which is attached to the structure by an insulator, and overhead groundwires used for lightning protection and communications for the protection and control systems located in the substation. Access roads and structure pads are also associated with transmission lines. The Project’s 230-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be constructed using single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with braced line post or V-string insulators. The braced line post arrangement is a compressed construction design which minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed. The V-string insulator design allows longer span lengths due to the increased strength of this assembly. Typical heights will range from 80 to 145 feet for the 230-kV structures and 60 to 90 feet for the 69-kV structures. The 500-kV transmission lines will be constructed using tubular steel H-frame or monopole structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with V-string insulators which provide the necessary strength and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed. Structure heights will range from 110 to 195 feet. The span length between structures and the pole height will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, waterbodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. The typical spans between structures supporting 230- kV transmission lines will range from approximately 500 to 700 feet for the braced line post structures and 700 to 1,400 feet for the V-string structures. The typical spans between structures supporting 69-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 250 to 600 feet. The typical spans between structures supporting 500-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary. When new roads are required, they will typically be 18 feet wide and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. Generally, the existing ground will be leveled, a geotextile fabric will be installed, and compacted sand and gravel will be added to arrive at the desired road elevation. Culverts will be installed as required to maintain preconstruction waterflows. Structure pads will typically be 70 feet wide and 100 feet long and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. The size of the structure pads will vary depending upon the heights of the structures supported and other site-specific factors. The designs for these access roads and structure pads have been used by PEF in the past and have been previously approved in Florida. Design Standards The transmission lines will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards. These include the National Electrical Safety Code, the standards of the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, DEP's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, applicable local government requirements such as noise ordinances, and the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual. PEF's own internal design standards incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Transmission Line Construction PEF will work with the regulatory agencies and landowners to determine where the rights-of-way, transmission structures, access roads, and structure pads should be located. As rights-of-way are being selected, they will be surveyed to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests. After the right-of-way is established within the certified corridor, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the right-of-way. Where the proposed right-of-way is in uplands, the right-of-way clearing for the project will consist of vegetation and tree removal as necessary. Where the proposed right-of-way is in wetlands, vegetation will be cleared utilizing restrictive clearing techniques as necessary for specific sites. Restrictive wetlands clearing will be done by hand, with chainsaws or low ground-pressure shear or rotary machines, to reduce soil compaction and damage to vegetation. The cut material will be removed from the right-of-way utilizing either low ground-pressure equipment or temporary construction mats. Care will be taken to minimize rutting and disturbance of root mat. After the right-of-way is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Existing access roads and structure pads will be used whenever practicable. Where a transmission line will be constructed adjacent to an existing transmission right-of-way, improvements to the associated access roads and paths may be made. Where adequate access roads or structure pads do not exist, new roads and pads will be constructed. The next phase of construction will involve the erection of the structures. All structures will be supported with engineered foundations. Tangent structure foundations will normally consist of either direct buried structures with concrete backfill or reinforced-concrete drilled piers. Structures may also utilize guys and anchors at angle and deadend structures to help support the load. Transmission structures are generally delivered to the site using semi-trucks with open trailers and are assembled onsite as close as possible to the foundation. Typically, the structures are framed with the structure arms and insulator assemblies while lying on the ground. During the assembly process, poles are maneuvered into place using cranes and other lifting equipment to facilitate connections. Once assembled, a crane is used to lift the structures for final placement on the foundation. After the structures are erected, conductor installation will commence. The process of installing conductors involves stringing a pilot line into each structure stringing block to form a continuous connection between stringing end points. This pilot line is then used to pull the conductor into position. The conductor is then tensioned to design specifications, transferred to the support clamp, and clipped into position. The operation is performed on all overhead ground wires and conductors. Typical equipment used in the conductor installation operation includes bucket trucks, wire pulling equipment, guard structures, wire reels, trailers, tensioners, and support vehicles. The final stage of construction will be right-of-way restoration which includes removal of all construction equipment and supplies, grading the right-of-way if needed, and planting or seeding of the disturbed area if needed. During all stages of construction, PEF will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with DOT regulations. Sedimentation management techniques, including turbidity screens, temporary culverts, silt fences or staked hay bales, and the seeding or mulching of side slopes, will be utilized to minimize potential impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Corridor Descriptions The LNP will add approximately 185 miles of new 69- kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV transmission lines to be placed within nine proposed corridors. The proposed corridors provide significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provides the opportunity to reduce costs, the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridors varies along the routes to provide flexibility within the corridors to avoid impacts to existing developments, large wetland areas, and other features. After certification, and following the selection of rights-of- way, the boundaries of the corridors will be reduced to those of rights-of-way. The first proposed corridor is associated with the Citrus 1 and 2 lines. The Citrus lines are also referred to as the "LPC" transmission lines and the proposed corridor is referred to as the LPC corridor. The Citrus lines are two 500- kV transmission lines that will connect the LNP to the proposed Citrus Substation, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Citrus 1 and 2 lines will be located in Levy and Citrus Counties. This proposed corridor is approximately seven miles long and one mile wide. The LPC Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LPC Corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Crystal River 500-kV lines, the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the LPC Corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Crystal River lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line at some locations. The LPC corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island (which is wedged between the LWR and the CFBC), and will terminate at the proposed Citrus Substation located just north of PEF's existing Crystal River Central Florida transmission line in Citrus County. The second proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River line, which is also referred to as the "LCR" transmission line and the corridor is referred to as the LCR Corridor. The Crystal River line is a 500-kV transmission line that connects the LNP to the existing CREC switchyard in Citrus County. The Crystal River line will be located within Levy and Citrus Counties. The LCR Corridor is approximately 14 miles long and one mile wide. It begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LCR corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 500-kV lines, and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line in some locations. The LCR Corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and will enter the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At this point, the LCR Corridor turns west and follows the general alignment of the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida Transmission right-of-way into the CREC where it terminates at the CREC 500-kV switchyard. The third proposed corridor is associated with the Sumter line, which is also referred to as the "LCFS" transmission line. This corridor is referred to as the LCFS Corridor. The Sumter line is a 500-kV transmission line that will connect the LNP to the proposed Central Florida South Substation in Lake and Sumter Counties, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Sumter line will be located in Levy, Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The LCFS Corridor is approximately 59 miles long and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile wide. For most of its length, the 500-kV LCFS Corridor is collocated with the existing PEF transmission lines, except in the vicinity of the Central Florida South Substation, where it is collocated with the Florida Turnpike. The LCFS Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. It will be collocated with the proposed Citrus 1 & 2 and Crystal River 500-kV lines and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line. The LCFS Corridor crosses C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and continues south until reaching the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At that point, the LCFS Corridor turns east and follows the existing transmission line right-of-way through Citrus and Marion Counties for approximately 45 miles. The corridor turns southeast crossing into Sumter County and crosses S.R. 44 and I-75. The remaining five miles of the LCFS Corridor follows the general alignment of the Florida Turnpike to the southeast and terminates in the area of the proposed Central Florida Substation near Wildwood. The fourth proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River East 1 & 2 lines, which are also called the "CCRE" transmission lines. This is the CCRE Corridor. The Crystal River East lines are two 230-kV transmission lines that will connect the proposed Citrus Substation to the existing Crystal River East Substation in Citrus County. The lines will be located entirely within Citrus County. The CCRE Corridor is approximately 2.7 miles in length and one mile wide. The west end of the north boundary of the corridor is approximately one- half mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east approximately one-half mile north of West Dunnellon Road (CR-488). The west end of the south boundary of the corridor starts approximately 1 mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east along the northern boundary of the existing PEF transmission right-of-way. At a point approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. 19, the corridor shifts south approximately one-half mile and continues east for another mile. The corridor also includes five existing 115-kV, 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines and the Crystal River East Substation. The fifth and sixth proposed corridors are associated with the Levy North and South lines, which are also referred to as the "IS" and "IO" transmission lines. The Levy North and South lines are 69-kV transmission lines required to supply power for the construction and administration of the LNP. These lines will be located entirely within Levy County, and are mostly located on property owned by PEF in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP. The IS Corridor is approximately 373 feet in length and 400 feet wide. The IO Corridor is approximately 4.5 miles in length and one mile wide. The IO Corridor will begin at the south boundary of the LNP site and extend south to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line located south of C.R. 40 in Levy County. The IS Corridor will begin at the west boundary of the LNP site and extend west to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line that is located parallel to and east of U.S. 19 in Levy County. The seventh proposed corridor is associated with the Brookridge line, which is also referred to as the "CB" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the CB Corridor. The Brookridge line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing CREC to the existing Brookridge Substation in Hernando County. The Brookridge line will be located in Citrus and Hernando Counties. The overall length of the CB corridor is approximately 38 miles and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile. The corridor begins at the CREC switchyard and proceeds east towards the existing Crystal River East Substation then southeast to S.R. 44. The corridor collocates with existing transmission line rights-of- way. At S.R. 44, the corridor turns south, following the existing PEF 115-kV transmission right-of-way. Approximately one mile south of Centralia Road, the corridor turns east and ends at the existing Brookridge Substation. The eighth proposed corridor is associated with the Brooksville West line, which is also called the "BBW" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the BBW Corridor. The Brooksville west line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Brookridge Substation to the existing Brooksville West Substation in Hernando County. This line will be located entirely within Hernando County. The overall length of the BBW Corridor is approximately three miles and one-half mile wide. The BBW Corridor exits the Brookridge Substation, collocated with PEF's existing 500/230/115-kV transmission line right-of-way, and travels along Sunshine Grove Road to the south. It terminates at the Brooksville West Substation. The ninth and final proposed corridor is associated with the Kathleen line, which is also called the "PHP" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the PHP Corridor. The Kathleen line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Kathleen Substation in Polk County to the existing Lake Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. The Kathleen line will be located in Polk, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The overall length of the PHP Corridor is approximately 50 miles, and it ranges in width from approximately 300 feet to 1000 feet. The corridor begins at the Kathleen Substation and travels west. It crosses U.S. 98 and turns south along the existing transmission line right-of-way to the Griffin Substation. At the Griffin Substation, the corridor turns west paralleling C.R. 582. The corridor crosses U.S. 301 and turns north and then west and crosses I-75, continuing northwest and following the existing transmission right-of-way, and then crosses I-275 and the Veteran's Expressway to the Lake Tarpon Substation. No alternate corridors were proposed for any of the nine proposed transmission line corridors. For each PEF- proposed transmission line corridor, the proposed corridor is the only corridor for the respective line that is proper for certification in this proceeding. For each of the proposed corridors, engineering features of interest, natural resource features, and land use features have been identified and depicted on maps, aerial images, and photographs, which have been utilized in the analysis of the corridors. Operational Safeguards The operational safeguards for each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Each transmission line will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including: the National Electric Safety Code; the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; the American National Standards Institute; applicable local government requirements; the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide; and PEF's internal design standards, which incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the applicable standards which regulate the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements has been calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements contained in DEP's Rule 62- 814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are within the values set forth in the rule. The calculations were performed in accordance with the rule requirements, using the maximum voltage and current for each configuration. Operation of any of these transmission lines at maximum voltage and current is not a likely condition. At normal operating levels of voltage and current, the electric fields produced by the transmission lines will be less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions, and the magnetic fields produced will be about 50 percent less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions. The levels of electric and magnetic fields at the edge of the rights-of-way associated with the transmission lines are similar to levels that are experienced by exposure to common household appliances. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. This is known as corona. During periods of fair weather, particulate matter can collect on the conductor causing low levels of audible noise. During rain events, the particles are washed off and replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that can result in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary and masked by the sound of rain falling on vegetation and other surfaces, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise have been calculated using an industry standard software program known as the Bonneville Power Administration Corona Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for each of the transmission lines demonstrate that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way will be less than the noise levels from most rainfall events or conversational speech at a distance of five feet. The calculated noise levels are expected to comply with all applicable noise ordinances. The operation of the proposed transmission lines is expected to cause minimal interference with radio and television reception in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Radio and television interference can be produced by corona on transmission line conductors or as a result of faulty equipment. Based upon the studies that have been performed, it is not expected that significant interference will occur. Beginning on July 12, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has directed all television station operators to convert their transmissions to digital format. Digital signals are unaffected by electric fields or weather disturbances. In the event any homeowner or business experiences abnormal interference as a result of the transmission lines, PEF will investigate the complaints and mitigate impacts appropriately. Part of the BBW Corridor has an existing natural gas pipeline and a proposed additional natural gas pipeline that will be operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. Safety concerns will be addressed in a licensing agreement allowing the pipeline company to utilize the right-of-way. Such collocation is common throughout Florida. The licensing agreement will require that the pipeline company comply with all applicable safety requirements for pipeline operation and will require that the pipeline design be reviewed by an independent engineering company to ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated given the constraints of the design and the proximity of transmission lines. This will ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated near the transmission lines and the electric current. Compliance with Nonprocedural Standards of Agencies The construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed corridors is expected to comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The parties have agreed that the conditions of certification found in DEP Exhibit 1 are the applicable nonprocedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission lines. PEF has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission lines in the proposed corridors in compliance with the conditions of certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of these transmission lines. Consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations There are a number of different land uses within the nine proposed corridors ranging from open lands, recreational lands, mining and agricultural lands, public and conservation lands, commercial uses, and residential. The construction of the transmission lines in the respective proposed corridors is not expected to impact the existing land uses or change those land uses. The location of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors is appropriate from a land use perspective. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the respective corridors are compatible with all types of existing land uses occurring in the vicinity of those corridors. Each of the proposed transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridors consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. After certification of the LNP, each proposed transmission line will be located and constructed established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after certification of the respective corridors. Construction of transmission lines on such established rights-of-way is excepted from the definition of "development" contained in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. To the extent that comprehensive plans or land development regulations of the local governments crossed by the transmission lines include provisions that are applicable to non-development activities, the transmission lines in each of the designated corridors will be consistent and in compliance with those requirements. Meet Electrical Energy Needs of the State In an Orderly, Timely and Reliable Fashion Each proposed transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The anticipated schedule for the transmission line portion of the Project calls for the permitting, licensing and engineering activities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to be carried out such that the transmission lines are constructed and operating in 2015 in advance of certain construction and start-up activities for LNP Unit 1. The proposed corridors maximize collocation opportunities for the transmission lines, enabling the collocated transmission lines to be constructed in a more timely and efficient manner. PEF will make all practicable efforts to minimize the impacts to traffic from the proposed transmission lines. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to facilitate the orderly construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors. Reasonable Balance Between the Need and the Impacts Each of the transmission lines is essential to meet the need identified by the PSC. PEF has a long history of reliably constructing, operating, and maintaining similar transmission lines throughout Florida. Each of the transmission lines is designed to comply with stringent reliability standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will meet the need identified by the PSC. The PSC determined that there is a reliability need for additional base-load capacity by 2016. Levy Units 1 and 2 will add 2200 MW of capacity, and new transmission lines are necessary to accommodate this capacity on the electrical power system. The required transmission facilities include those necessary to connect the LNP to PEF's existing grid and to reliably integrate the additional capacity into the existing transmission system. PEF cannot meet the need identified by the PSC without these proposed transmission lines. PEF's proposed corridors were chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts on the environment. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the designated corridor with minimal adverse environmental impacts. The corridor selection process involved regional screening to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints. Each corridor maximizes utilization of previously disturbed areas, where possible. The corridor width has been selected for each corridor to provide flexibility for selection of the final right-of-way to provide the ability to avoid ecological resources within the corridor to the extent practicable. No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the transmission lines. Each of the transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal, if any, adverse impact to water quality. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to fish and wildlife, including protected animal species. The presence of protected animal species was an important consideration during the corridor selection process, and each corridor avoids areas with known concentrations of protected species occurrences to the extent practicable. The agreed-upon conditions of certification require that preconstruction surveys be conducted, and the results will be submitted to the FWC for analysis. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be required. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to water resources, including wetlands. Water resources, including wetlands, were an important consideration during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Structures will not be constructed in major water bodies. The spans between structures will be varied to avoid wetland areas and other sensitive areas, where practicable. Herbaceous wetland communities, including marsh and wet prairie wetlands, can continue to grow underneath the proposed transmission lines. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to ensure that impacts to water bodies and other water resources are minimized. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impacts to other natural resources, including protected plant species and wildlife habitat. The presence of protected plant species and wildlife habitat were important considerations during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of each of the corridors with collocation opportunities has been altered from its natural state for construction and maintenance of the linear facility already there. This will minimize potential impacts. Minimize Adverse Effects Using Reasonable and Available Methods PEF will use reasonable and available methods during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors to minimize adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the designated corridors will comply with the limits for electric and magnetic fields established by DEP in Rule Chapter 62-814 and by the National Electric Safety Code and related standards. In the corridor selection process, collocation opportunities were considered to be a significant criterion, and the corridors were chosen in a way that maximizes collocation with existing linear facilities. This is advantageous because existing linear facilities often provide existing access, and collocation can minimize the need for new access roads and structure pads and the need for new clearing, generally minimizing impacts. PEF will avoid wetlands and water bodies to the extent practicable by varying the length of the spans between structures. PEF will use restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands, removing vegetation selectively. In cases in which fill is required, PEF will install culverts to maintain water movement. PEF will allow certain vegetation to re-grow, or re- vegetate, in the rights-of-way of the transmission lines following construction, which will maintain suitable habitat for certain listed species. Wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will be appropriately mitigated. Prior to final rights-of-way determination and the beginning clearing in the rights-of-way for the transmission lines, surveys for protected plant and animal species will be conducted to verify their presence or absence in the proposed transmission line right-of-way for each of the lines. In the event that protected plants or animals cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to relocate the individuals in consultation with the FWC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or to provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with the conditions of certification. PEF has agreed to comply with the conditions of certification in the construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines. The conditions require measures to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including impacts to the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and Protect the Broad Interest of the Public The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will serve and protect the broad interests of the public. The public's interest is served through the provision of safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service. The transmission lines are essential for providing that service. The public outreach program carried out by PEF provided the public with an avenue to voice their concerns. Concerns expressed were considered in the selection process. The corridor selection process maximized collocation opportunities for the selection of each of the corridors, where practicable. By following existing linear features where possible, the corridors and the ultimate rights-of-way can conform to existing development patterns and minimize intrusions into surrounding areas. Collocation reduces costs and impacts. The existing land uses found within the corridors are compatible with each of the proposed transmission lines in part because the corridors are collocated with linear facilities to the extent feasible. The transmission lines that are proposed can coexist with the types of development that are found along each of the corridors. As a result of the process utilized by the multidisciplinary team, the corridors minimize the number of homes that may be affected and avoid public and conservation lands to the maximum degree practicable. The transmission lines will minimize the impacts on cultural and historical resources by avoiding those areas where practicable and by performing a preconstruction survey in consultation with DEP and the Division of Historical Resources to determine the appropriate action should such resources be found. Disruption to traffic during the construction of each of the transmission lines is expected to be minor. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to ensure minimization of traffic impacts. Radio and television interference as a result of the operation of the transmission lines will be minimal, and any impacts will be addressed by PEF. The expected noise levels from the transmission lines will be similar to the noise levels resulting from rainfall events and conversation at five feet. The calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable noise ordinances and requirements. The electric and magnetic fields produced by the transmission lines will comply with the applicable standards established by the DEP. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Following the withdrawal of the other intervenors in this proceeding, SACE was the only remaining party opposing certification of the Project. In the prehearing stipulation of the parties, SACE appears to raise five basic issues: (a) there must be express conditions in the agency reports to address impacts to wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and necessary mitigation should the Project not be completed; (b) adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources; (c) business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment"; (d) risks to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation; and (e) agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. SACE did not offer the testimony of any witnesses or present any evidence in this proceeding on these or any other issues. With regard to SACE's first issue, SACE has failed to identify which of the reviewing agencies neglected to propose appropriate conditions or what additional conditions are necessary. In any event, the record shows that DEP, FWC, and SWFWMD all proposed extensive conditions in their agency reports related to protection of wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and/or mitigation of Project-related impacts. With regard to wetlands mitigation, if the Project is not completed, PEF will perform mitigation necessary to compensate for wetlands actually impacted. See Finding of Fact 126. SACE's second contention is that the Project will cause adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources. As detailed in Findings of Fact 73, 115-131, 133-134, PEF has presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands or to water resources that are not fully offset by mitigation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Further, as indicated in Findings of Fact 124-126, 130, and 134, PEF has proposed a comprehensive wetlands mitigation plan that will offset any adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the construction of the LNP. SACE did not present any evidence that this mitigation plan, which has been conceptually approved by the DEP, is inadequate to protect wetlands or meet regulatory requirements. SACE's third contention is related to business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment." These matters are not relevant under the PPSA criteria, Section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes, but are instead addressed by the PSC. A petition for a determination of need for a new nuclear plant must include a cost estimate, base revenue requirements, and information related to joint ownership discussions. See § 403.519(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The PSC has already determined that the Project is needed, specifically finding that "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost." Under Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes, the PSC is the "sole forum" for a determination of need. Reconsideration of factors already considered by the PSC in this proceeding is improper. Further, the record does not support SACE's contention regarding alleged business risks. PEF presented uncontroverted evidence that LNP Units 1 and 2 are on schedule to be in service in the 2016/2017 timeframe and that procurement activities have begun. See Finding of Fact 21. SACE's fourth issue relates to adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. As detailed in Findings of Fact 51, 56, 61, 62, 69–72, 88–92, and 131-133, PEF presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, or vegetation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Finally, SACE contends that the agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. Again, SACE has failed to identify which agency reports failed to address these alleged risks. SACE likewise has not identified any specific regulatory requirement for such evaluations of environmental risks beyond the evaluations provided by the agencies. The record shows that DEP, FWC, SWFWMD, and Levy County all addressed risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and/or vegetation in their agency reports and proposed conditions of certification related thereto. Public Comment and Public Testimony Sworn oral public testimony was received from approximately 69 individuals and unsworn public comment was received from approximately 16 individuals during the portion of the final hearing devoted to that purpose. Many of the individuals who provided public testimony also submitted written comments. Three written comments were received from members of the public who did not attend one of the public comment sessions. Thirty hours were devoted to allowing members of the public to comment on the Project over six separate sessions. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. Several members of the public commented on the benefits of nuclear power in general and the economic benefits of the LNP specifically. Many others spoke in favor of the extensive public outreach conducted by PEF on the Project. Numerous members of the public spoke of PEF's history of being a good corporate neighbor. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Many of these concerns and questions are addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. However, several were outside the scope of the matters considered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed, is too costly, and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. But the PSC already considered those issues in certifying a need for the Project. The PSC's determinations are binding, and those issues were not reconsidered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety, storage of nuclear waste, and radioactive effluent contamination of groundwater via "fracture sets." Radiological issues raised by SACE were stricken because they were preempted by federal regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, radiological safety issues were not considered in the certification hearing. The LNP must be approved by the NRC which regulates radiological safety of nuclear power plants. However, there was evidence that the Florida Department of Health monitors groundwater and other media in the vicinity of nuclear plants, and PEF's subsurface investigation did not reveal any evidence of fracture sets below the LNP site. See Finding of Fact 79. Some members of the public expressed concerns regarding potential infrastructure and lifestyle changes to the Town of Inglis. Specifically, members of the public raised concerns related to strain on local public services; traffic impacts; limits on development due to the LNP; and concerns that financial benefits will go only to Levy County and, more specifically, not the Town of Inglis. First, it should be noted that, along with other affected local governments, the Town of Inglis was provided a copy of PEF's nine-volume SCA on June 2, 2008. The Town of Inglis did not file a notice of intent to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and thus waived its right to be a party. In addition, the Town had the opportunity to submit an agency report or to propose conditions of certification pursuant to Section 403.507, Florida Statutes, but did not. As acknowledged in public testimony by one of the Town Council members, the Town of Inglis's Council is unanimously in favor of the LNP. Nonetheless, as detailed in Findings of Fact 143-146, PEF presented competent substantial evidence that public services and facilities in the region of the LNP (which includes the Town of Inglis) are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. PEF also presented evidence that roadways in the vicinity will continue to operate at or above their adopted level of service capacities. See Findings of Fact 135-137. Further, there is no evidence that development will be restricted as a result of the LNP. Current limitations around the CREC related to increases in density are the result of Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, not the CREC or state regulatory requirements. Finally, while significant tax revenues will go to Levy County, PEF presented evidence that the LNP's operation will contribute $521 million annually to the regional economy, which includes the Town of Inglis. See Finding of Fact 148. By way of comparison, although PEF's CREC is in Citrus County (and outside the Crystal River city limits), the Crystal River City Manager testified that PEF has been good for the Citrus County school system, has provided jobs for residents, and has been very helpful to efforts in the community. Other members of the public expressed concerns that the new jobs created by the LNP will not go to local residents. As indicated in Finding of Fact 141, PEF has and will continue to make efforts to train and employ local residents at the LNP. Other members of the public expressed concern that increased salinity in the CFBC would cause saltwater intrusion in the Lower Withlacoochee River. There is no connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River. While the LNP's withdrawals from the CFBC will increase salinity in the CFBC somewhat, it will not cause increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River. See Findings of Fact 66-67. A member of the public expressed concern that PEF's proposed location for the CWIS would prevent future reconnection of the Withlacoochee River in an effort to provide more freshwater to the Lower Withlacoochee River.3 As detailed in Finding of Fact 68, options for reconnection of the Withlacoochee River have been evaluated by SWFWMD, but would not provide adequate increased freshwater flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River. Another issue raised during the public testimony sessions was the impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation surrounding the LNP. As indicated in Findings of Fact 103-104 and 110-111, PEF presented uncontroverted expert testimony that cooling tower drift will not adversely impact natural resources, including wetlands and surface waters. Several residents of Hernando County expressed concern that a portion of the BBW transmission line as proposed along Sunshine Grove Road is incompatible from a public safety standpoint with existing and proposed natural gas pipelines in this same area. PEF presented evidence, however, that this type of collocation of transmission lines and gas pipelines is commonplace throughout Florida. Further, it was not demonstrated that such collocation is prohibited under or contrary to applicable law or agency regulation. Some of these residents focused their concern on whether locating the BBW transmission line in proximity to a natural gas pipeline would be inconsistent with PEF's internal collocation guidelines, which these residents believe prohibit such collocation because an unsafe operating condition will result. As noted by Hernando County’s attorney and DEP's Siting Administrator, there is no basis in statute, ordinance, or rule to require PEF to comply with its internal guidelines. In any event, PEF presented evidence that the purpose of its internal collocation guidelines is to ensure the safety of persons involved in the construction and installation of a pipeline in proximity to an existing transmission line. Further, PEF is bound by the conditions of certification to comply with requirements of the National Electric Safety Code as they relate to induced currents that might affect a gas pipeline. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 76, Condition XLII(H). Other residents were concerned that construction of the BBW transmission line would be unsafe due to the presence of an existing natural gas pipeline. The conditions of certification require, however, that PEF comply with applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards during construction of each of the transmission lines. The conditions of certification also require PEF to contact the Sunshine State One Call service to locate underground utilities prior to construction activities. Finally, after PEF selects its ultimate location for the BBW transmission line, Hernando County and other agencies will have the opportunity to review the proposed location and notify the DEP Siting Coordination Office if it believes that the construction of the transmission line within the selected right-of-way cannot be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of certification. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 65-66, Condition XXXV(A).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Gigi Rollini, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 For the Department of Environmental Protection: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Levy County: Anne Bast Brown, Esquire Levy County Attorney 380 South Court Street Bronson, Florida 32621-6517 For Hillsborough County: Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 27th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 For City of Tampa: Janice McLean, Esquire Office of the City Attorney Old City Hall, 5th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 For the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: E. Leon Jacobs, Esquire Williams & Jacobs 1720 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5506
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain a two-unit nuclear powered electrical generating facility in Levy County, Florida, including a heavy haul road, site access roads, and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines, subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended; and Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain each of the following electrical transmission line corridors as associated facilities, as described above and subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, Crystal River Transmission Line, Sumter Transmission Line, Levy North Transmission Line, Levy South Transmission Line, Brookridge Transmission Line, Brooksville West Transmission Line, Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue This proceeding was conducted under the Florida Electrical Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52 through 403.5365, Florida Statutes (2007)1, to determine whether any of the proposed transmission line corridors for the Bobwhite- Manatee 230-kV transmission line (BWM Line) comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and, if more than one corridor complies with the criteria, to determine which corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria, including costs. If any of the “corridors proper for certification,” as that term is defined in Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, is determined to have the least adverse impact, the Siting Board must determine whether the application for the corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. If the alternate corridor proposed by John Falkner (not a corridor proper for certification) is determined by the Siting Board to have the least adverse impact, certification shall be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FPL is the electric utility that is applying for certification of the Bobwhite-Manatee 230kV Transmission Line. DEP is the state agency with powers and duties to administer the TLSA, including the power and duty to process applications for certification and to act as a clearinghouse for agency comments on proposed corridors. Sarasota County and Manatee County are political subdivisions of the State and the local governments with jurisdiction over the areas in which the BWM Line will be located. Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. (SMR), is a Delaware corporation with its office in Bradenton, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee and Sarasota Counties, and is the developer of residential communities, including Lakewood Ranch. Lake Club Investors, LLC (LCI), is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Winter Park, Florida. It owns property in Manatee County. Gum Slough Preservation Foundation, Inc. (GSPF), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. GSPS was established with the primary objectives to protect and preserve the beauty and ecological values of Gum Slough. Manasota-88, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its office in Nokomis, Florida. Manasota-88 was formed to protect and preserve the water quality and wildlife of Manatee and Sarasota Counties. John Falkner is a resident of Myakka City, Florida, and the owner of real property in Manatee County. Taylor & Fulton, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It is the owner of real property in Manatee County. Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC, and FC, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with separate offices in Bradenton, Florida. They own real property in Sarasota County. The Concession Land Development, LLC, and The Concession Golf Club, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with their office in Wichita, Kansas. They are the owners and managers, respectively, of The Concession residential development and The Concession Golf Club in Manatee County. Kittie L. Chapman is a resident of Sarasota, Florida, and the owner of real property in Sarasota County. John Cannon Homes-Eastmoor, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Schwartz Farms, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael D. and JoAnne Schwartz are residents and real property owners in Sarasota County. Sarasota One, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Bowie, Maryland. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Pacific Land, Ltd, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee County. East County Homeowners Organization, Inc., is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It was formed to protect the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents of eastern Sarasota County. Hi Hat Ranch, LLP, is a Florida liability limited partnership with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael Hunsader, David Hunsader, and Donald Hunsader own real property in Manatee County. Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc. (BCHOA), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. BCHOA was formed to represent the owners of real property in the Bridle Creek residential community. Manatee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District filed timely notices of their intent to be parties. Sarasota County filed a Notice of Appearance and participated as a party without objection. The Need for the Bobwhite-Manatee Line FPL is seeking certification of a transmission line to transmit electricity from the Manatee Energy Center, a generating facility near Parrish in Manatee County, to the proposed Bobwhite transmission substation near Fruitville Road in Sarasota County. The service area for the proposed BWM Line is an area in Manatee County and Sarasota County that is south of the Manatee Energy Center, north of the planned Bobwhite substation, and east of I-75 and the existing 230kV transmission network. The PSC determined that FPL had demonstrated the need for the BWM Line by December 2011 to: provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 230kV transmission network between Manatee and Ringling Substations in a reliable manner consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; (b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service area; and (c) provide for another electrical feed via a separate right-of-way (“ROW”) path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC recognized, however, that the “Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the exact length and route of the new line.” The Proposed Corridors (Depicted in FPL Exhibit 77B) 1. The FPL Original Corridor Selection Process FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives. The team comprised a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. Because FPL wanted geographic separation from the existing transmission lines that are located in a common ROW that is generally parallel to I-75, the western boundary of the team’s study area began a mile east of this existing ROW. The multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area. The guidelines developed by the team to select route segments included maximizing collocation with existing or proposed roads, following property lines or section lines as much as possible, following disturbed paths through wetlands where practicable, and minimizing siting constraints such as airports, private airstrips, residential development, and the crossing of existing transmission lines. The team ultimately identified 62 route segments which could be assembled into 1,275 alternate routes for the BWM Line. FPL engaged in an extensive public outreach program to gather public input regarding the BWM Line. The public outreach program was integrated with the corridor selection process so that information was shared with the public and feedback from the public was used in evaluating alternate routes. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 1,275 routes quantitatively, using factors such as the number of homes and schools in proximity; the length of wetlands crossed; the length through existing parks, recreation areas or other designated conservation lands; the number of parcels or lots crossed; and estimated costs. The quantitative analysis was used as a screening tool to limit the number of routes that would receive more detailed analysis. The route that received the highest ranking from the quantitative analysis is the same as The Concession Corridor. The FPL Original Corridor follows the route that was ranked eleventh. The routes that correspond with the subsequently-filed Consensus Corridor and Falkner Corridor were not ranked in the initial screening process because they were not among the 1,275 evaluated routes. The Consensus Corridor passes through a conservation area that FPL’s multi-disciplinary team assumed had to be avoided. The Falkner Corridor was not included because it is in FPL’s existing transmission line ROW, which the team also assumed was not an option. The team then evaluated the highest ranked routes, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The qualitative criteria included the functional value of wetlands; the orientation of landing strips to the route; plans for new roads, road extensions and road widenings; proposed developments; “buildability” issues; and the need for future distribution substations. From the more detailed analysis, a preferred route was selected by FPL. This corridor, described in FPL’s application for certification, will be referred to as the FPL Original Corridor. The multi-disciplinary team then determined the varying widths of the FPL Original Corridor along its route that were needed to provide flexibility in locating the ROW within the corridor. The Route of the FPL Original Corridor The FPL Original Corridor exits the Manatee Energy Center north of State Road 62 (SR 62) and turns east for approximately one mile. The corridor then turns south along a section line for approximately five miles, in which area the corridor is approximately 3,000 feet wide. The corridor includes a lateral spur along an existing 50-foot-wide farm road, which is included in the corridor for the sole purpose of providing access to the transmission line from County Road 675 (CR 675). The corridor then intersects CR 675 and follows CR 675 to its intersection with SR 64, in which area the corridor is 400 feet wide and centered on the road. At the intersection of SR 64, the corridor turns west and follows SR 64 for approximately three miles to its intersection with Dam Road. There, the corridor turns south and runs along section lines for approximately three miles, beginning with a width of 4,500 feet and narrowing to 3,000 feet, until it reaches University Parkway. At University Parkway, the corridor turns west and runs along the south side of the road to its intersection with Lorraine Road, in which area the corridor is at least 500 feet wide. At Lorraine Road, the corridor turns south along the road and is of varying width as it follows Lorraine Road to Dog Kennel Road and the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Consensus Corridor Selection Process In November 2007, after eight days of hearing, FPL, SMR, and several other parties jointly requested a continuance of the certification hearing because their informal discussions indicated the possibility for agreement on corridor modifications that would resolve a number of disputes. The continuance was granted and the certification hearing was continued until May 2008. In the interim, a number of parties reached agreement on a new corridor which they referred to as the Consensus Corridor. The areas of the Consensus Corridor that differed from the FPL Original Corridor were thoroughly studied and inspected by consultants and experts hired by FPL and SMR. FPL re-initiated its public outreach program to inform the public about the new Consensus Corridor. The Consensus Corridor is now the corridor preferred by FPL. The Route of the Consensus Corridor The Consensus Corridor is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. However, FPL and Pacific Land, Ltd, entered into an agreement wherein FPL agreed to locate the ROW “as close as reasonably practicable” to Pacific Land’s west property boundary line. The Consensus corridor follows SR 64 a shorter distance west than the FPL Original Corridor before it turns south, avoiding some of the frontage along Lake Manatee State Park. The Consensus Corridor is 500 feet wide as it turns south from SR 64 on property owned by Bradenton Motorsports, Inc., and continues south onto land owned by Taylor & Fulton, Inc. It then makes four 90-degree turns to form a “C” shape, or “notch,” to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary.3 When the Consensus corridor reaches Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, it turns west and rejoins the FPL Original Corridor. Along Taylor & Fulton’s southern boundary, the corridor is located north of a drainage canal, and about 350 feet north of the Bridle Creek subdivision. In addition to this setback from Bridle Creek, Taylor & Fulton has agreed to preserve the existing tree line between them. Turning south from Taylor & Fulton’s property, the Consensus Corridor generally follows the FPL Original Corridor, but the Consensus Corridor is narrower, providing about 200 feet more separation from the residential developments of Panther Ridge and The Concession.4 Along Bourneside Boulevard, the Consensus Corridor is shifted west to align with the eastern edge of the existing road pavement,5 which avoids some wetlands crossed by the FPL Original Corridor and provides a greater setback from The Concession residential development. South of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor departs substantially from the FPL Original Corridor to avoid the latter’s impacts to SMR’s residential developments. Rather than moving west all the way to Lorraine Road and following Lorraine Road south, the Consensus Corridor turns south almost immediately after reaching University Parkway, and meanders generally southward through the Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE). The HRCE is a 1,972-acre tract of land owned by SMR, which is subject to a conservation easement acquired by Sarasota County. The Consensus corridor is 1,000 feet wide as it moves through the HRCE along an irregular line that generally follows existing field roads or fire lanes. The corridor exits the HRCE going west onto SMR-owned land, rejoins the FPL Original Corridor along Lorraine Road, and then runs south to the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Concession Corridor 45. The Concession Corridor (formerly SMR #1) is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. At the intersection of SR 64 and CR 675, The Concession Corridor continues to follow CR 675 to the intersection with SR 70. The corridor then extends southeast on SR 70 to Verna Road, which the corridor follows south to Verna Road’s intersection with Fruitville Road. The Concession Corridor then follows Fruitville Road west to Dog Kennel Road, then north on Dog Kennel to the proposed site of the Bobwhite substation. From SR 64 to the Bobwhite substation, the corridor is 500 feet wide. The Falkner Corridor The Falkner Corridor stays in existing FPL transmission line ROW all the way from the Manatee Energy Center to the proposed Bobwhite substation. From the Manatee Energy Center, the Falkner Corridor heads west on the FPL ROW for approximately five miles. It then turns south and follows the ROW for approximately twenty miles, where it turns eastward and then southeastward for about five miles, until it reaches the area of the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Falkner Corridor is 400-to-500 feet wide. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features 1. FPL Original Corridor Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 All three of the corridors proper for certification incorporate this segment from the Manatee Energy Center to SR The existing land uses in the area of the corridor are primarily agricultural. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are Major Public/Semi Public (P/SP-1), Agricultural/Rural (AG-R), and Major Recreation/Open Space (R-OS) The P/SP-1 land use category applies only to the Manatee Energy Center. The AG-R land use category designates areas with long-term agricultural or rural residential character. Potential uses in this category include farms, rural residential, small retail and office commercial, mining, low- intensity recreational facilities, and schools. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The R-OS land use category applies to Lake Manatee State Park, and recognizes these existing recreation and permanent open space land uses. The ecological communities between the Manatee Energy Center and CR 675 include pine flatwoods, mixed oak-pine uplands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, forested swamps, and small tributaries such as Gamble Creek, Tyre Creek, and Waterhole Creek. The vegetative habitats are dominated by agricultural crops. The tributaries are narrow and have existing road crossings. From CR 675 to SR 64, the FPL Original Corridor follows SR 675. The existing land uses on both sides of the road are primarily agricultural. The corridor crosses the Manatee River system, which includes Boggy Creek and Gilley Creek. There are scattered trees, including some large oak trees along portions of CR 675. SR 64 to University Parkway Lake Manatee State Park is on the north side of SR 64. On the south side are the DeSoto Speedway and Bradenton Motorsports Park, as well as a mix of other uses, including businesses, a nursery, a winery, and some residences. Between SR 64 and University Parkway, the existing land uses are primarily agricultural, except for the Panther Ridge and The Concession residential developments, which are just east of the FPL Original Corridor. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R, R-OS (described above), Urban Fringe (UF-3), and Estate Rural (ER). The UF-3 land use category applies to a half-mile strip on the south side of SR 64, west of Dam Road, is for low-density residential use, generally developed through the planned unit development concept, and residential support uses. The ER land use category is for clustered, low-density suburban, residential use with large tracts of open space for agricultural activities, low- intensity recreational use, environmental protection or other compatible open space uses. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The ecological communities in this area include mixed oak-pine uplands, pine flatwoods, shrub and brush land, freshwater marshes, and forested swamps along tributaries of the Manatee River. Along SR 64, the vegetative habitats and waterbodies include scattered shrub and pasture. Lake Manatee State Park contains pine flatwoods and xeric pine communities, except close to SR 64, where a fire break is maintained. The FPL Original Corridor crosses the Braden River which is a Class I water. As the corridor approaches University Parkway, there are scattered uplands, several small marshes, and pasture land. Near The Concession development, there are four herbaceous wetlands along the eastern boundary of the corridor. c. University Parkway to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation The land in this area is largely undeveloped. Within the corridor, the land use is primarily agricultural. However, just north of the FPL Original Corridor is an SMR residential development under construction known as The Lake Club and a large-lot residential community to the west known as The Polo Club. Closer to the Bobwhite substation site, there are large- lot residential developments east of the corridor. University Parkway divides Manatee County and Sarasota County in this area. The small piece of the FPL Original Corridor that is north of University Parkway and in Manatee County is subject to AG-R (described above) and RES-1 future land use categories. RES-1 designates areas of low-density suburban residential environment, clustered low-density urban residential environment, and compatible agricultural facilities. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per acre. The balance of future land uses in this segment of the FPL Original Corridor is subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, and its Rural land use category. The primary function of the Rural category is to preserve agricultural lands and rural character, and residential development is limited to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. However, if elected by the developers, these lands can be subject to the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area (RMA) Supplement to the Future Land Use Element. The Sarasota 2050 Plan creates several types of RMAs, which function as overlays that do not affect existing development rights of the underlying property owners. RMAs encourage the use of clustered development and the preservation of open space and rural character. The FPL Original Corridor crosses three types of RMAs: Greenway, Village/Open Space, and Rural Heritage/Estate. The Greenway RMA designates a network of riverine systems, floodplains, native habitats, storm surge areas and uplands as priority resources. Uses in Greenway RMAs are restricted to uses that are compatible with ecological functions and values. The Village/Open Space RMA provides for compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly villages and hamlets within a system of large areas of permanent open space, designed to prevent urban sprawl. Villages have a maximum density within developed areas of five-to-six dwelling units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate RMA is intended to recognize and preserve the existing pattern of very low-density, large-lot estate developments, agriculture, and equestrian activities outside the urban service boundary. The vegetative communities and habitats along University Parkway to Lorraine Road are dominated on the north side of the road by developing lands, and on the south side of the road by the HRCE and portions of Gum Slough. As the corridor proceeds westward, there are also scattered shrub and brush land, pine flatwoods, and scattered marshes and forested systems. Along Lorraine Road, the vegetative communities and habitats include primarily shrub and brush land, various upland forested systems, some wetland forested systems, small marshes, and active mining east of Lorraine Road. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Consensus Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of the Consensus Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. SR 64 to University Parkway The Consensus Corridor is east of the FPL Original Corridor in the north half of this segment. There are large- acre agricultural land uses in this area, but the corridor is closer to residential development to the east. The future land use is AG-R (Agriculture/Rural), described previously. c. University Parkway to the Bobwhite Substation The Consensus Corridor meanders through the HRCE for most of this segment. The existing uses are cattle grazing, sod farming, and recreational hunting. The HRCE has a future land use designation as Greenway. The HRCE contains a portion of the Gum Slough swamp system as well as uplands of open pine flatwoods and improved pasture which serve as a buffer for the swamp system. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Concession Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of The Concession Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. State Road 64 to Fruitville Road The existing land uses in this area are a mix of large-lot residences and some agriculture. A large PUD, Panther Ridge, is just west of The Concession corridor. When The Concession Corridor turns south on Verna Road, it passes large wellfields owned by the City of Sarasota and through pastures and other agricultural uses on both sides of the road, with some residential development to the east. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R and R-OS, which were described above. The ecological communities in this area include pine flatwoods, shrub and brush lands, and freshwater marshes. Just south of SR 64, The Concession Corridor crosses Corbett Branch, which is a Class I tributary of the Manatee River. Along CR 675 and SR 70, are primarily developed lands or farmsteads. There are scattered trees and wetlands along SR 675. The corridor along SR 70 crosses a slough. Along Verna Road, there are no significant natural features. c. Fruitville Road to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation In this area of The Concession Corridor, there are some existing residential and agricultural uses, as well as vacant land that is proposed for residential development. Fruitville Road (and The Concession Corridor) runs just north of the large Gum Slough System. The future land uses in this area are subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The primary future land uses are Rural, which may be subject to the Sarasota 2050 RMA Supplement, as explained above; Major Government Uses (MGU), which applies to the existing city wellfield; and Greenway, which covers the Gum Slough system. There are also publicly owned lands south of Fruitville Road that are protected for environmental functions and values. The ecological communities in this area are pine flatwoods, oak and pine uplands, shrub and brush lands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, and forested swamps. On the western end of Fruitville Road, there are scattered wetlands and tributaries across the roadway, including Cow Pen Slough and Gum Slough. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Falkner Corridor Falkner did not present a detailed description of the existing and future land uses or the significant environmental features in the areas through which the Falkner Corridor passes. In the ROW itself, of course, the existing use is electrical transmission lines. Along the corridor, however, there are areas of existing and future residential development. The corridor also passes over the Manatee River and its floodplain. D. Transmission Line Design and Construction FPL will ultimately construct the BWM Line within a ROW more narrow than the approved corridor. The width of the ROW will range from 10 feet to 75 feet. Pursuant to Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, after all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the width of the ROW. The proposed design for the BWM Line will be a single- pole un-guyed concrete structure, 65-to-100 feet above grade, with the phase conductors framed in a vertical or triangular configuration. Each of the BWM Line’s 3 phases is anticipated to utilize bundled 954-thousand circular mils, aluminum conductors (2 conductors per phase), with a steel reinforced alumoweld core. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating for the BWM Line will be 2,990 amperes. The span length between structures will vary between 250 feet and 700 feet, depending on site-specific ROW widths and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, water bodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. Shorter structures might be required in proximity to an airstrip, to comply with applicable clear zones, or to accommodate the wishes of underlying property owners. The transmission line poles can accommodate the placement of electric distribution lines or communication cables beneath the transmission line’s conductors, referred to as “underbuilding.” For poles shorter than 85 feet, however, it is difficult to underbuild. Use of shorter poles also requires a wider ROW to comply with the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) requirements established in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step toward construction. Concurrently with surveying, FPL will work with the underlying landowners to determine the most appropriate boundaries of the ROW and the location of poles within the ROW. Another early task is to determine where access roads or structure pads are needed. After the ROW is established, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the ROW. Clearing the ROW will consist mainly of tree trimming in compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Generally, trees that cannot be avoided and which exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height will have to be removed to ensure adequate clearance is maintained around the conductors, both vertically and horizontally. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet will be removed by hand. Lower wetland vegetation will not be cleared. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. To the greatest extent practicable, existing roads will be used. Improvements might be made to existing roads, depending on their condition. Where soil conditions will not support large construction and maintenance vehicles, usually in wet areas and areas with soft soil, FPL will probably construct new access roads and structure pads. Where new access roads are constructed, they will typically be 14 feet wide and at least six feet above seasonal high water. Structure pads will typically extend about 20 feet around the pole, but, on at least one side, must extend at least 30 feet to accommodate the outriggers on the construction and maintenance equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. They will have culverts installed beneath them, when needed, to maintain preconstruction water flows in the area. The next phase of construction involves the augering of holes, erection of poles, and backfilling of the holes. Poles are typically embedded 18-to-25 feet into the ground. The poles are then “framed,” which is the installation of the insulators and clamp hardware. If the pole is set at a location where the line turns a large angle, guy lines will be installed to compensate for the greater tension on the conductor. Then, the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then tensioned to provide the proper design vertical clearances and “clipped in” to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW clean-up, smoothing of ruts, and placement of sod or seed as needed. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state or federal roadways in compliance with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques (e.g., silt fences, turbidity screens, and hay bales), will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation. The entire construction process for the BWM Line will take 13-to-15 months. Conditions of Certification The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification must comply with the Conditions of Certification. The Conditions of Certification establish a review process through which the final right-of-way, access road, and transmission line structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. The parties agree that the Conditions of Certification attached as Appendix I to DEP Exhibit 8 are consistent with applicable non-procedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over the BWM Line. FPL agrees to comply with the Conditions of Certification. Agency Review of Corridors Proper for Certification Local, regional, and state agencies with regulatory authority over the construction of the BWM Line reviewed the FPL Original Corridor application and each subsequent alternate corridor application filed in this proceeding and submitted to DEP a report on matters within the agency’s jurisdiction. DEP’s first Summary and Compilation of Agency Reports, dated April 27, 2007, addressed only the FPL Original Corridor. At that time, DEP reported that the FPL Original Corridor “can be certified so long as the conditions of certification are met.” The other commenting agencies recommended that the FPL Original Corridor be certified, subject to the conditions of certification. A revised Summary and Compilation of Agency reports was issued by DEP on September 7, 2007. It addressed the FPL Original Corridor and 12 alternate corridors. DEP stated that “any of the proposed corridors can be certified.” The other commenting agencies, except for Manatee County and Sarasota County, had no objection to certification of any of the proposed corridors. Manatee County recommended denial of four alternate corridors, including SMR #1, which is the same as The Concession Corridor. Sarasota County also expressed concerns about SMR #1. DEP’s most recent Addendum to Staff Analysis Report, dated May 5, 2008, compiled the updated reports of the reviewing agencies on the alternate corridors proper for certification, including the Consensus Corridor. Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit supporting data for the corridor and the agencies did not review or comment on the Falkner Corridor. In the Addendum, Manatee County again recommended denial of The Concession Corridor. Comparison of Corridor Impacts The Effect of Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement In the second half of the certification hearing, an issue arose regarding the credibility of the testimony of witnesses for 15 non-governmental parties. These parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on November 7, 2007, which contained the following condition in paragraph 5: The Parties agree that, through their pleadings and testimony, they shall urge the Administrative Law Judge to recommend, and the Siting Board to certify, the Consensus Corridor subject to the supplemental conditions of certification set forth below. FPL and the other signatories to the agreement offered testimony to show that they had not entered into the agreement until they were genuinely convinced that the Consensus Corridor was the best of the proposed corridors. They asserted, therefore, that the credibility of the testimony offered in support of the Consensus Corridor is not diminished by the fact that the parties had contractually obligated themselves to support the Consensus Corridor in their testimony. Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement, however, also raises the question of whether witnesses for the signatories to the agreement felt free to express a subsequent change of opinion with respect to any aspect of the Consensus Corridor; a change of opinion which they reached either on their own or through cross-examination. The Administrative Law Judged asked several of the witnesses whether their testimony was serving their oaths to tell the truth or their contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. All the witnesses claimed allegiance to their oaths to tell the truth. The credibility of the witnesses, based on their demeanor and other indices of veracity, was still discernable by the Administrative Law Judge, despite Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement. Only one witness gave testimony that, in some respects, appeared to be based not on personal knowledge or genuine belief, but on the witness’ sense of contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. Lack of Detailed Information for the Falkner Corridor Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit detailed information in support of his corridor and the agencies did not review it. Therefore, Falkner had the burden to present in the certification hearing all of the information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor and to compare it to the corridors proper for certification. Falkner contends that his right to due process was violated because “FPL prevented the public and government agencies from fully considering the proposal to build the BWM Line in the existing FPL right-of-way.” The evidence offered by Falkner in support of his due process claim, however, amounts to nothing more than discussions between FPL and governmental parties about TSLA procedures and the effect of the PSC need determination. The governmental parties remained free to disagree with FPL and to take whatever related action they deemed appropriate. FPL had no power to “prevent” action by a governmental party. Section 403.526(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the failure of an agency to submit a report is not grounds to deny or condition certification. In several respects, Falkner failed to present the detailed information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor. For example, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Falkner Corridor (especially the impacts associated with crossing of the Manatee River) were described in less detail than was done in the case of the corridors proper for certification. The record evidence regarding the existing and future land uses adjacent to the Falkner Corridor is also inadequate to make detailed findings on that subject. The Certification Criteria Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, provides: In determining whether an application should be approved in whole, approved with modifications or conditions, or denied, the board, or secretary when applicable, shall consider whether, and the extent to which, the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line will: Ensure electric power system reliability and integrity; Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion; Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies; Be consistent with the applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans, if any; and Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the transmission line as a means or providing reliable, economically efficient electric energy, as determined by the commission, under s. 403.537, and the impact upon the public and the environment resulting from the location of the transmission corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines. The three corridors proper for certification and the Falkner Corridor will be compared below with respect to each certification criterion. Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC determined that locating the BWM Line in a geographically separate ROW from the existing common ROW would enhance the electric system reliability benefits of the new line. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that this determination by the PSC did not preclude Falkner or any other party from presenting evidence regarding electric system reliability. The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) is a component of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). FRCC’s primary purpose is to ensure electric system reliability in Florida. FRCC has adopted NERC’s planning standards, which are mandatory and enforced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. All four proposed corridors would be equally able to achieve the reliability standards established by NERC for “single contingency” events, those that result from the loss of a single element such as a generator or a transmission circuit. The reliability issue in dispute in this proceeding relates to the potential for the loss of all circuits on a common ROW, referred to as a “corridor outage.” NERC planning standard TPL-004 requires electric utilities to plan for and mitigate the system performance problems that could occur during a corridor outage. The key to maintaining adequate system performance during a corridor outage is reinforcement elsewhere in the transmission system. FPL’s records from 1985 to date show that FPL has experienced eight corridor outages in that period. Corridor outages have been caused by, among other things, fires, airplanes contacting the lines, hurricanes, tornados, and lightning. These are all events that could occur in the common ROW that is the Falkner Corridor. Vince Ordax, FPL’s former supervisor of local area transmission planning, testified that a corridor outage with the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor could possibly trigger cascading, or uncontrollable, outages. A simulation performed under the direction of Carlos Candelaria, an expert in transmission planning, also showed that a cascading outage could occur, resulting in a blackout lasting hours and affecting 500,000 customers. Such a blackout would jeopardize public health, safety and welfare. FPL admits, and it is understood in the electric utility industry, that the probability of a corridor outage is very low. Falkner agrees that “if the BWM Line is built in the existing right-of-way, and if there is a corridor outage, a cascading outage might result causing customer service interruption of up to 4-6 hours.” Falkner further agrees that, “If the BWM Line is built in a geographically separate corridor . . . then a cascading outage is unlikely and customer service interruptions should be resolved in minutes, not hours.” Falkner’s position is that this difference in system reliability is not significant and does not prevent an ultimate finding that the Falkner Corridor would have the least adverse impact when all the certification criteria are considered. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that geographic separation of the BWM line from the existing ROW would improve system reliability with respect to system performance in the event of a corridor outage. Placement of the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would reduce system reliability in the event of a corridor outage. This enhancement of system reliability is a part of the need for the BWM Line as determined by the PSC. There is an airstrip that is in active use that is perpendicular to Fruitville Road within The Concession Corridor. The proximity of an airstrip to the BWM Line poses a risk of a plane striking the line. The Consensus and FPL Original Corridors are the same length, about 26 miles. The Concession Corridor is 3.3 miles longer and the Falkner Corridor is 2.5 miles longer. A shorter line reduces line losses and exposure to reliability risks, such as lightning or falling trees. However, the differences in the lengths of the four corridors under review are not significant with regard to system reliability. Electric system integrity addresses the adequacy of design and strength of the transmission line to withstand various events. The BWM Line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, DEP’s regulations on electric and magnetic fields (Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814), the Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, Manatee County and Sarasota County noise ordinances, and the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, NERC standards, as well as FPL’s own internal standards. If the BWM Line were constructed in the Falkner Corridor, several structures would have to be built in the open water and floodplain of the Manatee River. Maintenance of these structures would be more difficult and the replacement of poles and some other major components would require barges or helicopters. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are on nearly equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion, with the Concession Corridor slightly less attractive. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion In its need determination for the BWM Line, the PSC determined that the line must be in service by December 2011 to preserve electric system reliability and integrity. The design, construction, and operation of the BWM Line can be accomplished in an orderly and timely fashion and in compliance with the conditions of certification in any of the corridors proper for certification. FPL contends that there was an insufficient showing that the BWM Line could be constructed, operated and maintained in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the conditions of certification and, therefore, an insufficient showing that a new transmission line in the Falkner Corridor could meet the area’s electric energy needs in an orderly and timely fashion. FPL’s position is based in part on its belief that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. Although the record evidence indicates that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor would have wetland impacts associated with its crossing of the Manatee River, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that a permit could not be obtained. Some questions remain about whether the BWM Line could physically fit within the existing common ROW in the area south of SR 70 where a Peace River Electric Cooperative (PRECO) transmission line, called the Crawley tap, is located within it or in locations requiring the BWM Line to turn corners where guying would be needed. Within the next 10 or 15 years, FPL and PRECO plan to place four new distribution substations east of Interstate 75 in Manatee County and Sarasota County to serve future growth. Placing the BWM Line in a corridor east of the existing common ROW would more efficiently integrate these future distribution substations than placing the transmission line in the Falkner Corridor. Placement of the BWM Line in one of the corridors proper for certification would facilitate the building of an integrated system that could be efficiently expanded in the future as this area continues to develop. The Falkner Corridor, because it is on the western edge of the service area, would be less able to provide these benefits. The Concession asserts that its corridor has the unique advantage of passing FPL property that was purchased many years ago for a future distribution substation, referred to as the Oakford site. However, because of the uncertainties associated with whether and when the Oakford site will ultimately be used, how other planned substations will be integrated, and their costs, the proximity of the Oakford site to the Concession Corridor cannot be assigned much weight at this time. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on essentially equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has some potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Comply with Applicable Nonprocedural Requirements of the Agencies The construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line on any of the corridors proper for certification, subject to the conditions of certification proposed by the DEP, will comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Described earlier, but also relevant to this particular certification criterion, is FPL’s contention that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the transmission line crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. FPL suggests that the availability of the alternative river-crossing along CR 675 in the corridors proper for certification would pose a problem in demonstrating that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor avoided or minimized wetland impacts. However, the Falkner Corridor would only be certified by the Siting Board if it determined that the Falkner Corridor had the least adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. Such a determination made in this integrated certification proceeding would have to be considered in the wetland permitting process. As stated above, the record evidence is insufficient to find that the Falkner Corridor could not be approved due to its wetland impacts. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on an equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has more potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Consistency with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan has no provisions specifically addressing transmission lines. Policy GS 2.4 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan discourages the crossing of Greenway RMAs by utilities, but allows a utility crossing when it shown to be necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. A utility crossing must be designed to have minimal impacts on the environment. The Consensus Corridor crosses a Greenway RMA in Sarasota County within the HRCE. Sarasota County has authorized placement of the BWM Line across the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified.6 In the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Objective VOS 5 and Policy VOS 5.2 require protection of the “open vistas” and “integrity of the rural character” of Fruitville and Verna Roads. Because transmission lines are commonly placed in rural settings, FPL asserts that a transmission line is consistent with rural character. The comments of the public show this notion is not generally accepted. Although it is undisputed that transmission lines are commonly placed in rural areas, there appears to be almost unanimity in the belief that a transmission line reduces the quality of a rural vista. Neither Manatee County nor Sarasota County asserted in this proceeding that any of the four proposed corridors is inconsistent with the applicable provisions of its comprehensive plan. However, the TLSA requires a consideration of “the extent to which” the proposed corridors are consistent with local government comprehensive plans. Because Sarasota County has recognized the special character of the Verna Road/Fruitville Road area and adopted policies that seek to preserve its open vistas and rural character, The Concession Corridor along Verna Road and Fruitville Road presents a “negative” with respective to this criterion. The Consensus Corridor also presents a consistency issue under the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan because the corridor crosses through the HRCE. However, due to the mitigation proposed as part of the corridor proposal (discussed in the next section), there is a net positive furtherance of the relevant comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies regarding environmental protection, generally, and the HCRE, specifically. The four proposed corridors are not far apart with respect to this particular certification criterion, but, as explained above, there is an advantage with The Consensus Corridor and a disadvantage with The Concession Corridor. Effecting a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Transmission Line and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Proximity to Residences There is no route between the Manatee Energy Center and the proposed Bobwhite substation that would make the BWM Line unseen from residences. Of the corridors proper for certification, the Consensus Corridor has the fewest homes within 600 feet and The Concession Corridor has the most. The Consensus Corridor has 40 existing homes within 600 feet, the FPL Original Corridor has 54, and The Concession Corridor has 189. The record does not show how many existing homes or residential lots are within 600 feet of the Falkner Corridor, but the Falkner Corridor passes through or by residential developments and urban areas. Taylor & Fulton/the Hunsaders/Bridle Creek The FPL Original Corridor, south from SR 64, begins at Dam Road and travels south through a large tract of agricultural land owned by Taylor & Fulton. Manatee County plans to extend Dam Road north from University Parkway to SR 64, and the FPL Original Corridor would be aligned with Dam Road through the Taylor & Fulton property. Collocation with Dam Road, compatibility with the existing agricultural uses, and avoidance of the residential land uses to the east and west were some of the reasons given by FPL for selecting this segment of the corridor as part of the FPL Original Corridor. The Consensus Corridor in this segment is derived from an agreement between FPL and Taylor & Fulton to have the BWM Line follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary. Jay Taylor testified that this location would cause less impact to the future development of the Taylor & Fulton property. In order to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary, it is necessary to construct the BWM Line in a “C”- shaped notch. The notch adds about one mile of transmission line, compared to a straight line. FPL asserts that such notches are not unusual and FPL has created notches in other areas of the State to follow property boundaries or to avoid wetlands. However, the only examples presented by FPL were notches with much longer sides. The notch in the Consensus Corridor creates a tight “C” shape, with the sides close to each other. From several vantage points around the notch, a viewer would see two, three, or even four transmission lines. There are technical solutions for transmission lines that turn sharp angles, so the tight turns in the proposed notch can be engineered and built. The problem created by the proposed notch in the Consensus Corridor is not an engineering issue, but a problem of extreme visual impact on adjacent properties. The complaints and concerns expressed by many persons and parties in this proceeding were over the prospect of a single linear “eyesore.” The notch in the Consensus Corridor, however, would make it appear that there were three or four separate transmission lines built close together and running in different directions. This dramatic difference undermines attempts to describe the Consensus Corridor as more favorable than the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. The Hunsaders own property that would be surrounded on three sides by the BWM Line in the notch of the Consensus Corridor. In this area, the Hunsaders host the annual Hunsader festival, a rural community festival that attracts thousands of people. Collocation with existing or planned roads is an important consideration in transmission line siting. The FPL Original Corridor south of SR 64 is collocated with the future Dam Road extension. The Consensus Corridor would provide an opportunity to collocate with existing farm roads on the Taylor & Fulton property, but collocation with Dam Road is the better of these alternatives. Although Taylor & Fulton claims that the Consensus Corridor would cause significantly adverse impact to its property, the evidence offered in support of this claim was not persuasive. Agricultural uses are relatively unaffected by a transmission line. Unlike SMR, Taylor & Fulton has no specific future development plans for its property. Its concern regarding the impacts of the BWM Line on future development is speculative. The Dam Road extension (four-lanes) will divide the Taylor & Fulton lands into two distinct areas, east and west of the road. The BWM Line would run along one side of Dam Road. It will be Dam Road, not the BWM line, that will be the primary feature that Taylor & Fulton will have to incorporate into its future development plans. Moreover, the potential adverse impacts to Taylor & Fulton’s future development interests must be considered in conjunction with the fact that Dam Road and the BWM Line are both major public infrastructure projects that will provide substantial future benefits to Taylor & Fulton and the other developers in that area. FPL and other parties emphasized in this proceeding that when a transmission line is constructed in rural areas in advance of residential development, there are many options and techniques available to a developer to integrate the transmission line into future development plans in order to minimize its visual impact. In the future development of Taylor & Fulton’s agricultural lands, Taylor & Fulton will have these same development options and techniques. The difference between the three-sided notch and a simple line defies simple comparisons, such as the numbers of current residents in the vicinity of the Consensus Corridor versus the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. In order to assuage the concerns of the residents of the Bridle Creek subdivision on the south side of the Consensus Corridor where it runs back to the west to join the FPL Original Corridor alignment, Taylor & Fulton agreed to have the BWM Line located on the north side of a drainage canal and a line of trees so that the BWM Line would be screened from Bridle Creek. Taylor & Fulton would not remove the trees in this area if the BWM Line is constructed within the Consensus Corridor. FPL has agreed to the following condition, to be added to the Conditions of Certification as No. XVIII(F), if the Consensus Corridor is certified: To the extent feasible, and upon request by the Bridle Creek Homeowners Association (BCHOA), FPL shall consult with Taylor & Fulton, Inc. and BCHOA in the design of the transmission line to: 1) keep the pole heights along the northern BCHOA property boundary to the minimum height that is practicable, consistent with the desires of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices; and 2) work collaboratively to locate the poles in such a way as to accommodate the BCHOA to the extent practicable, consistent with the wishes of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices. The Concession’s Entrance The Concession’s main concern is the impact of the BWM Line on its entrance. An attractive entrance is an important aspect of a residential development. The Concession believes the BWM Line in the FPL Original Corridor and the Consensus Corridor would substantially diminish the attractiveness of its entrance and harm the marketability of lots and homes within The Concession. Although The Concession did not join in the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the Consensus Corridor, the Consensus Corridor was designed to reduce the potential impacts of the BWM Line on The Concession’s entrance and property. FPL has agreed to locate the BWM Line along the west side of four-lane Bourneside Boulevard, the opposite side of Bourneside Boulevard from The Concession’s entrance. The transmission line would not cross over The Concession’s entrance road. In this area, the BWM Line would be 450 feet from The Concession golf course and 832 feet from the nearest residential lot. The Concession has opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the line with landscaping. The Concession’s entrance is not currently unblemished. A 250-foot telecommunications tower is located on SMR’s property several hundred feet from The Concession entrance. The tower was constructed before The Concession purchased its property, and the tower operator has a lease which allows the tower to remain there for many years. The telecommunications tower affects the siting of the BWM Line in this area. Telecommunications towers must be separated from high voltage power lines by a distance equal to the tower’s height. Therefore, the BWM Line must be located at least 250 feet from the tower. The Concession presented no direct evidence that the prospect of the BWM line near the entrance to The Concession residential development has harmed lot or home sales. The presence of the telecommunications tower was not shown to have affected sales. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(D): In the area of the planned Dam Road/Bourneside Boulevard extension (“Extension”), south of SR 64 and north of University Parkway and connecting with SR 70, FPL shall coordinate to the extent practicable with Manatee County Transportation Department and the underlying property owners regarding the location of the ROW for the Extension and the ROW for the BWM Line. If either Manatee County or the property owner(s) decline to participate in the coordination effort, FPL shall coordinate with the cooperating entity. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(E): During design of the BWM Line, FPL shall locate poles, to the extent practicable and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices, to maximize the space between a pole and the primary entrance of a major residential subdivision, using typical structures, and within the ROW alignment. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8 as No. XXVII(B): To the extent practicable and consistent with safe operation and ongoing maintenance practices for the BWM Line, and in compliance with the requirements of Section 163.3209, F.S. (2007) and FPL’s Transmission Vegetation Management Procedures [which have been filed with NERC and are mandatory], after construction of the BWM Line is complete, FPL shall allow underlying property owners along the BWM Line ROW to plant vegetation within the ROW. Vegetation planted within the ROW shall not have a mature height of more than 14 ft from natural ground grade and must maintain at least 75 ft of clear space around the base of the structure and must not be located so as to impede access to the BWM Line for routine and emergency maintenance. Plans for vegetation planting along the BWM Line ROW shall be reviewed and approved by FPL to ensure compatibility with the access, operation and maintenance of the facility; if compatible, the planting must be permitted. These three conditions of certification would provide opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the BWM Line in the Consensus Corridor on The Concession’s entrance. The Concession proposes a condition of certification that would require the BWM Line to be constructed several hundred feet west of Bourneside Boulevard, on SMR property. However, this would create substantial interference with SMR’s Lake Club development, part of an approved Development of Regional Impact. The adverse impacts to the Lake Club would be disproportionately greater than the adverse impacts to The Concession’s entrance caused by the Consensus Corridor. University Parkway FPL and SMR have agreed to work together on the design of the BWM Line, including ROW location, pole height, and framing configuration, in the areas of University Parkway and Bourneside Boulevard to minimize the visibility of the poles. With respect to the area south of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor has fewer impacts on existing and future residences than the FPL Original Corridor because the Consensus Corridor is more distant from residences. It avoids crossing lands designated for future Village Land Use on the Sarasota 2050 Plan and as RES-1 on the Manatee Future Land Use Map. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road The Concession Corridor is close to and would adversely impact more existing homes and approved future residential lots than the FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road have narrow rights-of-way, with homes closer to the roads, and less opportunity for landscaped screening. The Falkner Corridor The number and proximity of existing and future homes along the Falkner Corridor was not shown. There already are multiple transmission lines in the Falkner Corridor, so for many persons living near the corridor, the incremental increase in the visual impact of adding another transmission line in the corridor should be relatively small. Nevertheless, the overall impact of the Falkner Corridor in this respect is unknown. Electric and Magnetic Fields Some members of the public expressed concern at the public hearings and through letters submitted to the Administrative Law Judge about the potential for health effects from electric and magnetic fields (EMF). However, EMF standards have already been established for the protection of human health and safety and would apply to a transmission line constructed in any corridor certified by the Siting Board. Neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Siting Board has authority in this certification proceeding to determine the appropriateness of any EMF standard. FPL provided reasonable assurances that the BWM Line, if built within any of the corridors proper for certification, will comply with the EMF standards. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. Environmental Impacts No matter what corridor is certified, FPL has agreed to follow a number of procedures to avoid and minimize the impacts to wetlands. For example, wetlands will be spanned wherever possible so poles or pads are not placed in wetlands. The transmission line will follow disturbed areas when possible. FPL has agreed to use restrictive clearing practices in forested wetlands, removing only trees taller than 14 feet and leaving the understory vegetation in place. Where fill is required, FPL will install culverts to maintain water movement. FPL will appropriately mitigate for wetland impacts that cannot be avoided. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor are wide in some areas for the purpose of providing flexibility to avoid natural vegetated communities and waterbodies to the greatest degree possible. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor can be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. The Concession Corridor is narrower, but generally follows areas that are already disturbed and can also be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. Based on a simple calculation of total wetlands that are crossed by the corridors, The Concession contends that it would have the least environmental impact. That is a simplistic analysis that fails to account for the fact that, in any of the corridors proper for certification, FPL will probably be able to avoid significant impacts to the wetlands. All of the corridors proper for certification cross the Manatee River and Gilley Creek on existing bridge crossings without any poles needing to be placed in open water or wetlands. These crossings would be accomplished by spanning over the water, upland-to-upland. The BWM Line in the three corridors proper for certification would be collocated with CR 675 at the Edward Chance Preserve, adjacent to the Preserve’s parking lot. The pristine, natural areas of the preserve would not be disturbed. For most of the Falkner Corridor, a new transmission line in the existing ROW would appear to have no wetland impacts, but the Falkner Corridor crosses the Manatee River at a much wider point than the other three corridors. Building the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would require placing at least four structures within the Manatee River, and 7-to-8 structures in the adjacent floodplain. Four miles south of SR 64, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor cross the Braden River. The river is narrow within these corridors and can be spanned. The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor do not cross the Braden River. The Concession Corridor crosses Gum Slough and Cow Pen Slough on Fruitville Road, and Wolf Slough on CR 675 south of SR 64. The other proposed corridors do not cross these sloughs. However, no significant impacts to these wetlands are expected to occur if the BWM Line is constructed in The Concession Corridor. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification is not expected to adversely impact any listed species or their habitats. There are no known listed plant species within the proposed corridors. However, there are conditions of certification which require FPL to survey for and protect any listed plant species found after certification of the BWM Line. Much of the wildlife habitat within the proposed corridors has been disturbed by roads, farming operations, and other man-induced impacts. No listed wildlife species are known to use the lands within the proposed corridors. FPL is required by the conditions of certification to protect any listed species that are found after certification of the BWM Line. The significant wildlife habitats (for non-listed species) in the corridors proper for certification are either avoided or, in the case of the Consensus Corridor’s location in the HRCE, the impacts are mitigated by measures to protect more wildlife habitat. There are some large live oak trees along CR 675. FPL can avoid or minimize impacts to those trees. In addition, FPL has agreed to the following additional condition of certification to be added as Condition No. XVIII(G) to the Conditions of Certification: When establishing the ROW location and constructing the transmission line, the Licensee shall minimize impacts to pre- existing natural features and minimize tree removal and trimming of vegetation, to the extent feasible and in compliance with Section 163.3209, Fla. Stat. (2007), which incorporates by reference National Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) standard FAC-003-1, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards A300 (Part I)-2001 and Z133.1-2000, and NESC standards adopted by the Florida Public Service Commission. Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE) and Mitigation The Consensus Corridor is the only corridor that goes through the HRCE. The BWM Line would involve 18-to-28 acres of transmission line ROW in the 1,972-acre HRCE, depending on pole height and EMF-related ROW width requirements. The Consensus Corridor is near the western edge of the HRCE, which is primarily improved pasture and pine flatwoods, and follows jeep trails and fire breaks for much of its length. No unique or significant wildlife habitat exists in the corridor. No wetlands or important environmental features of the HRCE would have to be disturbed. The environmental functions of the HRCE would not be impaired. Although the HRCE is in a conservation land use designation, the portion of the HRCE within the Consensus Corridor is not environmentally sensitive, but serves as a buffer to the environmentally sensitive Gum Slough system. Sarasota County, the holder of the HRCE conservation easement, has approved the construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line within the HRCE in the Consensus Corridor. SMR has agreed to add 140 acres to the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified. These 140 acres include portions of Gum Slough and large isolated wetlands. Protection of these additional lands would provide wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. SMR would also protect 470 acres of additional lands contiguous to the HRCE with restrictive covenants. The 470 acres include wetland systems, such as Cow Pen Slough, which would be protected from future development. The restrictive covenants require SMR to ensure that these wetlands are maintained in as good an ecological condition and functionality as currently exists, or better. The restrictive covenants would aid in the protection and preservation of the natural drainage pattern in the area, and would provide a benefit to the Gum Slough system for wildlife habitat and water quality. Summary of Environmental Impacts At this level of analysis, it is impossible to predict the unavoidable environmental wetland impacts that would be associated with each of the corridors proper for certification. As required by the Conditions of Certification, the construction of the BWM Line in any certified corridor must comply with the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. The three corridors proper for certification have some potential for environmental impacts, but for all of these corridors, the environmental impacts should be relatively minor. However, the Consensus Corridor is the best of the three proposals because it presents an opportunity for a net environmental benefit with SMR’s offer to protect 600 more acres of sensitive lands. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse environmental impacts because of the need to place structures in the Manatee River and its floodplain. Costs The FPL Original Corridor is estimated to cost about $25.5 million, the most of the three corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor is estimated to cost $3.3 million less, primarily due to the agreements with Taylor & Fulton and SMR regarding ROW acquisition. The Concession Corridor is estimated to cost $500,000 less than the Consensus Corridor. The difference between the estimated costs for the Consensus Corridor and The Concession Corridor, $500,000, represents a small percentage of the total project costs, especially in light of the margin of error in these cost estimates. Even a cost differential of $3 million, at this early stage of planning and cost analysis, is not a substantial difference. The estimated cost of placing the BWM Line within the existing common ROW in the Falkner Corridor was not clearly established in the record. Falkner used 2006-2007 cost estimates to argue that the Falkner Corridor would cost millions less than the other corridors. FPL states that the FPL Corridor would require that transmission lines be looped in and out from the existing common ROW to FPL’s future distribution substations, adding over $7 million of costs when compared to a geographically separate corridor. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record regarding the costs associated with future substations and connecting transmission lines to meaningfully compare the four corridors with regard to these and other future system components. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would probably cost the least to build. However, the record evidence is not sufficient to state how much less the Falkner Corridor would cost. Other Issues The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor avoid impacts to Lake Manatee State Park. The potential impacts of the FPL Corridor and Consensus Corridor on the park would be small, but the Consensus Corridor would have less impact because it avoids the Park’s entrance and reduces the BWM Line’s length along the park boundary on SR 64 by about one mile. Within the park, the BWM Line would likely be screened from view by trees in the park. There should be no adverse ecological impacts to the park. If the BWM Line is located in the Consensus Corridor or FPL Original Corridor, FPL would first try to place the line in the road ROW. If that were not possible, FPL would locate the line just inside the Park’s fence in an area already cleared. With respect to traffic interruption during construction of the BWM Line, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor would have equally small impact. Construction of the BWM Line in The Concession Corridor along CR 675 (south of SR 64), SR 70, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road would likely require intermittent closure of at least one lane of traffic for the 2-to-3 month construction period. Summary Regarding The Balancing of Need and Impact All three corridors proper for certification would cause adverse impacts to the public which can be avoided without jeopardizing the objectives of the TLSA and without losing the benefits associated with integrating the BWM Line with existing and future land uses. However, the TLSA clearly contemplates that a proposed corridor can cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment, but still meet the criteria for certification. The three corridors proper for certification are found to meet this criterion because none would cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment that are so great that they outweigh the need or benefits of constructing the BWM Line. The evidence submitted for the Falkner Corridor, however, was insufficient to make a finding regarding this particular criterion. I. The Corridor that would have the Least Adverse Impact Section 403.529(5)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that the Siting Board shall deny certification if it determines that a rejected corridor has the least adverse impact with regard to the certification criteria. The Falkner Corridor has more potential for adverse impact regarding some of the certification criteria than the corridors proper for certification. For some certification criteria, insufficient evidence was presented regarding the Falkner Corridor to make a meaningful comparison with the corridors proper for certification. Therefore, the record evidence does not support a finding that the Falkner Corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. If two or more corridors proper for certification meet the statutory criteria, certification must be granted to the corridor that has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4) Florida Statutes, including costs. § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat. Because the FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor meet the certification criteria, it must be determined which of them would have the least adverse impact. During the certification hearing, the parties promoted one corridor over another based on the advantages and disadvantages associated with their various segments. However, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the best combination of corridor segments, creating a corridor that has the least adverse impact and effects the best balance between the need for the BWM Line and impacts upon the public and the environment, is not one of the corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor does not effect the best balance between the need for the transmission line and the impact on the public because it includes substantial adverse impacts on the public in the area of the notch on Taylor & Fulton’s property that are unnecessary and avoidable. The avoidance of these impacts, the opportunity to collocate the BWM Line with the Dam Road extension, and several other advantages described by FPL in its corridor application and in the evidence presented by FPL during the first part of the certification hearing, make the FPL Original Corridor preferable in this area of Manatee County. The best combination of corridor segments is the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation.
Conclusions For Applicant, Florida Power & Light Company: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Virginia Daily, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32333-3000 For Manatee County: Sarah A. Schenk, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Manatee County Attorney’s Office 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 969 Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206-1000 For Sarasota County: Stephen E. DeMarsh, Esquire David Pearce, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 LLC: For the Department of Transportation Leon M. Biegalski, Esquire Kimberly Menchion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc., and Lake Club Investors, W. Douglas Hall, Esquire H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Dianne Triplett, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 For Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC; FC, LLC; Sarasota One, LLC; John Cannon Homes - Eastmoor, LLC; Schwartz Farms, Inc.; Michael and Jo Anne Schwartz: Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire R. David Jackson, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1001 Third Avenue West, Suite 670 Bradenton, Florida 34205 For Gum Slough Preservation Foundation; Kittie L. Chapman; East County Homeowners Organization, Inc.; and Hi Hat Ranch, LLP: Robert S. Wright, Esquire Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For ManaSota-88, Inc.: Barbara G. Hines, Esquire 117 81st Street Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 For John Falkner: Roy W. Cohn, Esquire 2406 Watrous Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 For Pacific Land, Ltd.: Maureen M. Daughton, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For The Concession Land Development, LLC; and The Concession Golf Club, LLC: Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Anchors Smith Grimsley The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Michael, David, and Doanld Hunsader: Paul F. Grondahl, Esquire Mackey Law Group, P.A. 1402 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 For Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc.: Keith Colabella, pro se . c/o Miller Management 2848 Proctor Road Sarasota, Florida 34231 For Taylor & Fulton, Inc.: Joel E. Roberts, Esquire V. Nicholas Dancaescu Gray Robinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order that certifies the corridor for the BWM Line as consisting of the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation; and that is subject to the Conditions of Certification that were entered into the hearing record as DEP Exhibit 8; and that is subject to the additional conditions agreed to by FPL and cited in paragraphs 161 through 163, and 183, of this Recommended Order; and that incorporates the terms set forth as paragraphs 5A through 5D of the Settlement Agreement entered into the record as FPL Exhibit 91, or comparable terms that provide for the environmental mitigation described therein, as conditions of this certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings Based on Stipulations The Petitioner is MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), whose business address is Suite 400, 400 Perimeter Center Terrace NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The Respondent is State of Florida, Department of General Services (Department), whose address is 614 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida. Rule 13A-1.001(1)(c) and (d), Florida Administrative Code (the "challenged rule"), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 13A-I. 001 Definitions. A Purchase -- A purchase is defined as an acquisition by contracting in any manner, whether by rent, lease, lease/purchase or installment sales contract which may provide for the payment of interest on unpaid portions of the purchase price, or outright purchase, from a source of supply for either commodities or contractual services. Within the meaning of this definition of a purchase, the following are not a purchase: Regulated utilities. Regulated Public Communications, i.e., telephone, telegraph. (emphasis added) MCI is certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide intrastate long distance telecommunications services within the State of Florida and is authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide interstate telecommunications services throughout the United States. On November 10, 1987, the Division of Communications of the Department of General Services awarded contracts to provide intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS, and interstate WATS for the State of Florida following a "negotiation" process. According to the Department of General Services, such "negotiations" were conducted as a joint venture between the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing. MCI was one of the suppliers involved in the "negotiations," but it was not issued a CSA for intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS, or interstate WATS. On November 23, 1987, MCI filed with the Division of Communications a formal written protest of that award and of the process leading up to the award. The Florida Public Service Commission has granted long distance certificates to a number of competitive long distance companies, including MCI, AT&T, Microtel, U.S. Sprint, and others. MCI and other competitive carriers today provide both intrastate and interstate long distance service in the State of Florida. MCI, Microtel, AT&T, Southland, and USTS are all interexchange carriers authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide, among other things, interstate WATS. MCI, AT&T, Southland, and Microtel are all interexchange carriers certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide, among other things, intermachine trunks and intrastate WATS. Prior to 1982, intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS and interstate WATS were available from only a single source within the State of Florida (the Bell System). Currently, intermachine trunks, intrastate WATS, and interstate WATS are all available from more than one source within the State of Florida. Findings Based on Evidence Adduced at Hearing The Intervenors are Microtel, Inc., whose address is 7100 West Camino Real, Suite 311, Boca Raton, Florida 33433, and United States Transmission Systems, whose business address is 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The Department from time to time procures long distance telephone service of the types provided by MCI for the State of Florida. The Department regards long distance telecommunications services or facilities as "regulated public communications" that are covered by subsection (d) of the challenged rule. The Department does not regard long distance telecommunications services or facilities as "regulated utilities" that are covered by subsection (c) of the challenged rule. Under subsection (d) of the challenged rule, the Department can procure long distance telephone services or facilities without competitive bidding or competitive negotiations simply by picking up the telephone and negotiating a contract with a single vendor, or by issuing a communications service authorization (CSA) to a particular vendor. The Department uses subsection (d) of the challenged rule as a basis for procuring telephone services or facilities approximately four to five times a year. The Department used subsection (d) of the challenged rule as authority for a negotiated procurement of interstate long distance telephone services or facilities for the State in 1985. The Division of Communications would have to approve the purchase of any transmission service or facility for any agency of the State of Florida. The Department did not rely on subsection (d) of the challenged rule as a basis for authority to negotiate the purchase of interstate and intrastate long distance telephone services or facilities for the State in 1987. However, the Department could have relied on subsection (d) of the challenged rule for authority to negotiate that 1987 purchase. There have been a number of amendments to Rule 13A-1.001. From September 7, 1978, to until August 25, 1982, the rule exempted the procurement of "utilities" and "public communications" from the definition of purchase. Since August 26, 1982, the rule has exempted the procurement of "regulated utilities" and "regulated public communications" from that definition. No section or subsection of Chapter 282 is referred to in the note to Rule 13A-1.001, either as authority for the rule or as the law implemented by the rule.
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue Environmental Resource Permit No. 50- 0269698-002.
Findings Of Fact Parties Mr. Tsolkas is a resident of Lake Worth, which is in southeastern Palm Beach County. He is the co-chair of the PBCEC, and he uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for various recreational and “peace of mind” activities. He is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact his enjoyment of the WMAs.6 PBCEC is an organization comprised of environmental groups and individuals that are concerned about the environment and quality of life in Palm Beach County. PBCEC has undertaken public outreach, protests, and other advocacy efforts targeting the West Coast Energy Center (WCEC) that will be served by the proposed pipeline. No evidence was presented regarding PBCEC’s membership numbers. Mr. Shulz is a resident of Hope Sound, which is on the eastern coast of Martin County. He is a member of the PBCEC, and he uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs for various recreational activities. He is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact his enjoyment of the WMAs. He also has concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline. Ms. Larson in a resident of the Loxahatchee area in western Palm Beach County. She uses the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs for various recreational activities, and she is concerned that the proposed pipeline will adversely impact her enjoyment of the WMAs. She also has concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline. Bonnie Brooks and Danny Brooks were not present at the final hearing, and the record contains no evidence about these Petitioners. Gulfstream is a joint venture owned by Spectra Energy Corporation and the Williams Companies and is in the business of transporting natural gas through pipelines. Gulfstream is a Delaware limited liability company with its principle office in Tampa. The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in surface waters and wetlands under the ERP program in conjunction with the water management districts. The Department is responsible for taking final agency action on the proposed permit at issue in this case. The Proposed Pipeline (1) Generally The proposed pipeline is a 34.26-mile, 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline. The proposed pipeline starts in western Martin County, slightly northwest of Indiantown, and ends in western Palm Beach County at the site of the WCEC being constructed by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), just north of Twenty Mile Bend. The proposed pipeline is the third phase a pipeline that runs from natural gas supply areas on the coasts of Alabama and Mississippi across the Gulf of Mexico into central and southern Florida. The entire pipeline is 691 miles long, with approximately 240 miles in Florida. The first phase of the pipeline began operating in May 2002, and the second phase began operating in February 2005. The pipeline currently transports approximately 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into Florida. The proposed pipeline begins at the existing Gulfstream Station 712, which is referred to as milepost (MP) 0.00. It runs in a southerly direction along the east side of the L-65 Canal, crossing the St. Lucie Canal (at MP 6.34) and continuing to the Martin/Palm Beach county line (at MP 8.50); then runs east to a point west of the Dupuis WMA (at MP 10.20) and runs south along the western boundary of the Dupuis WMA adjacent to an existing power line right-of-way; then turns southeast (at MP 12.14) and runs on the east side of the L-8 Canal; and then turns due south (at MP 30.08) and runs in an existing FPL transmission line right-of-way to its terminus on the WCEC site (at MP 34.26). Gulfstream acquired a non-exclusive pipeline easement from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which authorizes it to install the proposed pipeline within the L-8 and L-65 canal rights-of-way. The agreement limits the width of the permanent easement to 20 feet, but it provides for 95-foot wide temporary construction easements along the pipeline route. The agreement requires the proposed pipeline to be installed at least three feet below the surface. The proposed pipeline crosses 121 artificial water bodies. It does not cross any natural water bodies. Only three of the crossed water bodies –- the L-8 Canal, the L-65 Canal, and the St. Lucie Canal -- are navigable. The pipeline crosses the L-65 Canal once (at MP 0.11); the St. Lucie Canal once (at MP 6.34); and the L-8 Canal three times (at MP 12.31, MP 13.28 and MP 29.72). The other crossed water bodies are agricultural ditches. The active land uses along the pipeline route are primarily agricultural in nature, consisting of sugar cane fields and sod farms. The passive land uses include the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs, which are state-owned conservation areas. There is an existing mining operation adjacent to the pipeline route in the vicinity of MP 32.80. The mining company, Palm Beach Aggregates (PBA), uses blasting to produce limestone aggregate and sand. The PBA property line is approximately 290 feet from the proposed pipeline at its closest point, but the actual blasting is as much as “500 feet to thousands of feet away” from the proposed pipeline. The route of the proposed pipeline was revised in August 2007 at the request of the SFWMD and FPL. The initial pipeline route was along the west sides of the L-65 and L-8 Canals. SFWMD requested that the route be shifted to the east side of the canals in order to accommodate potential future canal expansion. The initial pipeline route was along the eastern edge of the FPL transmission line right-of-way. FPL requested that the route be shifted to the center of the right-of-way in order to accommodate future expansion of the transmission line facilities. The revised pipeline route has fewer impacts than the initial route. For example, the initial route had 224 water body crossings, and two wetland crossings, whereas the revised route has only 121 water body crossings, and no wetland crossings. Gulfstream submitted extensive documentation in support of the revised pipeline route. After reviewing that documentation, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the proposed permit for the revised pipeline route. Notice of the Department’s decision was published in newspapers of general circulation -- the Stuart News in Martin County and in the Palm Beach Post in Palm Beach County -- on or about October 17, 2007. (2) Design and Construction Methods Federal law prescribes minimum pipeline design criteria, including standards for pipe wall thickness and the testing of pipeline welds. Gulfstream took a “compliance plus” approach in the design of the proposed pipeline by going “above and beyond” the minimum requirements in federal law in several respects. First, the pipe used in the proposed pipeline will meet or exceed the wall thickness requirements in federal law. Thicker-walled pipe will used in areas where there is a potential for external forces to affect the pipe, such as under road crossings and in the areas adjacent to PBA’s blasting operations. Second, Gulfstream will x-ray 100 percent of the welded joints on the proposed pipeline, which far exceeds the requirement in federal law that 10 percent of the welds be inspected. Third, Gulfstream will hydrostatically test the proposed pipeline for leaks after construction is complete and before the pipeline is put into operation. Hydrostatic testing involves filling the pipeline with water under pressure higher than the pressure under which the pipeline will operate. A drop in pressure during the test is an indication of a leak in the pipeline, which will be fixed before the pipeline is put into operation. Fourth, Gulfstream will coat the entire proposed pipeline with an anti-corrosive substance -– fusion bond epoxy - – and the pipeline will also be induced with a small DC current in a process known as cathodic protection. These measures will significantly reduce, if not eliminate potential corrosion on the proposed pipeline. Gulfstream will use four construction methods to cross the water bodies within the pipeline route: the isolation plate open cut method; the sheet pile wet open cut method; the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method; and the conventional bore method. The isolation plate open cut method will be used at each minor and intermediate water body crossing, except for those associated with the HDD method. The isolation plate open cut method involves the installation of steel plates upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing. The area between the plates is pumped out so that it is essentially dry. A trench is dug in the dry area and the pipeline is placed in the trench. The trench is then backfilled and stabilized with at least five feet of cover, and then the plates are removed and the water flows back into the area. The sheet pile wet open cut method is similar to the isolation plate open cut method, except that it allows water to continue to flow in the center of the water body during installation of the pipe. This method will be used for the crossing of the L-65 Canal, the second and third crossings of the L-8 Canal, and the crossings of the forebays along the L-8 Canal. Turbidity curtains or sediment barrier baffle systems will be installed upstream and downstream of the areas where the isolation plate open cut and the sheet pile wet open cut methods are used in order to control turbidity. The HDD method will be used to cross the St. Lucie Canal and the Couse Midden archaeological site, as well as at the first crossing of the L-8 Canal. The HDD method involves the boring of a horizontal tunnel along a pre-determined path under the surface feature to be avoided and then pulling a pre-fabricated section of pipe through the tunnel. The pipe installed using this method will be 35 to 40 feet below the surface feature to be avoided. The conventional bore method will be used to cross the railroad track and adjacent agricultural ditch at MP 8.46, as well as the wetland at MP 16.65. The conventional bore method involves the excavation of bore pits on both sides of the feature to be crossed. A tunnel is bored under the feature and then a section of pipe is pulled through the tunnel. The pipe installed using this method will be 10 feet under the railroad track, which is greater than the depth required by federal law, and will be at least five feet under the wetland. Environmental Issues (1) Wetlands and Vegetation The proposed pipeline will not adversely impact the current condition or relative functions of any wetlands. All of the wetlands within the proposed pipeline route have been avoided. The proposed pipeline will be installed under one jurisdictional wetland (at MP 16.65) using the conventional bore method described above. That wetland is a disturbed, low- quality wetland within the actively managed L-8 Canal right-of- way. It is routinely mowed and provides no significant water quality function or habitat value. Gulfstream will install erosion control devices in areas where the pipeline construction corridor abuts wetlands. The erosion control devices will be in place and functional prior to commencement of earth disturbance. Gulfstream will utilize reinforced sediment barriers in lieu of standard sediment barriers, and increased buffers are proposed in areas where construction abuts wetlands on the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs. The proposed pipeline will not adversely impact listed plant species. No listed plant species were observed or are likely to occur within the proposed pipeline route, which consists of disturbed rights-of-way and agricultural areas. Vegetated areas that are disturbed during the installation of the proposed pipeline will be re-vegetated immediately after construction is complete. Impacts to these areas will be minor and temporary. The disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with herbaceous cover such as bahia grass, common bermuda grass, or annual ryegrass. The areas will be monitored for two growing seasons to determine the success of the revegetation. The proposed pipeline route includes exotic and nuisance plant species, including Brazilian pepper, cogon grass, water hyacinth, and water lettuce. The installation of the proposed pipeline has the potential to spread exotic and nuisance species if appropriate precautions are not taken during construction. Gulfstream has developed, and will implement an Exotic, Nuisance, and Invasive Plant Management Plan to minimize the potential for spreading exotic and nuisance species. The plan requires, among other things, environmental training of construction personnel and “routine monitoring during all phases of construction, clean up, and restoration.” The plan also includes procedures for onsite disposal of exotic and nuisance species disturbed during construction and the cleaning of vehicles and equipment to ensure that exotic and nuisance species are not inadvertently transported to uncolonized areas. The proposed permit includes a specific condition that requires Gulfstream to monitor and maintain the proposed pipeline route –- a total of 214.85 acres -– free of exotic and nuisance species for a period of five years after construction of the pipeline is complete. The easement agreement between Gulfstream and SFWMD requires Gulfstream to relocate approximately 158 native cabbage palm trees within the construction corridor to “suitable locations within the west right of way of L-8 within the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management wildlife corridor.” (2) Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs The proposed pipeline route runs along the western boundary of the Dupuis WMA for approximately seven miles (between MP 13.30 and MP 20.18), and it runs along the western boundary of the J.W. Corbett WMA for approximately 9.5 miles (between MP 20.18 and MP 29.70). The revised pipeline route puts the pipeline closer to the boundaries of the WMAs than did the initial pipeline route because the route was moved from the west side of the canals to the east side of the canals. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) manages the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs. The WMAs, which include extensive wetlands and virtually no development, are used for a variety of public recreation purposes. The proposed pipeline crosses approximately 3.67 acres of the J.W. Corbett WMA. This land, although technically within the boundaries of WMA, is subject to an easement for the L-8 Canal and has been actively managed by SFWMD for canal purposes for at least the past 55 years. Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring approximately 3.75 acres of privately-held land within the boundaries of the J.W. Corbett WMA that it will donate to the State in accordance with the “linear facility policy”7 as mitigation for the crossing of the J.W. Corbett WMA. The parcel that Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring contains oak trees, pine trees, and cypress trees. It also contains the last Indian mound within the J.W. Corbett WMA that is not already in public ownership. Gulfstream will install reinforced sediment barriers and increase buffers adjacent to the wetlands on the WMAs in order to prevent impacts to those areas during construction. The proposed pipeline will not have any direct or indirect impact on the Dupuis WMA. The proposed pipeline’s only impact on the J.W. Corbett WMA is the direct impact to the 3.67 acres of the WMA that the pipeline will cross. This impact is negligible in light of the size of the J.W. Corbett WMA -– approximately 60,000 acres –- and in light of the fact that the portion of the J.W. Corbett WMA that is being crossed is disturbed land that has been actively used for canal purposes for over 55 years. Moreover, this impact will be mitigated in accordance with the “linear facility policy.” Any adverse impacts to the aesthetic qualities of the Dupuis and J.W. Corbett WMAs will be temporary in nature during construction. Once construction is complete, the pipeline will not be visible from the surface. (3) Wildlife The proposed pipeline route consists of disturbed agricultural areas and canal and utility rights-of-way, which are low quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. The proposed permit is not likey to have any adverse impact on wildlife, including listed species, or their habitat. Gulfstream conducted extensive wildlife surveys during the ERP application process. The survey corridor “extended beyond 150 feet to either side of the pipeline centerline for a minimum survey width of 300 feet,” and also included the temporary work space areas, contractor yards, and aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline. The listed species whose potential habitat includes the pipeline corridor are the wood stork, the Southeastern American kestrel, the crested caracara, the bald eagle, and the gopher tortoise and its commensal species. The wood stork uses areas within and along the proposed pipeline corridor for resting, but not nesting or foraging. Southeastern American kestrel and crested caracara habitat exists adjacent to the first four miles of the proposed pipeline corridor. There is no habitat within the pipeline corridor itself, and no kestrels or caracaras were observed in the adjacent habitat. The nearest bald eagle nest is approximately 2,550 feet from the proposed pipeline route, which is well beyond the 660-foot regulatory protection zone. The nest is within a heavily wooded area of the Dupuis WMA and is not visible from the pipeline route. A total of 18 gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the proposed pipeline route. The burrows are located along the berm of the L-65 Canal between MP 0.04 and MP 1.44. Relocation is FWCC’s preferred method for avoiding impacts to gopher tortoises that inhabit a construction area. The gopher tortoises are moved to another area during construction, but they are free to return to the area from which they were relocated after construction is completed. In December 2007, FWCC issued a permit (No. WR07530a) that allows Gulfstream to capture and relocate up to 18 gopher tortoises. The permit also allows Gulfstream to capture and relocate commensal species, such as the indigo snake, Florida mouse, and gopher frog. The FWCC permit addresses the listed species’ concerns raised by James Schuette, the FWCC employee who provided comments to the Department on the ERP application and who testified at the final hearing in Petitioner’s case-in-chief.8 Gulfstream successfully used gopher tortoise relocation during construction of the first two phases of the pipeline project. Gulfstream will conduct pre-construction surveys to ensure that no listed species have moved into the proposed pipeline route. Qualified environmental inspectors will be on- site on a daily basis during construction to look for listed species and to monitor compliance with the FWCC permit. (4) Water Quality The proposed pipeline will have no permanent adverse impacts on water quality. The construction of the pipeline may have minor temporary impacts on water quality through increased turbidity in the water bodies crossed by the proposed pipeline. Gulfstream will use turbidity curtains and other barriers to control turbidity and minimize impacts to water quality, and it is required to closely monitor water quality during construction. The proposed permit establishes a turbidity standard - - 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background –- that must be maintained outside of the 150 meter “mixing zone” established by the permit.9 The turbidity levels within the “mixing zone” may exceed the 29 NTU standard during construction. The construction methods and turbidity controls used by Gulfstream during construction will ensure that the turbidity standards in the proposed permit are met. These methods were successful in controlling turbidity during the construction of the first two phases of the pipeline. Gulfstream will also undertake other measures to minimize potential water quality impacts. For example, silt fences and hay bales will be used between spoil piles and water bodies, and disturbed areas will be immediately vegetated to limit the potential for sedimentation from erosion. (5) Archeological and Historic Sites Gulfstream conducted extensive cultural resource assessment surveys as part of the ERP application process. The surveys were conducted in a 300-to-400-foot-wide corridor around the centerline of the entire pipeline route. The purpose of the surveys was to identify “historical resources” and “archaeological resources” in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. Historical resources include structures and buildings at or on the ground surface. Archaeological resources are partial or totaled buried cultural resources. Two historical resources were identified in the surveys: the St. Lucie Canal and the Bryant Sugar Mill. The proposed pipeline will cross the St. Lucie Canal, and the land in the vicinity of the Bryant Sugar Mill will be used for parking and temporary storage of pipes. The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on these historical sites. The proposed pipeline will be installed under the St. Lucie Canal using the HDD method; and there will be no parking or material storage within 25 feet of the Bryant Sugar Mill buildings, which themselves will not be used. Two archaeological resources were identified in the surveys: the Couse Midden and a site known as JR-1 that is associated with the Belle Glade archaeological period. The sites were described as “basically, trash, refuse areas, possible habitation sites.” The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on these archaeological sites. The proposed pipeline will be installed approximately 40 feet under the Couse Midden site using the HDD method, and the JR-1 site will be entirely avoided. The Division of Historical Resources -- the state agency responsible for evaluating the potential impacts of construction projects on cultural resources -– concurred with the assessment of Gulfstream’s consultant that the proposed pipeline “will have no adverse affect on any cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the [National Register of Historic Places].” Gulfstream has developed, and will implement an Unanticipated Finds Plan that includes detailed procedures to be followed in the event that previously unreported and unanticipated historic properties or human remains are found during construction. Among other things, the plan requires construction work in the area of the find to be stopped immediately and not restarted until clearance is granted by the environmental manager and archaeological consultant. Additionally, as noted above, Gulfstream is in the process of acquiring a 3.75-acre parcel within the J.W. Corbett WMA that contains an Indian mound and that will be donated to the State. (6) Other Issues The proposed pipeline will have no adverse impact on fishing or other recreational activities in the water bodies within the pipeline route. The agricultural ditches are Class IV waters that are not suitable for fishing or recreational activities. The proposed pipeline will be installed under the St. Lucie Canal, the L-8 Canal, and the L-65 Canal, which are the only water bodies that could support fishing or recreational activities. Any impacts on fishing or recreational activities in the canals will be minor and temporary impacts during construction. The proposed pipeline will not have any impact on marine productivity because the water bodies within the proposed pipeline route are freshwater, not marine or estuary. The proposed pipeline will have no permanent adverse impact on navigation. The only navigable waters crossed by the proposed pipeline are the St. Lucie Canal, the L-8 Canal, and the L-65 Canal, and the proposed pipeline will be installed under the canal bottoms. There will be minor temporary impacts on the navigability of the L-8 and L-65 Canals because those canals will effectively be blocked while the pipeline is installed under those canals using the sheet pile wet open cut method. The impacts will last no more than 48 hours, which is the maximum amount of time that it will take to complete the crossings. The proposed pipeline will not cause harmful erosion. The vegetation on the banks of the water bodies will not be removed until the time of pipe installation, and the area will be immediately re-vegetated after construction. Other erosion control measures will also be implemented, as reflected in the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan included as part of the ERP application. The proposed pipeline will not cause harmful shoaling. The agriculture ditches are not flowing water bodies so they are not subject to shoaling, and the construction in the L-8 and L- 65 Canals will occur during the drier months when there is low flow in the canals. After construction is complete, the proposed pipeline will not impede the flow of water so as to cause shoaling because it will be buried under the bottom of the canal. Gulfstream has developed, and will implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan in order to reduce the chance for accidental spills during construction. The plan also includes procedures to be followed in the event of a spill. The easement agreement between Gulfstream and SFWMD requires Gulfstream to pay any additional cost that SFWMD incurs in the installation, repair, or replacement of culverts within the proposed pipeline route as a result of the pipeline being located above an existing or future culvert. The agreement also requires Gulfstream, at its expense, to promptly repair and restore any damage to berms, levees, or other SFWMD improvements that is caused by the construction or operation of the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline will not have any material secondary impacts on wetlands or water resources. To the extent that the WCEC project can be considered to be a secondary impact of the proposed pipeline, its impacts on wetlands and water resources were considered as part of the certification proceeding for that project under the Power Plant Siting Act.10 The Department did not specifically evaluate whether the proposed pipeline will impact the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP). Its failure to do so is not unreasonable or inappropriate because the proposed pipeline is not located within the Everglades National Park or Loxahatchee National Refuge areas, and no concerns related to CERP were brought to the Department’s attention by the agencies that provided comments on the ERP application. Moreover, the commenting agencies included SWFMD, which is actively involved in CERP and upon whose property the proposed pipeline will be located. Petitioners expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposed pipeline on the Everglades and CERP. However, they did not present any persuasive evidence in support of these concerns. The proposed permit includes a specific condition that prohibits Gulfstream from installing the proposed pipeline on property that it does not own without prior written approval of the property owner. This condition may prohibit the installation of the pipeline across the J.W. Corbett WMA unless Gulfstream obtains the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund under the “linear facility policy.” Safety Concerns Petitioners expressed concerns regarding the safety of the proposed pipeline and the potential adverse impacts to the environment and the public if the pipeline were to explode. There is a potential for significant damage if the proposed pipeline were to explode. It is impossible to eliminate all risk of the pipeline exploding. The risk of an explosion has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable through the measures described above that reduce the risk of leaks in the proposed pipeline through corrosion or damage from external forces. The pipe wall thickness was increased in areas adjacent to PBA’s blasting operations even though the conservative blast mitigation analysis prepared by Gulfstream's expert shows that the normal pipe wall thickness is more than adequate to withstand the vibrations caused by PBA’s current permitted and reasonably foreseeable blasting operations. The location of the pipeline -- underground and in existing canal and utility rights-of-way -- also serves to minimize the risk of accidental damage to the pipeline from construction and development activities and hurricanes or other natural disasters. Pressure, temperature, and flow in the proposed pipeline will be continuously monitored at a 24-hour control center, and the pipeline right-of-way will be visually inspected at least once every two weeks. The proposed pipeline includes “test leads” approximately every mile that are used to assess the cathodic protection on the pipeline. The proposed pipeline includes two valves (at MP 0.00 and MP 14.87) that can be used to shut off the flow in the pipeline if necessary. The “valve setting” at MP 14.87 is the only above-ground component of the proposed pipeline other than the valve settings at the start and end of the pipeline. The area around the valve setting will be enclosed by an eight-foot- high fence and covered with gravel. The location of the proposed pipeline will be marked at line-of-sight-intervals and at other key points. The markers will clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide contact information in case of emergency or in the event of excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. Gulfstream has procedures in place to respond to any emergency that may arise in the operation of the pipeline, as required by federal law. Gulfstream meets face-to-face with local emergency responders on at least an annual basis to discuss emergency response procedures. It also engages in public education and outreach efforts to address potential concerns regarding the safety of the pipeline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving ERP No. 50-0269698-002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Procedural Matters The Public Service Commission issued its Order Approving Electrical Transmission Line on October 30, 1987, determining the need for the Crane- Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line to provide additional service load capacity and maintain system reliability. Florida Power & Light Company (hereinafter "FPL") filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER") its Application for Corridor Certification of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line corridor on July 14, 1988. That Application was deemed by DER to be complete but insufficient, and FPL's Sufficiency Response was filed on September 16, 1988. The certification hearing was originally scheduled to commence on February 6, 1989. PGA Property Owners' Association, Inc. (hereinafter "PGA") timely filed alternate corridors on December 13, 1988. Old Marsh Partners, Old Marsh Golf Club, Inc., and Old Marsh Homeowners Association, Inc., (hereinafter "Old Marsh" or "OM") timely filed alternate corridors on December 15, 1988. Several of the alternates filed by PGA were accepted by FPL on December 7 20, 1988. Several of the alternates filed by Old Marsh were accepted by FPL on January 5, 1989. FPL did not respond to several of the alternates proposed by PGA and Old Marsh (the burial alternates) because FPL considered these proposed alternates to be design modifications to FPL's corridor, a factual proposition that was accepted by this Hearing Officer prior to the final hearing in this cause but which was disproven during the evidentiary hearing. One of Old Marsh's alternates was rejected by FPL. The certification hearing was rescheduled to commence on April 3, 1989, due to the timely filing of alternate corridors and the acceptance of some of them. George H. Sands, Jeffrey H. Sands, George H. Sands and Jeffrey H. Sands d/b/a Princeton Arms (hereinafter "Sands") and Southern Land Group, Martin Downs Country Club, Inc., and Martin Downs Property Owners Association, Inc., (hereinafter "Martin Downs") timely filed alternate corridors on February 9, 1989. Two of those alternates were rejected by FPL, and FPL did not respond to one of those alternates because it considered that alternate to be within the FPL proposed corridor. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, alternate corridors proper for consideration were reduced to Alternate Corridors 2A and 2B filed by PGA and jointly proposed by PGA and Old Marsh (hereinafter "Alternate corridor" unless otherwise described). During the final hearing, settlement agreements between Sands and FPL and between Martin Downs and FPL resulted in Sands and Martin Downs voluntarily dismissing their petitions to intervene in this proceeding and voluntarily withdrawing their proposed alternate corridors in exchange for FPL agreeing to a number of additional conditions of certification of the Martin County segment of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus corridor are set forth in Attachment A to this Recommended Order. Prior to the final hearing, all parties entered into a Prehearing Stipulation which included Attachment D. Attachment D set forth the minimum conditions for certification, which conditions were agreed to by FPL, and which conditions will apply no matter which corridor is certified. Those conditions are set forth in Attachment B to this Recommended Order. All statutory notices regarding the filing of FPL's Application, the filing of the PGA/OM Alternate corridors 2A and 2B, and the scheduling and rescheduling of the certification hearing were properly published, and all statutory notifications were properly accomplished. Description of the FPL Proposed Corridor Essentially, the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line corridor would run from the existing site of the proposed Crane Substation in the immediate vicinity of the Martin Downs community near Stuart, Martin County, Florida, to the existing Plumosus Substation near Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. The total length of the proposed FPL corridor is approximately 40 miles. The FPL proposed corridor is of variable width, ranging from approximately 300 feet to 1 mile wide. Crane-Mapp: The FPL proposed corridor begins at the site for the Crane Substation in Martin County and runs south to the proposed Mapp Substation siting area paralleling the Florida Turnpike so that a right-of-way could be located on either side of the Turnpike. Mapp-Hanson: From the proposed Mapp Substation siting area, the FPL proposed corridor continues to proceed south straddling the Florida Turnpike until it reaches the junction of I-95 and the Turnpike. From that point the proposed corridor runs southeast away from the Florida Turnpike and parallel with I-95 on the east side to the proposed Hanson Substation siting area. Hanson-Bridge: At a point approximately 1 mile south of the State Road 76 interchange with I-95 at the proposed Hanson Substation siting area, the FPL corridor turns west and crosses both I-95 and the Florida Turnpike until it reaches County Road 711. The proposed corridor then proceeds south along County Road 711 for a distance of 13 mi1es crossing County Road 708, County Road 706 and the C-18 Canal. As the proposed corridor begins proceeding south straddling County Road 711, it reaches the proposed Bridge Substation siting area and continues south, narrowing at one point to exclude the actual residential structures in the Foxwood development but not excluding the properties owned by the residents of that subdivision. At the proposed Bridge Substation siting area, the corridor widens to allow flexibility in connecting the proposed transmission line to an existing 230 kV transmission line. Bridge-Moroso-Alexander: From the proposed Bridge Substation siting area, the FPL proposed corridor continues to parallel County Road 711 south through the proposed Moroso Substation siting area to the intersection of State Road 710 where it connects to the proposed Alexander Substation siting area. Alexander-Steeplechase: At the intersection of County Road 711 and State Road 710 which is also known as the Beeline Highway, in the vicinity of the proposed Alexander Substation siting area, the FPL proposed corridor turns southeast and straddles State Road 710 until the Beeline Highway intersects with PGA Boulevard at the proposed Steeplechase Substation siting area. Along the Beeline Highway, the corridor narrows to exclude the residences in the Caloosa residential development but does not exclude the properties on which those residences are located. Steeplechase-Ryder: At the intersection of the Beeline Highway and PGA Boulevard, the FPL proposed corridor turns east on PGA Boulevard crossing the C-18 Canal a second time and crossing the Loxahatchee Slough. At the point where FPL's proposed corridor crosses the C-18 Canal along PGA Boulevard in Palm Beach County, the proposed corridor would be approximately 1,000 feet wide. At a point just east of the C-18 Canal, FPL's proposed corridor narrows somewhat on the south side of PGA Boulevard to exclude the residential structures in the PGA National community from the corridor. Nevertheless, the corridor width would still encompass both the north and south sides of PGA Boulevard, and on the south side it would extend through the individual backyards and actually abut the homes of the PGA National residents. FPL's corridor continues to proceed easterly on both sides of PGA Boulevard to a point where Ryder Cup Boulevard intersects the south side of PGA Boulevard. At that intersection, the corridor is widened and turns to the north to accommodate the proposed Ryder Substation location. FPL's proposed Ryder Substation siting area is located in the area adjacent to and north of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Ryder Cup Boulevard. Ryder-Bonnette: The FPL proposed corridor continues north through the proposed Ryder Substation siting area following a dirt road past a sewage treatment plant. As it proceeds north of Hood Road along the proposed Jog Road extension, it narrows as it passes between the Old Marsh and Eastpointe residential developments. Despite the narrowing of the corridor at this point, homesites, storm water management facilities, and portions of golf courses in both of those developments are encompassed by the proposed corridor. As the corridor passes the northern boundary of Old Marsh, it again widens and continues to proceed north encompassing wetland areas, until it reaches the current western termination point of Donald Ross Road. The Bonnette Substation is proposed by FPL to be located in this area. Bonnette-Plumosus: From the proposed Bonnette Substation siting area, the FPL proposed corridor turns east and follows Donald Ross Road for approximately 2 miles, running along the Palm Beach Country Estates subdivision on the north side of Donald Ross Road and the northern edge of the Eastpointe subdivision along the south side of Donald Ross Road. Once again, the corridor narrows on the Donald Ross Road segment to exclude the actual residential structures in the Eastpointe and Palm Beach Country Estates developments but does not exclude the properties on which those residences are located. The corridor continues to run east along Donald Ross Road until it crosses the Florida Turnpike and I-95, turning north just west of the Donald Ross Road and Central Boulevard intersection. The FPL proposed corridor then runs north paralleling an existing 138 kV transmission line for a distance of 2 miles to the existing Plumosus Substation. Except for a small segment of the FPL proposed corridor located at the proposed Hanson Substation siting area in Martin County, the corridor includes the lands on both sides of the roadways it follows in order to provide flexibility to FPL in designing and constructing its proposed transmission line. The width of FPL's proposed corridor -- up to 1 mile wide -- serves the same purpose of allowing flexibility to FPL in locating a right-of-way for its transmission line facility. No specific right-of-way within the proposed corridor is contemplated at this time, and the eventual right-of-way is not the subject of this proceeding; rather, FPL can locate a right-of-way anywhere within a corridor which is certified. Description of the PGA/OM Alternate Corridor The PGA/OM Alternate corridor differs from one 4-mile segment of the FPL proposed corridor by commencing north 13 from PGA Boulevard at a point just after the FPL proposed corridor crosses the C-18 Canal for the second time. The Alternate corridor follows an existing unnamed canal for 1 mile, then parallels Sections 33 and 28 for 2 miles. Alternates 2A and 2B are coextensive with each other up to the point at which the Alternate corridor is due west of Donald Ross Road. At that point, Alternate 2A turns east at the northwest corner of Section 28 and continues easterly to reconnect with the FPL proposed corridor in the vicinity of the Bonnette Substation. Alternate 2B continues north, rather than east, at the northwest corner of Section 28 for approximately 3/4 of a mile along the west boundary of Section 21. At that point, Alternate 2B turns southeasterly following a proposed future alignment of the Donald Ross Road extension to reconnect with the FPL proposed corridor in the vicinity of the Bonnette Substation. In conjunction with the PGA/OM Alternate corridor, FPL's proposed site for the Ryder Substation would be relocated approximately 1 mile to the west so that the Ryder Substation would be located just east of the PGA/OM Alternate corridor and north of PGA Boulevard. Description of the Transmission Line The transmission line which FPL proposes to construct within its proposed corridor would be an overhead line using a single-circuit, single-pole concrete structure. The concrete poles would average 80 feet in height, but may be as tall as 100 feet. The concrete pole is 2 feet wide at its base. The wires that transmit electricity, called conductors, are connected to insulators which are attached to the concrete pole structures. Three conductors will be used for this proposed transmission line. The single concrete pole structures will have one of two types of configurations: vertical or triangular (delta). In a vertical configuration, all three of the conductors are located on one side of the concrete pole structure, and in the triangular configuration, two conductors are located on one side of the concrete pole structure, and one conductor is located on the opposite side. A ground wire is located at the top of the concrete pole structure and acts to protect the conductors from lightning strikes. The right-of-way required for the proposed transmission line will vary from 15 feet to 50 feet, depending on whether a vertical or a triangular configuration is used and on whether the transmission line structure can be placed adjacent to an existing road that can be used for access to the transmission line. Additional right-of-way up to 140 feet in width may be required for guyed corner or side tension structures. When an existing road or road right-of-way can be used for access, a 15 foot right-of-way adjacent to the road right-of-way can be used for the transmission line structures with a vertical configuration. If a triangular configuration is used adjacent to an existing road or road right-of-way that can be used for access, a 35 foot right-of-way would be required for this transmission line. Where new access roads will be required, a 35 foot right-of- way is required for the vertical configuration, and a 50 foot right-of-way is required for the triangular configuration. FPL anticipates constructing approximately 12 miles of new access roads in its proposed corridor in areas that do not have existing roads or where adjacent roads cannot be used for access, such as adjacent to the Florida Turnpike and adjacent to I-95. If the PGA/OM Alternate corridor is certified, FPL anticipates requiring a 50-foot wide right-of-way along the entire length of the Alternate corridor due to the absence of existing roads (excluding unofficial roads created by persons using all-terrain recreational vehicles) and the use of triangular configured structures. Since the segment of the FPL proposed corridor from which the PGA/OM Alternate corridor deviates follows existing roadways which FPL anticipates using for access, FPL plans to use vertical structures with a smaller 15-foot right-of-way in that corridor segment. Span lengths between structures will vary between 300 feet and 600 feet, with a minimum conductor-to-ground clearance of 24 feet. The span lengths depend upon specific right-of-way widths determined by FPL after corridor certification and on final line design also determined by FPL after corridor certification. The transmission line poles may also be used for other utility attachments, such as distribution or communication lines. Access to the transmission line concrete poles must be provided for both construction and maintenance purposes. Any new access roads to be constructed will typically be unpaved and 14 feet in width. Finger roads connecting access roads to the pole location will typically be 30 feet in width. A structure pad for location of trucks for maintenance purposes will be constructed at the location of each pole. The structure pads surrounding each concrete pole will typically be 30 feet by 40 feet. Substations Between the existing site for the proposed Crane Substation and the existing Plumosus Substation, the proposed transmission line will connect 8 proposed intermediate substations in Martin and Palm Beach Counties. Proposed intermediate substations in Martin County include the Mapp, Hanson, and Bridge Substations. The proposed Moroso Substation will be located in the vicinity of the Martin County and Palm Beach County line. Proposed intermediate substations in Palm Beach County include the Alexander, Steeplechase, Ryder, and Bonnette Substations. Most of the proposed substation siting areas are one square mile or 640 acres in size. However, Bridge is one-half mile square, Moroso is 5 miles square, and Alexander is 4 mile square. Prior to filing its Application for Corridor Certification for the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line, FPL enlisted the aid of an advisory committee composed of representatives from agencies and local governments and two home owners. At the time the advisory committee convened, the substation locations were already identified and the geographical areas already determined. The advisory panel did not provide input into the location or size of the substation areas. Rather, the advisory panel merely looked for a corridor which would connect the already-designated substation siting areas. It is unclear how much input the advisory committee actually had into the corridor proposed by FPL in this proceeding. Only the location proposed for the Ryder Substation is at issue in this proceeding, since it is proposed to be located along the segment of FPL's proposed corridor from which the PGA/OM Alternate corridor deviates. If the PGA/OM Alternate corridor is certified, the proposed Ryder Substation siting area would be moved approximately 1 mile west of the Ryder Substation location proposed by FPL. Locating the Ryder Substation adjacent to the Alternate corridor on the east side of that corridor is appropriate from a land use perspective and will not materially affect the efficiency and reliability of electrical service to the area to be served by that substation. The actual difference in service reliability of the Ryder Substation if located adjacent to the Alternate corridor on the west side of the Alternate corridor would be an increase of 0.3 service interruptions per year, or one additional service interruption every 3 to 4 years. The difference in service reliability if the Ryder substation were located adjacent to the Alternate corridor on the east side of the Alternate corridor would be even less. Therefore, essentially the same service reliability would result. Engineering and Design The construction techniques for the proposed transmission line set forth in FPL's Application are standard construction techniques in the industry. The proposed Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line will be designed for two types of load: structural and electrical. The structural load of the proposed transmission line will be designed to hold the weights of the poles, insulators, and conductors in a sustained wind of 115 mph. The electrical load for the proposed transmission line will be designed to carry 230 kilovolts with a conductor capacity of 647 megavolt amperes (MVA). Under normal operation, the proposed transmission line will carry between 250 and 350 MVA. The design and construction of the proposed transmission line will comply with all applicable codes and standards including the National Electrical Safety Code, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, the American Concrete Institute, the Southern Building Code, and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide. Transmission lines can be constructed adjacent to or within road rights-of-way, with the road drainage facility or swale between the road and the concrete pole. The maintenance finger road to access the pole structure is culverted where that road crosses the drainage facility or swale. The transmission line can be constructed, from an engineering perspective, within the right-of-way east of Old Marsh. FPL has constructed transmission lines within road rights-of-way for other transmission line projects. FPL has entered into agreements with local governments for other projects to share road right-of-way. From an engineering perspective, the transmission line can be constructed to span Impoundment 2BE (discussed hereinafter), if necessary. From an engineering perspective, the design and siting of the transmission line within the FPL proposed corridor would be more flexible if located on the north side of PGA Boulevard near PGA National. From an engineering perspective, the design and siting of the transmission line within the FPL proposed corridor would be more flexible if located south of the Beeline Highway near the Caloosa Development. From an engineering perspective, the design and siting of the transmission line within the FPL proposed corridor between the Old Marsh and Eastpointe developments offers limited flexibility. From an engineering perspective, the design and siting of the transmission line within the Alternate Corridor is preferable because line siting flexibility is increased. From an engineering perspective, location of the Ryder Substation adjacent to the Alternate corridor or in the location proposed by FPL is appropriate. Impacts to the Environment Wetlands Both the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor may impact wetlands within the jurisdiction of DER, the South Florida Water Management District, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. DER has not formally identified jurisdictional wetlands within the FPL corridor or within the 20 Alternate corridor. The South Florida Water Management District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers have expressed jurisdiction over certain wetlands within the FPL corridor and within the Alternate corridor. The actual extent of wetlands impacted is unknown and will ultimately be determined at the time of actual line siting within the certified corridor. Section 3.2 of the FPL Application states that FPL will provide detailed information on dredging or filling (locations and volumes) to DER after a corridor is certified, when the right-of-way is determined and engineering is completed. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be required at the time of line construction. Attachment D to the Prehearing Stipulation sets forth specific mitigation criteria as conditions of corridor certification acceptable to DER and the South Florida Water Management District for wetland impacts. Implementation of those mitigation conditions will not result in any conflicts or problems with the mitigation practices and policies of the Corps of Engineers, DER, or the South Florida Water Management District. The jurisdictional determination evidenced in PGA/OM Joint Exhibit 18A, though not a "binding jurisdictional" pursuant to DER rules, is an accurate representation of the DER jurisdictional areas in the proximity of the Loxahatchee Slough and the Alternate corridor. That jurisdictional drawing was participated in by DER personnel. That informal jurisdictional determination evidences minimal acreage of wetlands within the jurisdiction of DER within the Alternate corridor. Along the FPL corridor route, numerous altered or disturbed wetland areas exist. Road construction, land clearing, and other human activities have altered the natural state of wetlands previously associated along the FPL proposed corridor. The wetlands within the southern half of the Alternate corridor are altered or disturbed due to existing canals and ditches as well as dirt roads within and adjacent to the Alternate corridor. Over time, due to the altered hydrology and transitional vegetation within and adjacent to the Alternate corridor, the acreage of wetlands impacted due to construction of a transmission line would approximate the acreage of wetlands impacted within the FPL corridor from the same transmission line construction. Certain wetlands within the FPL corridor are comparable to the wetlands within the Alternate corridor in terms of hydrology, quality, and habitat. The FPL corridor will cross 26 water bodies, all of which are classified as Class III, except for the C-18 Canal which is classified as Class I. The FPL corridor also crosses several isolated wetlands and the Loxahatchee Slough. There will be no significant impact to water quality from the construction of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line. Short-term turbidity caused by the removal of vegetation will be controlled through the use of erosion control practices, such as fabric fences and straw bales. Long-term water quality will be maintained by allowing the vegetation around access roads and structure pads to re-establish. Any impacts to wetlands caused by the proposed transmission line can be mitigated consistent with regulatory agency mitigation criteria and the DER dredge and fill criteria. Wildlife Species of plants or animals designated as endangered, threatened, or species of a special or regional concern by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and/or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals, and species based on literature surveys and agency consultations were researched for potential occurrence within the FPL and Alternate corridors. The species studied are listed in FPL's Application. None of the species were found to have breeding or viable populations in the FPL or Alternate corridors. The presence or absence of specific plant species is primarily based upon suitable habitats. None of the corridors under consideration herein is expected to have any significant impact on important plant species. Of the 48 vertebrate species identified as occurring or possibly occurring within the proposed corridors, most are characteristic of or restricted to coastal habitat or estuarine habitat. Therefore, presence of these species would be of a migratory nature. Because of the absence of these species, impact to such wildlife would be expected to be minimal. Since the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor include areas of disturbed habitat, the probability of occurrence for threatened and endangered species and other regionally significant species is diminished. Wildlife observed actually within the Old Marsh community included the sandhill crane, a threatened species listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. From a wildlife perspective, the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor are appropriate locations for the construction of a 230 kV transmission line. The Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties requires the identification of endangered species prior to any clearing for the construction of the transmission line. Vegetation Vegetation communities associated with the FPL corridor include hammock, wet prairie, grassland and rangeland, pine flatwoods, cypress, freshwater marsh, pinewood, pinewood prairie, forested old field and mixed hardwood swamp. Vegetation communities associated with the Alternate corridor include tropical hammock, cabbage palm, wet prairie, cypress, pine wet prairie and pine flatwoods. The majority of vegetation within the Alternate corridor is pine wet prairie. The transmission line can be constructed to avoid the tropical hammock community. The alteration of habitat and associated vegetation due to human activities and altered hydrology in both the FPL and the Alternate corridors has resulted in the transition of vegetative communities including the introduction of exotic, nuisance plant species such as Melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, and Australian Pine to those corridors. If the hydrologic condition remains the same within and adjacent to the Alternate corridor, additional exotic, nuisance plants would invade the area. Due to changes in the hydrologic condition east of the C-18 Canal and west of the Alternate corridor, a portion of the historic Loxahatchee Slough, exotic plants such as Melaleuca and Brazilian Pepper have invaded that area. The eastern boundary of the Loxahatchee Slough, as identified through analysis of vegetation, is a north-south line approximately half-way between the eastern leg of the C-18 Canal and the western boundary of the Alternate corridor. The Alternate corridor is not located within the historic Loxahatchee Slough. The implementation of the Loxahatchee River Basin Water Resources Plan (discussed hereinafter) would result in the creation of a littoral zone, Impoundment 2BE, not currently present within the geographical proximity of the Alternate corridor and would restore the historic hydroperiod of the Slough, limiting the introduction of additional exotic species to the area. From a vegetative perspective, both the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor are appropriate locations for the construction of the 230 kV transmission line. Construction of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line in the FPL 25 corridor or in the Alternate corridor will produce a minimal impact to existing vegetation. In wetland areas, the vegetation root mat will be retained in the right-of-way areas not occupied by access roads or structure pads. Construction of the proposed transmission line in the FPL corridor or in the Alternate corridor will not destroy the vegetative communities, but will merely force the shift in the successional stages of those communities within the right-of-way. Hydrology Due to human activities such as road construction and channelization, the hydrology associated with the FPL corridor is altered. Further, the Hood Road and Jupiter wellfields have contributed to altered hydrologic conditions in the proximity of the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor near Old Marsh. The construction of the C-18 Canal in the early 1950's contributed to the lowering of the water table and altered the natural hydrologic conditions, impacting the wetlands lying east of the C-18 Canal but west of the Alternate corridor. Drainage of the Slough is increased when compared to drainage patterns prior to canal construction. The altered hydrology rendered the former Loxahatchee Slough area, east of the C-18 Canal and west of the Alternate corridor, a seasonally flooded area. In the area of the Alternate Corridor the C-18 Canal has altered the natural hydrological regime, impacting the associated vegetation and habitat. Further, the area within the southern half of the Alternate corridor is subject to persistent draining due to the location of an unnamed canal and other ditches within and adjacent to the Alternate corridor. The area within the Alternate corridor immediately north of Old Marsh is subject to minimum channelization. Adjacent developments and the Hood Road and Jupiter wellfields have lowered the water table, altering natural hydrologic conditions. In the geographical area immediately south of Old Marsh, both within and adjacent to the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor, a series of connected channels have had a drastic impact on the wetlands and hydrology of that area. This channelization has resulted in the general lowering of the water table, altering natural hydrologic conditions. Attachment D to the Prehearing Stipulation includes conditions for certification regarding culverts and construction techniques to maintain historical drainage patterns along the eventual transmission line right-of-way. Construction of the transmission line along PGA Boulevard through the Loxahatchee Slough will not significantly impact water quality or water resource hydrology. From a water quality and hydrologic perspective, the FPL corridor and the Alternate corridor are appropriate locations for the construction of the transmission line. Construction techniques used will maintain water flows, existing drainage patterns, and hydroperiods. Impacts to wetland storage volumes will be minimized through removal of vegetation within the wetlands and installation of culverts. Installed culverts will be designed to accommodate the design storm of applicable agency design criteria. Loxahatchee River Basin Water Resources Plan The Loxahatchee River Basin Water Resources Plan (hereinafter "Plan") is a regional plan extending from southern Martin County into the northeastern part of Palm Beach County. The Plan's purpose is to capture surplus water during the rainy season or during an extremely rainy year, store the water in reservoirs, and deliver that water when necessary during times of drought. Additionally, the Plan would increase the hydroperiod in the Loxahatchee Slough, offsetting the adverse impacts of C-18 Canal construction. The Plan would result in releases of water into the historic Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The Plan would also augment recharge of two impacted municipal wellfields, the Hood Road wellfield and the Jupiter wellfield. The Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District is proposing the Plan and will seek regulatory approval for the Plan. By the time of the Final Hearing in this cause, the Plan had been informally discussed and reviewed by all regulatory agencies involved. The public hearings held thus far on the Plan by the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District had brought forth no objections to the Plan. Although the Plan had not been filed with the South Florida Water Management District at the time of the Final Hearing in this cause and formal application for approval had not yet been made, it was anticipated that the Plan and applications for approval would be filed with the regulatory agencies involved around June 1, 1989. The Plan calls for reservoirs to be constructed on both sides of the C-18 Canal. The location of one of those reservoirs, Impoundment 2BE, may be partially within the Alternate corridor. Impoundment 2BE borders the eastern edge of the traditional Loxahatchee Slough. That reservoir, starting at PGA Boulevard, as currently designed, would occupy an area immediately to the east of the Alternate corridor, extending northerly along the eastern side of that corridor, crossing the corridor at the reservoir's narrowest point, then continuing parallel to the west side of the Alternate corridor into the northern portion of the Alternate corridor area. Impoundment 2BE is adjacent to, but will not be located within, the Loxahatchee Slough. Implementation of the Plan would not result in additional standing water within the Alternate corridor altering existing impacted wetlands. Hydrology of the Alternate corridor would be minimally impacted by the Plan due to the impoundment of the natural west to east water sheet flow. The location of Impoundment 2BE is subject to minimal change during the permitting review and approval process due to the nature of valuable wetlands to the west of the proposed location of the Impoundment, the location of existing and planned development to the east of the proposed location, and because the planned location maximizes the environmental benefits of Impoundment 2BE to recharge the Loxahatchee Slough. The impact of the reservoir on the wetland area incorporated as part of the proposed Bonnette Substation site is minimal because the reservoir water levels are not high enough to effectuate sufficient seepage nor will there be releases of surface water into that area. Direct releases from the Impoundment will be only through existing channels. The direct release channels are the south canal of the South Indian River Water Control District, north of the Alternate corridor, and the east channel from Impoundment along the south boundary of Old Marsh into the Eastpointe development. These two channels are the only two areas for direct releases of surface water. Impoundment 2BE will include an 8-foot berm constructed around its perimeter. The Plan includes a 16-foot wide road atop the impoundment berm to maintain berm side slopes. It is anticipated that the water level in the reservoir will average 3 feet above natural grade, and it is not expected to be higher than 4 feet. To avoid seepage impacts, the Plan includes construction of toe drains to capture seepage and deliver that seepage to a pump system, returning the seepage to the reservoir. The Plan includes an access road surrounding the toe drains which surround the berm to access and maintain the toe drains. The access road next to the toe drains will be approximately 10-15 feet wide. FPL and the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District have shared maintenance access roads in other 30 locations. A conflict would not exist between FPL and the Water Control District in sharing the Impoundment 2BE access road. The South Florida Water Management District, through the Loxahatchee River and Slough Restoration Program (hereinafter "Program"), intends to restore the historic hydrologic condition of the Loxahatchee Slough. The Program and the Plan are compatible and complementary water resource plans. Conflicts would not result due to the implementation of the Plan and the Program. Implementation of the Plan and construction of the 230 kV transmission line would not conflict from an engineering perspective. Impoundment 2BE and the line can be constructed sharing access roads, and conflicts would not result in maintaining the reservoir and the transmission line. If the Plan is implemented as proposed, much of the wetlands in the vicinity of the Alternate corridor would be significantly impacted, if not completely obliterated. Thus, the possible wetland impacts which might occur as a result of construction of the transmission line through the Alternate corridor would be minimized, or would already have occurred, if the proposed reservoir is constructed. In the event the reservoir is constructed as currently envisioned, construction of the transmission line through the Alternate corridor would have to span the reservoir at its narrowest point where it crosses the Alternate corridor. The reservoir is anticipated to be 400 feet wide at its narrowest point, and the normal span length for an FPL transmission line varies between 300 and 600 feet. Accordingly, spanning the reservoir does not pose a significant engineering problem, and the two projects could be constructed in a compatible manner. Impacts To The Public Land Use: The FPL corridor originates just south of the Martin Downs development and is adjacent to, incorporates, or is in the proximity of industrial parks, low and medium density residential development, a communications tower, borrow pits, the St. Lucie Canal, vacant and undeveloped land, trailer parks, agricultural land, the Foxwood subdivision, the Pratt-Whitney industrial complex, Palm Beach Park of Commerce, service stations, the Caloosa subdivision, a platted undeveloped subdivision, the C-18 Canal, the proposed North Palm Beach County General Aviation Airport, the Loxahatchee Slough, PGA National subdivision, the Seacoast Utility sewage treatment plant, a plant nursery, Old Marsh and Eastpointe residential developments, Palm Beach Country Estates, North Palm Beach Heights, and the Hampton residential development. The FPL corridor is aligned immediately adjacent to the edges of homes in the PGA development and includes the backyards and setbacks of those homes. The FPL corridor includes several golf course holes, buildings, and critical water management facilities within the Old Marsh development. The Alternate corridor from south to north beginning at PGA Boulevard, is adjacent to, or in the proximity of, an unnamed canal, undeveloped but disturbed land, the west boundary of Old Marsh, and more undeveloped, partially disturbed land. Numerous changes in the extent and type of development, whether commercial, industrial, or residential, occurred between the filing of the FPL Application in July, 1988, and subsequent land use review by FPL personnel conducted immediately prior to the Final Hearing in April, 1989. The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, did not find any archaeological or historical sites recorded within the FPL or the Alternate corridors. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has annexed the geographical area bordered by PGA Boulevard, the proposed Jog Road extension, the south boundary of Old Marsh, and the Alternate corridor. The City of Palm Beach Gardens' plans to annex the Old Marsh, Eastpointe, and, possibly, the Caloosa developments. The City of Palm Beach Gardens plans to annex the area bordered by the proposed Donald Ross Road extension, west to the Beeline Highway, south to the section line just south of PGA Boulevard, and east to PGA National. The Palm Beach Gardens land use plan for the areas north and south of Old Marsh between the Alternate and FPL corridors is low density residential development. The Palm Beach Gardens land use plan for the area north of PGA Boulevard, south of the Eastpointe development, and east of the FPL corridor is low density residential development. The FPL corridor, north from Ryder Cup Boulevard where that Boulevard intersects PGA Boulevard, would bisect planned low density residential communities. Associated with the sewage treatment facility adjacent to the FPL corridor, north of Ryder Cup Boulevard along the existing dirt road, is a planned golf course to buffer developing residential areas from the sewage treatment plant and to effectuate the use of spray water irrigation to comply with DER's water reuse rule. The proposed Jog Road extension, as depicted on the draft of the Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Plan, is subject to possible relocation and realignment due to environmental concerns, absence of reserved right-of-way, and the history of the road as previously depicted within PGA National. The FPL corridor provides numerous opportunities for paralleling other linear facilities within the corridor. Linear facilities within that corridor include the Florida Turnpike, I-95, County Road 711, State Road 710 (the Beeline Highway), PGA Boulevard, the sewage treatment plant access road, the proposed extension of Jog Road, Donald Ross Road, another transmission line, and numerous overhead distribution lines. Although FPL contends that the existing linear facilities also can be used as access roads to the transmission line structures thereby minimizing the amount of land required for the transmission line right- of-way, the accuracy of that position cannot be determined until an actual right-of-way is located and the transmission line is designed. For example, I- 95 and the Florida Turnpike are limited access roads, and FPL potentially would construct its own access road outside the rights-of-way of those highways. Similarly, FPL has a preference to not use Florida Department of Transportation road rights-of-way. Further, the location of the proposed Jog Road extension is yet to be determined. The wide corridor proposed by FPL to maintain maximum flexibility for siting the eventual transmission line right-of-way and for designing the actual transmission line would allow FPL to site the transmission line far enough in distance from the existing linear facilities so that the existing rights-of-way of those facilities need not be shared by FPL. From a land use perspective, the narrower Alternate corridor also tracks linear facilities, conforming to coexisting and proposed land use patterns. The existing unnamed canal, the proposed Donald Ross Road extension, section lines, and the possible Impoundment 2BE and its maintenance road serve as such linear facilities. None of these linear facilities have restricted rights-of-way. Land use patterns are more than conceptually developed in the area of the Alternate corridor. The section line serves as an edge of a clearly established land use pattern. The annexation plans and Comprehensive Plan of Palm Beach Gardens evidence future development plans. From a land use perspective, it is appropriate to site a transmission line and allow developing residential areas to adjust and to mitigate impacts from that line. Development can build around a transmission line if the transmission line is placed in the landscape first. From a land use perspective, the Alternate corridor is more appropriate than the FPL corridor for construction of a 230 kV transmission line due to its greater distance from existing and proposed residential areas, which reduces the potential for visual impacts, adverse health effects, and reduction in property values. Old Marsh is a golf course community of 120 acres constructed in an area of pristine, natural prairie marsh wetlands. Two hundred and seventeen lots are platted within the Old Marsh development, with a maximum lot price of $250,000. Heavy vegetation, including palm and pine trees, borders the western boundary of Old Marsh. A 25-foot vegetative buffer borders the eastern boundary of Old Marsh. Old Marsh expended significant sums of money to bury all electrical distribution lines within the community to maintain the visual aesthetics of that unique, environmentally-sensitive community and to avoid injury from overhead electrical lines that may occur during a hurricane or other storm. The naturally occurring wetlands in the center and western part of the project were preserved. In the eastern part of the project, within the FPL proposed corridor, are located several golf course holes and water control facilities consisting of lakes and littoral zones. A canal system, which serves to manage the water resources for stormwater and environmental purposes, flows throughout the development. The lakes and littoral zones within the proposed FPL corridor serve as part of the project mitigation plan. The same facilities provide part of the storage volume retaining stormwater runoff, maintaining the project's water quality and reducing nutrient loading. The Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District, through the establishment of Unit of Development No. 21, constructed, operates, and maintains the water control facilities for Old Marsh. The operation and maintenance are in accordance with approved federal, state, and local permits and a judicially-approved plan. Securing permits for the Old Marsh project was extremely difficult because approximately one-third of the project land area was required to be preserved. The portion of the Old Marsh project included within the FPL proposed corridor includes land subject to conservation easements in favor of DER and the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District. Transmission line construction within the FPL corridor through the Old Marsh property would severely impact the water control facilities and golf holes which are fully constructed. Old Marsh maximized the land area available such that relocating or reconfiguring the water management facilities or golf holes is not possible. Relocation or reduction in size of the water management facilities would destroy the function of the facilities. PGA National is a resort community located in the City Of Palm Beach Gardens which includes approximately 5,700 homesites, 4 golf courses, a hotel, a sports and recreation complex, and commercial and light industrial areas. It is an "upscale" community. One of the amenities of PGA National is that electrical distribution lines within the community are buried. The lines were buried for two reasons: to maintain the visual aesthetics of the community and for safety reasons, to avoid injury from downed electrical lines during hurricanes and other storms. The cost of burial of the distribution lines throughout the community was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which was part of the overall development cost of the community. The homes within PGA National along PGA Boulevard are traditional, single-family homes with permanent residents. The approximate cost of a home is $300,000. From a land use perspective, the north side of PGA Boulevard near PGA National would be a more appropriate location for a transmission line than the south side. The proposed FPL corridor parallels the Beeline Highway between the Beeline's intersection with County Road 711 and the Beeline's intersection with PGA Boulevard. This segment of FPL's proposed corridor is approximately 800 feet in width. On the north side of the Beeline, at the intersection with County Road 711 is the developing Palm Beach Park of Commerce. Just below the Park of Commerce is the Caloosa subdivision. Although the FPL proposed corridor is narrowed at that point, it is only narrowed to exclude the physical structures on the residential lots in the Caloosa development; it does not exclude the backyards of those properties. North of the Beeline Highway right-of-way, the FPL proposed corridor includes a 70 foot recreation, utility, and drainage easement within the Caloosa subdivision. The northern boundary of the corridor for much of its length corresponds to the northern boundary of that easement. The easement includes a canal which is an integral part of Caloosa's drainage system and is also a source of recreation for Caloosa residents. The Caloosa canal system will also be an integral part of the proposed Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District Water Resource Management Plan. Residential lots and homes are located immediately adjacent to the 70-foot easement. The corridor also includes portions of some of the residential lots of Caloosa property owners. Caloosa is the only residential area which abuts FPL's proposed corridor along the Beeline Highway segment. South of the Beeline Highway, the FPL proposed corridor also includes additional Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way, a railroad right- of-way, other easements for underground utilities, and approximately 200 feet of vacant undeveloped land. These linear facilities run parallel to the Beeline Highway corridor. The vacant land within the corridor south of the Beeline Highway, which is not a part of any existing right-of-way or easement, contains some scattered disturbed or impacted wetlands. There are no residential developments on the south side of the Beeline Highway. The land uses of the Beeline Highway segment of the corridor include vacant or undeveloped land, agricultural land, and residential land only where Caloosa is located. There are no planned residential developments along the Beeline Highway segment other than Caloosa. The linear facilities located on the south side of the Beeline Highway provide an opportunity to efficiently plan the transmission line corridor. From a land use perspective, the south side of State Road 710 (the Beeline Highway) would be a more appropriate location for a transmission line than the north side. Sharing of rights-of-way means either actually co-locating structures within the right-of-way or, for example, locating the FPL concrete structure within an FPL easement adjacent to the existing right-of-way but overhanging the conductors in the existing right-of-way. Such sharing of rights-of-way is important from a land use planning perspective in that it represents an opportunity to avoid impacting residential property and reduces the amount of land necessary for rights-of-way. Although it is FPL's preference to obtain its own rights-of-way, it is common practice for linear facilities to share rights- of-way. A transmission line is a linear facility. Along the Beeline Highway, FPL would have the opportunity to share existing rights-of-way on the south side of the Beelihe Highway with the Florida Department of Transportation, with the railroad, and with the other utilities in the utility easements. On the north side of the Beeline Highway, FPL would have the opportunity to share the Beeline Highway right-of-way. To locate the transmission line facility within the recreation, utility, and drainage easement within the Caloosa subdivision, FPL would need the approval of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District. It is the opinion of the Executive Director of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District that the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line should not be located north of the Beeline Highway in the Caloosa easement. The construction of the transmission line in that easement creates a potential for conflict between FPL's construction and maintenance of its transmission facility and the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District's maintenance of that easement and the canal system in Caloosa. Aesthetics At the PGA National community, on the south side of PGA Boulevard, there is currently a berm along the residential lot lines, approximately 4 feet in height with vegetation extending another 4 feet in height. Despite the presence of the berm, the 38-foot wooden distribution poles on the north side of PGA Boulevard are clearly visible from the backyards and patios of those residents living along PGA Boulevard as well as from the homes located across the street to the south. The transmission line structures in FPL's proposed corridor would be visible from the homes and the yards within the PGA National subdivision despite the berm and landscaping between the homes and the proposed 230 kV transmission line. Similarly, the transmission line structures would be visible from the homes and yards of the residents in the Martin Downs, Foxwood, Caloosa, Eastpointe and Palm Beach Country Estates subdivisions. Further, the entrance ways and entrance roads to those subdivisions and to the Old Marsh subdivision would be spanned by the proposed 230 kV transmission line. Although there are existing distribution lines along the roadways adjacent to those subdivision, those existing distribution lines utilize wooden poles approximately 38 feet high. On the other hand, the proposed Crane-Bridge- Plumosus transmission line will utilize concrete poles 80 feet or more in height, 2 feet wide at the base. The placement of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line in the FPL proposed corridor will result in a new visual intrusion to residents of existing and planned residential communities. The visual impact of the proposed line is not the same impact as the existing distribution lines and is not merely an increased impact over the existing distribution lines; rather, the proposed transmission line utilizing tall concrete poles is a different visual impact than that currently caused by any existing wooden distribution poles. FPL does not contemplate any landscaping improvements in constructing the transmission line in order to visually block the line from the view of adjacent residences and residential property. To screen the view of a power pole such as is contemplated by FPL for this transmission line from a home 100 feet from the transmission line would require a 35-foot-high vegetative buffer. A power pole 150 feet away would require a 28-foot-high vegetative buffer. At a distance of 300 feet, a 20-foot-high buffer would be required; at 500 feet, an 18-foot-high buffer would be required. The proposed Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line is not aesthetically pleasing and will have a substantial impact on the residents of subdivisions adjacent to it. Electric and Magnetic Fields When energized with electricity, a transmission line produces both electric and magnetic fields (hereinafter "EMF"). The Environmental Regulation Commission of DER adopted a rule on January 18, 1989, which established EMF standards to be met at the edge of transmission line rights-of-way or at the property boundary of new substations. Although the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line will meet the standards set forth in that rule, the rule itself specifically provides that the standards contained therein are interim standards pending further research and study. The rule provides that the standards contained within that rule will be re-visited within 2 years and further provides that there does exist evidence of potential for adverse health effects on the public and that existing knowledge is inadequate to conclude that no further action is needed. On the day following the passage of its EMF rule, the Environmental Regulation Commission passed a resolution recognizing the potential for adverse health effects on the public from EMF, and recognizing that it would be prudent to keep the long-term exposure of the population to low values of EMF by routing transmission lines outside of residential areas. That resolution specifically provided that new electric transmission lines of 69 kV or greater should be sited in a manner that would consolidate those lines with existing corridors, and, further, that new corridors should be planned in coordination with the land use plans of local governments to avoid placing corridors through residential areas. Members of the public testified in this proceeding that the recently- promulgated standards adopted by the Environmental Regulation Commission were not reassuring regarding public concerns of health hazards associated with electric and magnetic fields. The standards themselves are not a guarantee of safety. Moreover, the standards may not prove safe in the future. Of the numerous persons who testified at the two public hearings held in this cause, a substantial majority of them expressed fear for the health and welfare of themselves and their families from ENF. Burial of the transmission line within the FPL proposed corridor would alleviate the concerns of the residents of the PGA National, Caloosa, and Palm Beach Country Estates subdivisions who testified in this proceeding. Property Values Limited studies have been completed analyzing the impact of single concrete pole transmission lines on residential property values. Factors associated with power lines impacting property values include the proximity of homes to the line, the price range of the homes, the type of power line, lot sizes, and the public perception of transmission lines. The higher the price of the residence, the greater the potential impact on the residential value caused by a transmission line because purchasers of more expensive property favor and expect a more attractive visual environment. FPL's study of the impact of transmission lines on residential property values focused on communities on the west coast of Florida. That study was of little value since there was no showing of the similarity of the real estate markets in those communities and the real estate markets in Palm Beach County and Martin County. On the other hand, a Palm Beach County study indicated a devaluation of residential property as high as 32 percent when comparing sales of comparable homesites adjacent to and not adjacent to several types of transmission lines. Prior to the Final Hearing in this cause, parents of school age children had sued the Palm Beach County School Board to prevent the School Board from opening a new school facility which was built adjacent to large transmission lines. That litigation had been extensively covered by the media, and residents in at least Palm Beach County had become generally aware of the controversy regarding the impact of transmission lines on the health of children and the general population. That litigation was still pending at the time of the Final Hearing in this cause. At least in Palm Beach County there is a public perception that transmission lines are hazardous to human health. The public awareness of the controversy in Palm Beach County had caused one developer to cease sales of residential units located near transmission lines in that development. In other developments, the lots adjacent to transmission lines have been sized two or three times larger than lots located away from those transmission lines in order that the sales price of the lots near the lines could be comparable to the sales price of the lots away from the lines. Other developers have established large vegetative buffer areas or unusually wide setback areas between transmission lines and the lots nearest those transmission lines in order to offer to potential buyers an extra factor of privacy to compensate for the location of those homesites near transmission lines. In the Caloosa, PGA National, and Palm Beach Country Estates subdivisions, real estate sales have already been negatively impacted due to public knowledge of the proposed location of the FPL proposed corridor for the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line. The numerous public witnesses testifying in this proceeding believe the property value of their homes will be severely and negatively impacted if the transmission line is constructed near their property. No one testified in this proceeding that he or she would be willing to purchase a home, or live, in the near proximity of a 230 kV overhead transmission line. The public perception of adverse health effects from overhead transmission lines, coupled with the adverse visual or aesthetic impact of transmission lines in residential areas, does have an adverse effect on residential property values. Policies of Public Bodies Just as the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission has issued a policy statement that transmission lines should be routed away from residential communities, the regional planning agency and local governments in the geographical area through which the proposed Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line will be constructed have addressed similar positions. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewed the FPL proposed corridor for the Crane- Bridge-Plumosus transmission line and concluded that burial of the proposed transmission line within the FPL proposed corridor may represent the best solution to provide a balance between environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Palm Beach County, by Resolution passed on April 4, 1989, adopted the comments of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. That Resolution further strongly recommended that, based upon the policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan, as an additional condition of certification, the Crane- Bridge- Plumosus transmission line be placed underground where its right-of-way is to be located adjacent to existing or developing areas of densities of one unit per acre and above to minimize potential health, safety, aesthetic and property value impacts. The Resolution also recommended as a condition of certification that the FPL proposed corridor be narrowed to the south side of the Beeline Highway and the north side of PGA Boulevard to avoid the existing residential developments located on the north side of the Beeline Highway (Caloosa) and the south side of PGA Boulevard (PGA National). The current Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan even calls for the burial of electrical distribution facilities in new growth areas. Martin County also adopted the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's report on the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus line and, therefore, the same comments regarding burial of the proposed line within the FPL proposed corridor as the best balance among the competing interests. The City of Palm Beach Gardens, by Resolution adopted April 21, 1988, after reviewing the FPL proposed corridor for the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line, opposed the establishment of the corridor for the proposed above-ground transmission line on PGA Boulevard. The Resolution further recited that the impact of such transmission lines pertaining to potentially adverse health consequences from both electric and magnetic fields and to the aesthetic balance of the PGA National entrance ways and the general community being destroyed far outweighed the other values that could be placed on the proposed location of the corridor. The City Council of Palm Beach Gardens prefers an alternate corridor alignment corresponding to the alignment of the Alternate corridor. The subdivision regulations of the City of Palm Beach Gardens require electrical distribution lines to be placed underground, and the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan in its current draft calls for the burial of transmission lines. Burial Burial of transmission lines has been used as an alternative engineering design where, for example, the transmission line is to go through residential areas or is to be located in the vicinity of airports. The Crane- Bridge-Plumosus proposed corridor is located in the same area as the proposed North Palm Beach County General Aviation facility on the south side of the Beeline Highway near the Caloosa residential community. Burial of the transmission line would negate the impacts to the public described above, i.e., the potential impacts from electric and magnetic fields, and the negative impacts to property values based upon the visual impact of the transmission line and the public perception of the hazardous nature of the transmission line. From a land use perspective, from a transmission line engineering perspective, and from an environmental perspective, the burial of transmission lines is an appropriate and desirable design technique. Burial of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line is not a design modification since the proposed transmission line has not been finally designed. This proceeding involves only the location of the corridor in which the line is to be designed and constructed, and FPL will not determine the design of the line until after this cause has reached final resolution. Rather, burial of the transmission line is an appropriate condition of certification to be considered, similar to the other design criteria agreed to previously by FPL in Attachment D to the Prehearing Stipulation as other conditions for certification of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus corridor. The public bodies which have considered burial of the Crane-Bridge- Plumosus transmission line have determined burial to be an appropriate and desirable design condition for certification. Additionally, the witnesses who testified during the public hearing portions of this certification proceeding overwhelmingly endorsed burial of the transmission line as a condition of certification and expressed an enthusiastic willingness to pay the costs of that additional design criteria. Other Considerations During fair weather, noise from the proposed 230 kV transmission line normally will be below ambient levels. The noise from the proposed Crane- Bridge-Plumosus transmission line will comply with applicable local government noise ordinances. Radio and television interference from transmission lines is generally inversely proportional to the frequency of the radio or television transmission, the lower the frequency, the greater the potential for interference. FM radio transmissions, because of their higher frequency, have no noise interference from transmission lines. AM radio frequencies may be susceptible to interference from transmission lines. The effect can generally be corrected by simply adjusting the position of the receiver or antenna for the radio receiver. Television is broadcast using both AM and FM frequencies. The audio portion of the television is transmitted using FM frequency and, therefore, there is no transmission line interference. The video portion of television uses AM frequency and, therefore, may be susceptible to interference from foul weather on the lower television channels of 2 through 6. This interference can generally be corrected by reorienting the TV antenna. Pursuant to a condition of certification in Attachment D to the Prehearing Stipulation, FPL will investigate all complaints regarding radio and television interference and will provide appropriate mitigation for all impacts. If FPL complies with all of the conditions of certification contained in Attachment D to the Prehearing Stipulation, those conditions of certification agreed to in the settlement agreements entered into with Sands and with Martin Downs during the certification proceeding, the policies set forth in the resolutions of the public bodies discussed hereinabove, and the conditions of certification contained in this Recommended Order, then the Crane-Bridge- Plumosus 230 kV transmission line is expected to comply with all non-procedural requirements of agencies. Variances or exceptions from local zoning ordinances will likely be required, and these are expected to be obtained. Although none of the comprehensive plans of Martin County, Palm Beach County, the Town of Jupiter, or the City of Palm Beach Gardens requires transmission lines to be buried, the draft of the future Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan calls for the burial of transmission lines, and it is reasonable to believe that that provision will be retained in the final Comprehensive Plan in view of the policy statements of the City of Palm Beach Gardens discussed above. A waiver from the Martin County Comprehensive Plan prohibition on development in wetlands may be required once the ultimate right- of-way for the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line has been selected by FPL. I. Initial Costs FPL has provided estimated costs per mile for the construction and location of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus line in its proposed corridor, including right-of-way acquisition costs, line construction costs (conductor installation costs and all other construction costs) and access road construction costs. According to FPL's estimates, the total cost per mile for the location and construction of the transmission line along the entire distance of the FPL proposed corridor averages $297,500. For the 4.0 miles of the FPL proposed corridor segment located between the beginning of the PGA/OM Alternate corridor and the Bonnette Substation (that segment where the FPL proposed corridor and the PGA/OM Alternate corridor deviate from each other), FPL estimates the total cost per mile to be $273,400, for a total cost of $1,093,600 for that 4.0 mile segment. FPL estimates the total cost per mile for the location and construction of the Crane-Bridge-Plumosus transmission line in PGA/OM Alternate corridor 2A to be $425,700. FPL adds to that cost the sum of $640,300 for "relocating" the Ryder Substation to the west of the PGA/OM Alternate corridor. Using those figures, the total cost for PGA/OM Alternate corridor 2A for the 4.1 miles from the beginning of that corridor to the Bonnette Substation is $2,385,700. For the PGA/OM Alternate corridor 2B, FPL estimates the total cost per mile to be $458,300. Adding the cost of $640,300 for "relocating" the Ryder Substation, the total cost for the 5.2 miles of PGA/OM Alternate corridor 2B would be $3,025,500. It is erroneous to include in the cost estimates for the PGA/ON Alternate corridor the figure of $640,300 for the cost of relocating the Ryder Substation. First, no relocation is involved since the Ryder Substation does not exist. What does exist is a site that FPL has selected for placement of a substation to be called the Ryder Substation. Second, PGA/OM does not propose that the Ryder Substation be relocated to the west side of the Alternate corridor, but rather proposes that the Ryder Substation be relocated to the east side of the Alternate corridor, a difference of approximately 1,100 feet less. Even FPL's experts admit that relocating the Ryder Substation to the east side of the Alternate corridor rather than the west side would only cost $490,000, rather than the $640,300 which they have computed in their cost estimates. Third, the only cost identified in the "relocation" figure is the cost of distribution lines (radial feeds) which would be increased in length and therefore be more expensive due to locating the Ryder Substation one mile west of FPL's projected load center. Although computing the extra expense for the longer lines running in one direction, FPL fails to compute the decreased costs of the necessarily shorter lines running in the opposite direction. Most importantly, there is no basis for computing the costs of the location of the Ryder Substation and adding those costs to the cost estimates for the PGA/OM Alternate corridor since FPL does not compute the cost of the seven other intermediate substations in computing the costs of the transmission line to be constructed in FPL's proposed corridor. Since the cost of the substations along the FPL proposed corridor are not computed in FPL's cost estimates, so should the cost of the Ryder Substation be similarly excluded from the cost estimates for the Alternate corridor. Only the location of the Ryder Substation is at issue in this proceeding. Even if the costs of the Ryder Substation were an issue, they are highly speculative. The cost difference estimated by FPL between Alternate 2A and the FPL corridor is approximately $1.3 million. The cost difference estimated by FPL between Alternate 2B and the FPL corridor is approximately $2 million. Estimated costs are higher for the Alternate corridor, if evaluated under present conditions, in part due to the dissimilarity between the FPL proposed corridor and the Alternate corridor in the extent of roads available for construction and maintenance access purposes. The difference attributable to access road construction is speculative for two reasons: first, until FPL actually selects a right-of-way, the extent of access roads necessary in the FPL proposed corridor is uncertain. Second, approval of the Loxahatchee River Basin Water Resources Plan and/or the other two water management plans proposed in the area east of the C-18 Canal may well reduce the extent of access roads needed to be constructed in the Alternate corridor. It appears that transmission line initial costs for PGA/Old Marsh Alternate corridor 2A would be less than for Alternate corridor 2B, primarily because of Alternate corridor 2A's shorter length. FPL estimates costs for right-of-way acquisition in the FPL proposed corridor between Old Marsh and Eastpointe to be $39,000 per mile. FPL's estimate for right-of-way acquisition does not include the cost of acquisition of improvements within a right-of-way, severance damages, or costs of litigation. FPL calculated its estimated costs based upon present conditions and factors. Final costs of line construction may be substantially different from those estimates for both the FPL and the Alternate corridors based upon an increase or decrease in construction materials costs, the ability of FPL to enter into agreements with local governments or the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District for access easements, the ability of FPL to enter into agreements with private land owners for access easements, the ability of FPL to site the line to minimize wetlands impacts and the associated costs of mitigating those impacts, the ability of FPL to site the transmission line to minimize land use impacts existing at the time of actual siting and construction of the line, and the ability of FPL to use transmission line construction techniques developed during the time between the Final Hearing in this cause and the actual line construction that may further reduce construction line costs. These costs could vary whichever corridor is certified. Further, engineering design problems are created when a transmission line corridor is designed to go through already developed property or developing property as opposed to vacant land. Design problems which occur because the transmission line is designed for developed or developing property increase. The cost of the transmission line. Generally, the cost of constructing the transmission line is reduced where there is less congestion. As to the approximate cost for burial of a 230 kV transmission line, FPL estimates the cost per mile for materials and labor to install a double circuit 230 kV transmission line underground ranges from $1.6 million to $2.2 million. Added to these costs is $1.2 million for the two terminal ends required at the beginning and ending points of each underground segment of the transmission line, however many miles long that transmission line segment might be. The FPL estimates for burial costs are based upon historic FPL costs, such as the previous burial of transmission lines under Biscayne Bay. It is likely that such a project would have been more costly than burial of transmission lines in any of the segments of the corridors proposed for the Crane-Bridge- Plumosus transmission line. Another historical cost project in which FPL buried its transmission line was a project in which FPL chose to place that line underground because burial costs were much less expensive than the cost of acquiring the right-of-way needed through the residential area. Underground placement of 230 kV transmission lines is technically feasible and has been done by FPL in the past. The decision to bury transmission lines is primarily a decision based upon cost considerations. The costs of burying transmission lines are decreasing. Typical underground transmission line design calls for the cable to be oil-insulated and encased in concrete. Other technology involving solid dielectric trunk cable which is less expensive and easier to handle than oil-insulated cables has been used throughout Europe for many years. Other utility companies have buried transmission lines at less cost than FPL's estimates. The Jacksonville Electric Authority recently constructed an underground transmission project at a cost of approximately $1 million per mile utilizing typical oil-insulated technology. The utilization of solid dielectric cable would have been even less costly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving FPL's application for certification of its proposed `Crane- Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line corridor subject to the following conditions: FPL's proposed corridor shall be modified so that it substitutes PGA/OM Alternate 2A for that portion of the FPL proposed corridor from which PGA/OM Alternate corridor 2A deviates; The Ryder Substation siting area shall be moved so that it is located adjacent to PGA/OM Alternate 2A on the east side of that Alternate corridor; The transmission line shall be buried in all other segments of the FPL proposed corridor where the corridor is within 300 feet of any existing subdivisions as specifically described in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. FPL shall comply with all conditions set forth in Attachments A and B to this Recommended Order; and FPL shall seek any necessary interest in state lands prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting that land, pursuant to Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes. In the alternative and as a second choice to the recommendation contained in paragraph numbered 1, approving FPL's application for certification of its proposed Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230 kV transmission line corridor subject to the following conditions: FPL shall bury the transmission line where its proposed corridor is within 300 feet of existing subdivisions as specifically described in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order; FPL shall locate the Ryder substation in the interior portion of its proposed siting area and north of PGA Boulevard; FPL shall comply with all conditions set forth in Attachments A and B to this Recommended Order; and FPL shall seek any necessary interest in state lands prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting that land, pursuant to Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes. Dismissing as parties to this proceeding for non-appearance at the Final Hearing the Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Town of Jupiter, the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Donald Ross Landowners Association, Inc., and Box Ranch Management Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Martinez Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
