The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied payment of certain charges related to out-of-network surgical procedures pursuant to the State Employees’ PPO Group Health Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, who is now 29 years old, was an employee of the University of West Florida, and was enrolled as a member of the State Employees PPO Plan (Plan). She started employment with the University on December 1, 2007, and became enrolled in the Plan. Respondent was provided with the State Employees’ PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefits Document, effective January 1, 2007 (Plan Booklet). The Department of Management Services is responsible for all aspects of the purchase of health care for state employees, including those services provided under the Plan. Respondent is responsible for the administration of the state group insurance program. As authorized by law, Respondent has contracted with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida (now known as Florida Blue) as its third-party medical claim administrator of employee health insurance benefits. The Plan Booklet contains the terms and conditions of the state group insurance program applicable to this proceeding. The booklet provides, as part of its Summary of Benefits, that: When you go to non-network providers, this Plan pays benefits based on the non-network allowance. If your provider charges more than the non-network allowance, you are responsible for any amounts above the non- network allowance. In addition, because the Plan pays a lower benefit level for non- network care, you pay more out-of-pocket for non-network care. In selecting BCBSF as the Medical Claim Administrator for the state Employees’ PPO Plan, DSGI agreed to accept the non-network allowance schedule used by BCBSF to make payment for specific healthcare services submitted by non-network providers. Keep in mind that you will receive benefits at the non-network level whenever you use non-network providers, even if a network provider is unavailable. (Emphasis added). The booklet provides, in section 6, entitled About the Provider Network, that: In an effort to contain healthcare costs and keep premiums down, BCBSF has negotiated with PPCSM network healthcare providers to provide services to health Plan participants at reduced amounts. PPCSM network providers have agreed to accept as payment a set amount for covered services . . . . Non-network providers will bill you their regular charges. You will be responsible for a larger coinsurance and/or copayment, and you will be responsible for paying the difference between the provider’s charges and the amount established as the non- network allowance for the service. The non- network allowance may be considerably less than the amount the non-network provider charges. * * * An Important Note About Using Non-Network Providers To make sure you receive the highest level of benefits from the Plan, it’s important to understand when non-network benefits are paid. When you use non-network providers, you receive non-network benefits. Here are some examples. In some situations, your network provider may use, or recommend that you receive care from, a non-network provider. For example, your network family doctor says you need to see another doctor and recommends a non-network doctor. It is your choice; you decide whether to go to the recommended non-network doctor or to ask your doctor for another recommendation to a network doctor. In this example, even though your family doctor is a network doctor, you will receive non-network benefits if you go to the recommended non- network doctor. Sometimes the health care professional you need to see is not in the network. You receive non-network benefits when you use non-network providers, even if no network provider is available. From an early age, Petitioner was plagued with symptoms of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder. When she was seven or eight years old, Petitioner began to experience clicking in her jaw, and her jaw would occasionally lock. The symptoms soon abated. While she was in sixth grade, Petitioner was fitted for orthodontic braces. The braces were removed when she was 12 or 13 years old. When Petitioner was in her early teens, the clicking in her jaw reappeared. The clicking was now accompanied by pain in her jaw muscles, which was likened to that experienced from a migraine headache. Petitioner was referred to an oral surgeon regarding her jaw symptoms. The surgeon recommended a course of physical therapy for her jaw, and placed her on a diet that eliminated foods that were “chewy.” Despite those measures, Petitioner’s jaw began to periodically lock open. At the age of 16, Petitioner had her wisdom teeth removed. While that procedure resulted in a cessation of the locking, Petitioner could only open her mouth about one-quarter of the way. She was also prescribed Tylenol #3, which contained codeine, for pain. At the age of 16 or 17, Petitioner was given splints to keep her jaw in alignment. Petitioner was clenching her teeth so hard in response to the pain, that she broke several splints during the first year that she had them. By the time she was 19 years old, Petitioner’s headaches were “out of control.” She was referred to the facial pain center at the University of Florida, where she was fitted with custom-made splints. She was provided with a course of physical therapy, and was prescribed muscle relaxers. When she returned home from college for the summer, she did the recommended physical therapy, which was effective in relieving her symptoms for a few months. Petitioner was subsequently referred to Dr. Widmer, a physician at the University of Florida. Dr. Widmer performed an arthrocentesis, by which a steroid solution was injected into Petitioner’s temporomandibular joints. The procedure was ineffective. By 2006, when Petitioner was 23 years old, the opening of her mouth began to be accompanied by a “squishing” noise. Dr. Widmer referred Petitioner to Dr. Margaret Dennis. Dr. Dennis ordered an MRI of Petitioner’s jaw to determine if there was any bone damage. The MRI revealed that the bones of the temporomandibular joint were degraded, and that the disk material was calcified. Dr. Dennis increased the dosage of Petitioner’s pain medications to handle the pain associated with her condition. After a period of time, and with Petitioner having little relief from her symptoms, Dr. Dennis referred her to Dr. Mark Piper, a physician who is board-certified in oral and maxillo-facial surgery. Dr. Piper maintains his office in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner had her first appointment with Dr. Piper in August 2009. Dr. Piper ordered a level 3 MRI, which produced a clearer picture than her earlier MRI, as well as a CAT scan. He took imprints of Petitioner’s teeth, and performed a physical examination of the bones of Petitioner’s jaw. The results of the imaging and the physical exam showed severe and active degeneration of Petitioner’s temporomandibular joints, especially the right joint. To remedy Petitioner’s physical condition, Dr. Piper recommended a bilateral arthroplasty of Petitioner’s jaw, consisting of a fat graft to the right temporomandibular joint, and a procedure involving the disk tissue to the left temporomandibular joint. Given the exhaustion of more conservative forms of treatment, arthroplasty was, by this point, appropriate and medically necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s condition. On August 25, 2009, Dr. Piper provided Petitioner with a statement summarizing his diagnosis, and providing an explanation of his recommended course of action. Petitioner provided Dr. Piper’s statement to BCBSF to explain the necessity for her proposed out-of-network treatment. The evidence suggests that Petitioner provided the CPT codes for the recommended procedures at issue. CPT codes are a system by which medical services are assigned numbers to describe those services, and are used by insurers to establish a uniform schedule of reimbursement. On a case-by-case basis, the numbers are provided by medical service providers to describe the services they have rendered. Respondent maintains a business record of all communications between it and its customers. On August 27, 2009, those records reflect that a telephonic request for information was received either from or regarding Petitioner. The notation regarding the request for information stated, in pertinent part: PRICING FOR PROC CODES 21240 AND 69990 RELATED TO TREATMENT OF TMJ NEEDED, PROV IS 62468....ALLOWANCES ARE 1168.09 AND 252.53 Petitioner acknowledged that she received the information regarding the rates, but understood the rates to be estimated amounts, and not official because the person with whom she spoke could not give final figures over the telephone. Later on August 27, 2009, Respondent’s records reflect that a second telephonic request for information was received either from or regarding Petitioner. The notation regarding the request for information stated, in pertinent part: MEMBER S REQUESTING TO SPK WITH THE VPCR [Voluntary Pre-coverage Review] AREA AS SHE WANTS PRIOR APPROVAL OF CODES 21240 AND 69990 FOR THE TREATMENT OF TMJ....I ADVISED HER OF THE PROCESS AND TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THE LMN [Letter of Medical Necessity] AND SUPPORTING DOCS IF THE NON PAR PROV IS UNWILLING TO CALL OUR OFFICE..I EXPLAINED THAT THE DET WOULD BE MADE AND IF ADDTLS DOCS ARE REQD, THIS WOULD BE ADVISED ALSO, ADV MEMBER SHE CAN WITH FAX OR MAIL TO AD ON THE BACK OF INS CARD. Respondent’s records reflect no further telephonic inquiries regarding Petitioner until October 19, 2009. Petitioner scheduled her surgery with Dr. Piper for September 16, 2009. Petitioner testified that approximately one week prior to the scheduled surgery, BCBSF sent an e-mail to Petitioner providing her with the name of a network provider in Jacksonville who could perform the surgery necessary to resolve her TMJ issues. She further testified that she contacted the network provider’s office, and was advised by a Dr. Milton that the medical group could not perform the surgery. Petitioner testified that she advised BCBSF of that information, and advised BCBSF that there was no one in-network that could perform the surgery. A copy of the e-mail was not provided, nor was there evidence to otherwise corroborate the described events. Therefore, no finding can be made as to that alleged series of communications. Respondent maintains a list of network health care providers by specialty type and location. The list is available on-line. The list includes a number of oral and maxillofacial surgeons located in the Jacksonville area. However, one cannot determine from the list whether a provider is capable of performing a particular procedure under the specialty. The evidence demonstrates that Dr. Piper is an accomplished oral and maxillofacial surgeon, with particular expertise in disc removal and fat graft placement surgery for the temporomandibular joint. However, even if Dr. Piper is the surgeon most qualified to perform the procedure, that does not mean he is the surgeon singularly qualified to perform the procedure. Dr. Imray testified that he has referred patients for bilateral arthroplastic procedures on many occasions. His referrals were generally to oral and maxillofacial surgeons practicing at teaching centers in Jacksonville and Gainesville. Although he could not testify whether such surgeons were in the State Employees’ PPO network without consulting his PPO reference book, he could recall no instance of having had to refer a patient to an out-of-network provider, “because most of the teaching centers take most of the plans.” The evidence in this case failed to demonstrate that there were no network providers capable of performing the procedures medically necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s TMJ issues. Having concluded that Dr. Piper afforded her with the greatest likelihood for a successful outcome, Petitioner proceeded with the surgery as scheduled. After a recovery period of two years, which included braces to adjust her teeth to fit her repaired and aligned temporomandibular joints, the surgery has proven to be a complete success. Petitioner testified convincingly that the surgery was a life-changing event. The total cost to Petitioner for the surgical and immediate post-operative procedures was $30,005.00. In November, 2009, Petitioner began the process of filing her claim with BCBSF. After some difficulties, the submission of the claim was completed in January, 2010. The amount billed to BCBSF was $29,976.00. The bulk of the charge, in the amount of $24,650.00, was for the procedure identified by Dr. Piper as CPT Code 21240. The documentation submitted clearly indicated -- both by the description of the CPT Code 21240 procedure as “Bilateral TMJ Arthroplasty” and by the listing of the modifier code “50”, which was the code assigned for procedures that were bilateral -- that the arthroplasty procedure was bilateral. On March 11, 2010, BCBSF notified Petitioner that it would reimburse her medical expenses related to the surgery in the amount of $1,526.57. That amount included $1,168.09 for the arthroplasty (CPT Code 21240), and $358.48 for the surgical splint (CPT Code 21085). BCBSF indicated that it would not pay the $1,650.00 charge for the operating microscope (CPT Code 69990) on the basis that the charge was incidental to the primary arthroplasty procedure, and therefore included in the $1,168.09 allowance for that procedure. BCBSF also denied payment for a ZZ Therabite (CPT Code 99070). The reimbursement amount was calculated by applying the CPT Codes provided by Dr. Piper to the BCBSF fee schedule. The amount was then further adjusted by the non-network payment allowance to reach the final reimbursable amount. The process is mechanical, and involves no exercise of discretion. In that regard, the reimbursement for the arthroplasty was identical to the estimate provided to Petitioner on August 27, 2009. The evidence demonstrates that the amounts paid to Petitioner for CPT Code 21240 procedures and the CPT Code 21085 surgical splint were accurately derived through application of the BCBSF fee schedule allowance to the procedure codes provided by Dr. Piper. However, as to the arthroplasty procedure, the evidence further demonstrates that the amount paid was based on a single procedure. The arthroplasty performed by Dr. Piper was a bilateral procedure, which was clearly disclosed on the claim form. According to Kevin Tincher, BCBSF’s senior manager of coding and professional payment, Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for both procedures, with the reason given for not paying for both being Dr. Piper’s failure to bill each part of the bilateral procedure on separate lines of the claim form. Given the lack of any instruction requiring that the two sides of a single bilateral procedure be billed on separate lines, especially given the application of the modifier code “50” to indicate a bilateral procedure, the information provided on the claim form was neither deficient nor in error. When two procedures of the same type are performed on the same day, the BCBSF fee schedule calls for reimbursement for the second procedure at a rate of 50 percent of the allowance for the first procedure. Under that schedule, Petitioner should have been reimbursed an additional $584.05, i.e., 50 percent of the $1,168.09 allowance for the first CPT Code 21240 procedure. The evidence demonstrates that the Therabite device (CPT Code 99070) was “appropriate and acceptable” in Petitioner’s case. Thus, the device was medically necessary under the circumstances. Petitioner should have been reimbursed, at the non-network rate, for that device. During the hearing, Jessica Bonin, BCBSF’s Critical Inquiry Analyst, admitted that the post-operative CT scan -- CPT Code 70486 -- in the amount of $301.93, should have been paid, but that the claim had not been reprocessed by BCBSF. Respondent further admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order that payment in the amount of $301.93 should be made for the post-operative CT scan. It is so found. Petitioner initiated a Level I appeal with BCBSF. She provided BCBSF with as much of her medical history as she could locate, a list of medications, and all of the records, photographs, and X-rays that she could access. She also provided a letter from Dr. Piper, dated March 18, 2010, in which he detailed the services provided to Petitioner. Dr. Piper’s description suggests that the services provided to Petitioner were extensive, but did not suggest that the procedure itself varied from the procedure described in CPT Code 21240. However, Dr. Piper did reaffirm that the surgery was a bilateral procedure involving both of Petitioner’s temporomandibular joints. BCBSF did not change its decision as a result of the Level I Appeal. On May 14, 2010, Petitioner filed a Level II Appeal with Respondent. On June 16, 2010, the Level II Appeal was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services enter a final order finding that Petitioner is entitled to additional reimbursement for her medical expenses as set forth herein.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2012.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are: whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the application of Progress Energy Florida (PEF) to certify and license the construction and operation of a 2200 megawatt (MW) (nominal) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines; and, if so, what conditions of certification should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), provides electricity and related services to approximately 1.7 million customers in the state of Florida. PEF's retail service area spans 35 counties over about 20,000 square miles in central and west Florida. In Florida, PEF operates and maintains more than 43,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines that serve a population of more than 5 million people. PEF owns and operates a diverse mix of electrical generating units in Florida, including approximately 47 combustion turbines, 5 combined cycle units, 12 fossil units, and one nuclear unit at PEF's Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). The CREC is located in northwest Citrus County approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 19 on the Gulf of Mexico. There are five generating facilities within the CREC; four units are coal-fired and one is a nuclear unit. PEF considered locating new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC, but determined that would concentrate too much electrical generation at one site. PEF proposes to build and operate a two-unit nuclear- powered electrical generating facility in Levy County (LNP). Directly associated facilities include a heavy haul road used for construction (Levy County), two site access roads (Levy County), and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines (Levy and Citrus Counties). PEF also seeks certification of nine transmission corridors associated with eleven electrical transmission lines: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed LNP to proposed Citrus Substation, two 500-kV Transmission Lines (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LPC" Lines; Crystal River Transmission Line — proposed LND to existing CREC Switchyard, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LCR" Line; Sumter Transmission Line — proposed LNP to proposed Central Florida South Substation, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter and Lake Counties and Municipalities of Wildwood and Leesburg), also referred to as the "LCFS" Line; Levy North Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-High Springs Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County), also referred to as the "IS" Line; Levy South Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-Ocala Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County and Town of Inglis), also referred to as the "IO" Line; Brookridge Transmission Line — existing CREC Switchyard to existing Brookridge Substation, one 230 kV Transmission Line (Citrus and Hernando Counties), also referred to as the "CB" Line; Brooksville West Transmission Line — existing Brookridge Substation to existing Brooksville West Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Hernando County), also referred to as the "BBW" Line; Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed Citrus Substation to existing Crystal River East Substation, two 230-kV Transmission Lines (Citrus County), also referred to as the "CCRE" Lines; and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line — existing Kathleen Substation to existing Lake Tarpon Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and municipalities of Tampa, Plant City and Oldsmar), also referred to as the "Kathleen" Line. Need for the Project The PSC issued its Final Order determining the need for the Project on August 12, 2008. The PSC found: "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for fuel diversity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for base-load generating capacity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost"; "[t]here are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to PEF which might mitigate the need for Levy Units 1 and 2"; and "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide the most cost-effective source of power." The PSC also found a need for the associated transmission lines. New transmission lines are required to interconnect and integrate the proposed plant into PEF's existing transmission grid and to reliably deliver bulk power to PEF's load centers. Load flow studies were conducted by PEF system planners to identify the appropriate transmission end- points and voltages. The proposed transmission lines in PEF's proposed corridors satisfy the need for transmission lines as determined by the PSC. Public Notice and Outreach PEF has engaged in extensive public outreach for the selection of the LNP site and for the transmission line corridors. With regard to the plant portion of the Project, PEF's outreach efforts have included communications with local community leaders, press releases, communications with state and federal legislators, dissemination of information to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the plant via mailings and open houses, and participation in community and advisory groups. With regard to the electrical transmission line portion of the Project, public involvement has been key to the corridor selection process. PEF developed a Community Partnership for Energy Planning (CPEP) process to gain feedback from members of the community in a manner that would most effectively involve the community in the transmission line corridor selection process. Through the CPEP process, PEF established leadership teams in three geographic regions: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties; Citrus, Hernando, and Levy Counties; and Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The leadership teams identified and selected more than 100 community representatives to participate in regional Utility Search Conferences. The Utility Search Conferences involved intensive two-day discussions of local issues and the future of electricity supply in the region. The purpose of the conferences was to inform the participants about the Project, to gain public input, and to allow participants to nominate community members to become part of the Community Working Groups for the remainder of the Project. PEF formed the Community Working Groups to further study and refine the recommendations of the conferences as well as to provide ongoing input to PEF throughout the Project. PEF also held open houses in February and March 2008 to involve the public in the transmission line corridor selection process. PEF used newspaper advertisements, press releases, and direct mail letters to facilitate public awareness of the open houses. Over 2,900 people attended the open houses, and PEF received completed written questionnaires from 2,071 attendees. The goal of PEF's public outreach program (with regard to both the plant and transmission lines) was to provide information in a transparent manner to the public and to provide ample opportunity and many avenues for the public to provide input during all phases of the Project. In total, PEF has conducted over 40 public presentations and sent communications to more than 125,000 property owners and stakeholders regarding the Project. Many of PEF's outreach efforts have been beyond the efforts required by law. Pursuant to Section 403.5115(6), Florida Statutes, PEF provided direct notice by mail of the filing of the SCA to all landowners whose property and residences are located within: three miles of the proposed main site boundaries of the LNP; one-quarter mile of a transmission line corridor that only includes a transmission line as defined by Section 403.522(22), Florida Statutes; and (3) one-quarter mile for all other linear associated facilities extending away from the main site boundary. PEF timely submitted a list of the landowners and residences notified to DEP's Siting Coordination Office (SCO), as required by Section 403.5115(6)(b), Florida Statutes. PEF made copies of the SCA available at two of its offices and ten public libraries. In addition, PEF provided copies to all local governments and agencies within whose jurisdiction portions of the Project will be located. DEP made an electronic version of the document available on its website. On June 19, 2008, PEF published notice of the filing of the SCA in the Ocala Star-Banner, the Hernando Today, the Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Villages Daily Sun, the Levy County Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, the Citrus County Chronicle, the Sumter County Times, the Hernando Times, and the North Pinellas Times, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(3). On December 18, 2008, PEF published notice of the certification hearing in the same newspapers, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(7). PEF published amended notices of the site certification hearing in the same newspapers on February 17, 2009. DEP also published notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All notices required by law were timely published and/or provided in accordance with Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes. Agency Reports and Stipulations Agency reports and proposed conditions of certification on the plant-related facilities of the Project were submitted to DEP by: (1) the PSC; (2) DCA; (3) SWFWMD; (4) Levy County; (5) FWC; (6) the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council; and (7) DOT. All of these agencies either recommended approval of the Project or otherwise did not object to certification. Although Citrus County did not file an agency report, it recommended approval of the LNP in the prehearing stipulation of the parties. Affected state, regional, and local agencies reviewed the SCA and submitted to DEP reports concerning the impact of the transmission lines on matters within their respective jurisdictions and proposed conditions of certification, as required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes. None of the agencies involved in the review process have recommended that the proposed electrical transmission line corridors be denied or modified. On September 25, 2008, DEP issued its written analysis on the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of conditions of certification. The conditions of certification were subsequently revised to reflect agreed-upon language. DEP recommended that the PEF proposed transmission line corridors be certified subject to the conditions of certification. On January 12, 2009, DEP prepared a Staff Analysis Report (SAR) compiling all of the agency reports on the power plant, proposing conditions of certification, and making an overall recommendation. DEP recommended certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification. The conditions of certification attached to the SAR have been superseded by the Fourth Amended Conditions of Certification filed by DEP as DEP Exhibit 1 on March 23, 2009. PEF is committed to constructing the LNP in accord with these conditions. Plant and Associated Facilities2 Project Overview PEF's proposed nuclear-powered electric generating facility (the LNP) will be located in Levy County. The LNP site is east of U.S. Highway 19 and approximately four miles north of the Town of Inglis and the Levy-Citrus County border. The LNP site contains approximately 3,105 acres, with the two reactors and ancillary power production support facilities located near the center of the site. The majority of the LNP site is currently active silviculture and is unimproved. The proposed heavy haul road and pipelines will be located in corridors south of the LNP site. Two site access roads will tie into U.S. Highway 19 west of the site and proceed east to the main plant area. PEF also owns a second 2,000-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the LNP site, which provides access to a water supply in the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as well as containing the heavy haul road and electrical transmission line corridors that exit the LNP site. Project Description The LNP will include two 1,100 megawatt (MW) (nominal) generating units (LNP 1 and LNP 2) designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The reactor design has received an official design certification from the NRC and is referred to as the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (AP1000). The AP1000 is a standardized, advanced passive pressurized-water nuclear reactor. PEF proposes to place LNP 1 in commercial service by 2016 and LNP 2 in commercial service by 2017. In the AP1000, the reactor core heats water which flows through the reactor cooling system in the primary loop. The reactor coolant pump circulates water through the reactor core. A pressurizer is used to maintain a constant pressure in the primary loop. The heated water flows to the steam generator and through a combination of U-shaped tubes, transferring heat to a separate, independent closed-loop water system, or the secondary loop. Inside the steam generator, the water in the secondary loop boils and is separated in dryers which produce high quality steam. The reactor, the four coolant pumps, and the two steam generators are contained in the containment shield building for each unit. Within the shield building, a steel containment structure surrounds the reactor and steam generators. A passive cooling water tank, which will provide emergency cooling, sits in the top of the containment shield building. The steam in the secondary loop is routed to the adjacent turbine building where it goes into a high-pressure turbine and then three low pressure turbines. The steam produces the force to turn the turbines, which then turn the electrical generator. Electricity is then sent to the on-site switchyard for transmission. The steam exhausting from the turbines moves into the condenser where it comes into contact with the cold surfaces of the tubes in the condenser, which contain water circulating from the cooling tower. The steam condenses back to water. The condensed water is collected in the bottom of the condenser and pumped back into the steam generator. The cycle then repeats. Other components of the AP1000 design include an annex building which contains the main control room; a fuel handling area where new fuel is received and spent fuel is stored; and a diesel generator building. Two cooling towers, three stormwater runoff ponds, and one electrical transmission 500 kV switchyard serving both units are also to be located near the generating units. Each LNP unit will be equipped with a recirculating cooling water system, including a cooling tower, that supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers. The cooling tower makeup water system supplies water to the cooling tower to replace water consumed as a result of evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The LNP's cooling water intake will be located on the CFBC. Cooling water will be conveyed to the LNP site via pipelines. The proposed corridor for the cooling water intake and wastewater discharge pipelines is approximately 13 miles long and 0.25 miles wide. The intake pipeline corridor extends south from the LNP site to the CFBC. The wastewater discharge corridor then turns westerly along the CFBC for six miles before turning south along the western side of an existing PEF transmission line and enters the CREC. As part of its pending application for an NPDES permit, PEF has proposed that LNP wastewater be released into the existing CREC discharge canal. Materials needed to construct the LNP will be delivered via: (1) U.S. Highway 19; and (2) a barge slip on the CFBC in conjunction with the heavy haul road for large components. The heavy haul road, to be used primarily during construction, will be co-located with the makeup and blowdown pipeline corridor south of the LNP site. Federally-Required Approvals The LNP is also subject to the construction and operation approval of the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, PEF has submitted a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) to the NRC. PEF submitted the COLA for the LNP on July 30, 2008. The NRC's review is in progress, and a decision on the application is expected in late 2011. PEF has also requested a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) from the NRC. The LWA request covers the installation of a perimeter diaphragm wall and preliminary foundation work for the two units, and related buildings that are not nuclear safety-related items. An NRC-certified design for the AP1000 allows an applicant for NRC COL approval to avoid readdressing matters that the NRC has already considered when reviewing an individual COLA that uses that standard design. This approach is expected to provide more predictability and reduce the NRC's licensing review process. For PEF, the advantages of a standard design include the ability to apply lessons learned from other projects being constructed ahead of the LNP, as well as improved performance in cost and scheduling. PEF is seeking certification under the PPSA prior to completion of the NRC approval because state site certification will allow PEF to begin early site preparation (such as access roads) and will allow PEF to proceed to acquire property rights within the electrical transmission corridors. The NRC regulates radiological effluents and monitoring at nuclear power plants. The state of Florida does not have regulations specifically applicable to regulation of spent nuclear fuel. Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plants are required to have radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMPs). Part of the REMP is an offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Bureau of Radiation Monitoring, performs much of the monitoring in the ODCM at nuclear power plants under an agreement with the NRC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b); Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-5. The FDOH also monitors groundwater wells in the vicinity of a nuclear plant for numerous parameters, including radiological releases. In addition to the separate NRC approvals, PEF has filed applications with DEP for [a federally-required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit under the federal Clean Air Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] permit under the federal Clean Water Act, and (in accordance with 403.506(3), Florida Statutes) a state-required environmental resource permit (ERP) from DEP for construction of a new barge slip on the CFBC. DEP issued the final PSD air construction permit on February 20, 2009. DEP has not taken final agency action on the pending NPDES permit application. Federally-required permits issued by the DEP under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not subject to the PPSA. The PPSA provides that federal permits are reviewed and issued separately by the DEP, but in parallel with the PPSA process to the extent possible. Upon issuance, these federal permits will be incorporated into the conditions of certification. The separate DEP-issued ERP will also be incorporated by reference into the final site certification. Water Use The LNP has two primary needs for water: (1) saltwater to cool the steam condensers (circulating water); and (2) freshwater for power generation and component cooling (service water). Freshwater will be drawn from the upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater will be supplied from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC. A circulating water system can be designed to use either freshwater or saltwater. Common design practice is to use the most abundant source; so saltwater was selected for the LNP. The service water system components for the LNP are established by Westinghouse for the AP1000 standard design and require freshwater. The service water system for the AP1000 reactor has been designed to provide an efficient means of cooling plant components with a relatively small demand for freshwater. Most of the water to be used at the LNP site will be needed for steam condenser cooling which will take place in two cooling towers; one for each unit. The source for cooling tower makeup water will be surface saline water withdrawn from the CFBC. Approximately 122 million gallons per day (mgd) will be withdrawn from the CFBC for cooling water needs. A new intake structure would be constructed on the canal bank at a site south of the LNP site and west of the Inglis Lock on the CFBC, approximately 6.5 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Saltwater will be pumped from the CFBC and directed into the cooling tower basin. The circulating water system is a closed-cycle cooling system and is the primary heat sink for the plant during normal operation. Circulating water pumps direct water to the steam condenser to cool the steam after it passes through the main turbines. The heated saltwater is then returned to the cooling towers where it is cooled by air flow and returned to the cooling tower basin. The LNP recirculating cooling water will be cooled by induced draft, counter-flow, mechanical cooling towers. For each unit's cooling tower, there are 44 cooling tower cells, grouped into two banks of 22 cells each. Each of the cooling tower cells will be approximately 75-feet tall. The total length of each 22-cell cooling tower is approximately 1,200 feet. The LNP will have a continuous need to utilize cooling water. Most of the water loss in the cooling towers is a result of evaporation of the water being cooled in the cooling towers. A small amount of circulating water is lost from the cooling towers as liquid droplets entrained in the exhaust air steam. This is known as "drift." When water evaporates from the cooling tower, minerals and solids are left behind. As more water evaporates, the concentration of these materials increases. This concentration is controlled by continuously releasing and replenishing some water from the tower. Accordingly, both saltwater and freshwater are continuously discharged from the plant to help maintain proper water chemistry. This continuous release of water is called "blowdown" and, as proposed in PEF's pending NPDES application, it will be discharged to the discharge canal for the CREC and then into the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III marine water. The LNP will require up to 1.58 mgd, annual average, of freshwater. This freshwater will be used for plant operations, fire suppression, potable water needs, and demineralized water needs. Groundwater will be withdrawn from four supply wells at the south end of the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. The AP1000 service water system requires freshwater for use in component cooling. The service water system provides cooling water for the nonsafety-related component cooling water heat exchangers. Demineralized water is processed to remove ionic impurities and dissolved oxygen and is used for plant operations that require pure water, primarily the feed water and condensate systems used in power production. When operational, the LNP site must be capable of supplying potable water to approximately 800 employees and visitors daily. Potable water will also be needed for onsite construction. The fire protection system will be capable of providing water to points throughout the plant where wet system fire suppression could be required. The fire suppression system is designed to supply water at a flow rate and pressure sufficient to satisfy the demand of automatic sprinkler systems and fire hoses for a minimum of 2 hours. Cooling Water Intake Structure The LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) will be located on the berm that forms the north side of the CFBC approximately 3 miles south of the LNP, downstream of the Inglis Lock. The CWIS will withdraw surface water into four intake pipelines (two for each nuclear unit) that will convey water to the cooling tower basins for use in the cooling towers. These 54-inch diameter pipelines will generally be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipelines will cross over the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel located north of the CFBC on an approximately 33-foot-wide utility bridge. For each of the LNP units, the CWIS will contain three 50 percent capacity makeup pumps, each with a design flow rate of 23,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Two pumps will provide normal cooling tower makeup flow requirements for each unit. The third spare pump will be in standby mode and automatically start if one of the operating pumps shuts down for any reason. A dual-flow traveling screen upstream of each makeup pump will screen floating and suspended materials in the CFBC water. The screen opening will be 3/8-inch. The screens will be sized to ensure that the through-screen water velocity is no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that could enter the pump bay. The velocity of the water in the intake bay upstream of the traveling screens (the approach velocity) will be about 0.25 fps. Upstream of the traveling screens will be trash racks (also referred to as bar racks). These are a series of steel bars (4 inches apart) to prevent large objects from entering the CWIS. Potential Impacts of Surface Water Intake Cooling water will be withdrawn via the CWIS from a section of the CFBC that extends approximately 7 miles from the Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. Operation of the Inglis Lock was discontinued in 1999; the lock separates Lake Rousseau (to the east) from this section of the CFBC. This section of the CFBC has a continuous opening to the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC bisects the Withlacoochee River, severing the original hydraulic connection between Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River. To maintain flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River which is north of the CFBC, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel and associated Inglis Lock Spillway were built adjacent to the Inglis Lock (north of the CFBC). Flows in the CFBC are primarily a result of tides coming in and out from the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, rainfall. Periodically, freshwater is released from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC via the Inglis Dam. Also, there is some groundwater seepage into the CFBC as well as minor leakage from the Inglis Lock. Residence time for water in the CFBC near the proposed CWIS is currently over 200 days; there is very little outflow. Waters in the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock vary in salinity seasonally, with tidal influences, and depending on freshwater releases from the Inglis Dam. On average, the salinity in the area of the CFBC where the intake structure is proposed to be located is approximately 10 parts per thousand (ppt). As the CFBC approaches the Gulf of Mexico, salinity increases, averaging over 20 ppt and as high as 30 ppt. The CFBC ranges from approximately 200-to-260 feet wide. There is vegetation along the banks, as well as riprap, the latter consisting of huge rocks to limit erosion. The upper end of this section of the CFBC has algal blooms during the summer and muddy, silty bottom conditions that limit biological activity. The CFBC does not have seagrass beds that serve as aquatic habitat, except downstream where it joins with the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC does not serve as significant habitat for endangered fish species, such as the Gulf Sturgeon or Smalltooth Sawfish. Although freshwater and saltwater species may use the CFBC occasionally, it does not serve as significant spawning habitat for any migratory, sport, or commercial fish species. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of certification, pre- operational monitoring and sampling in the CFBC will be used to identify any changes in the use of that canal by such fish species. With regard to the remnant section of the Withlacoochee River between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC (Old Withlacoochee River, or OWR), the biota in the middle and lower reaches of that waterbody currently show the effects of variable salinity levels; these areas are characterized by organisms typically found in marine conditions. The upper reach of the OWR has species normally found in freshwater systems. Aquatic species in the OWR are affected by periodic releases from the Inglis Dam. The LNP CWIS hydraulic zone of influence on the CFBC extends about 5 miles to the west down the approximately 7-mile long CFBC. The hydraulic zone of influence defines the point at which the flow of the CFBC would be affected by the CWIS, under static conditions. In its biological analysis, PEF assumed that potential intake impacts would extend beyond this hydraulic zone of influence. After installation and operation of the LNP CWIS, the dominant forces affecting flow conditions in the CFBC will continue to be primarily tidal activity and releases from Lake Rousseau. The CFBC will become more saline. However, installation and operation of the LNP CWIS will improve flow conditions in the CFBC by adding consistent and very slow upstream movement of about 122 mgd. The LNP CWIS will cause the saline-freshwater transition zone to move up the remnant channel of the OWR, south of the CFBC. The increased salinity is not expected to affect the small enclave of freshwater organisms living in that upper segment of the OWR. Potential adverse impacts from a CWIS include entrainment (when organisms smaller than the screen openings enter the cooling water) and impingement (when organisms larger than the screen openings become trapped on the screen). Potential impacts of entrainment and impingement will be minimized because the LNP CWIS will utilize a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system which will reduce the amount of cooling water required by approximately 90 percent; the through-screen velocity will be 0.5 fps or less; and the LNP will not disrupt thermal stratification in the CFBC. Under federal law, DEP will make the final determination of compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requirements in the NPDES permit. The LNP CWIS is not expected to pose a threat to threatened or endangered species or migratory, sport, or other fish species. Monitoring for fish species in the CFBC will be undertaken under the FWC's proposed conditions of certification to identify any actual impacts to such species and the need for any mitigation for such impacts. Locating the CWIS near the Inglis Lock on the CFBC will result in less entrainment and impingement impacts compared to potential locations closer to the mouth of the CFBC or in nearby off-shore waters. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a post-certification survey and monitoring plan for the CFBC and Withlacoochee River to assess actual impacts of the withdrawals for the LNP on these water bodies. If, after review of the annual reports required by these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a CFBC and/or Withlacoochee River mitigation plan to mitigate those impacts. As part of its pending NPDES permit application, PEF submitted a "316(b) Demonstration Study" to address compliance with intake standards applicable to the LNP CWIS. Final agency action on the NPDES permit application, including a determination of compliance with Section 316(b) regulations, has not been taken by DEP. Under 40 C.F.R., Subpart I, Sections 125.80-125.89, if pre- and post-operational monitoring demonstrates unacceptable adverse impacts associated with the CWIS, operational and technological improvements to the CWIS may be required. Under the proposed conditions of certification, the final NPDES permit for the LNP will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Operation of the CWIS is expected to have a negligible impact on saltwater intrusion in the area bounded to the south by the CFBC and to the north by the Lower Withlacoochee River. The waters of the CFBC are marine waters. There currently is stratification in the CFBC, with higher salinity along the bottom of the water column. The change in density of water in the CFBC as a result of the increased salinity due to the LNP's proposed water use in the CFBC is not expected to affect freshwater resources. The tide in the CFBC currently fluctuates 2-3 feet twice per day. The construction of the CFBC and the bisection of the Withlacoochee River have resulted in reduced freshwater flows in the lower portion of the Withlacoochee River north of the CFBC. There is no direct connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River (north of the CFBC). The flow in the By- pass Channel provides less freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River than historically flowed into the lower portion of the River. This has caused saltwater to move up the Lower Withlacoochee River, particularly during periods of low flow. SWFWMD has evaluated restoration of the River to its original condition, but has not advocated reconnection. Reconnection of the Withlacoochee River or downstream impoundment of the CFBC probably would not prevent the impacts of increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River during periods of low freshwater flow. Although no agency is currently pursuing a project of this type, DEP has proposed a condition of certification to address future public projects for the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of surface waters requiring modifications to the CFBC. Potential Impacts to Manatees Manatees use the Withlacoochee River and the CFBC year round, but primarily during the warmer months. The CFBC, including the area of the LNP intake, is not listed as critical habitat for manatees under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction activities in the CFBC can take place in a manner reasonably likely to avoid adverse impacts to manatees. The FWC has proposed conditions of certification designed to protect manatees from adverse impacts of in-water construction through monitoring and mitigative measures. Compliance with these conditions will minimize impacts to manatees. The operation of the LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is not likely to adversely impact manatees. The potential impacts of the LNP CWIS on manatees will be minimized by the system design and location. Additionally, DEP and FWC have proposed conditions of certification requiring PEF to submit a final CWIS plan for review by FWC prior to construction of the CWIS with regard to manatee safety issues. Potential impacts to manatees from barge traffic on the CFBC related to delivery of Project components and materials for the construction of the LNP is not expected to adversely impact manatees. FWC has proposed conditions of certification to protect manatees during in-water construction. Compliance with the proposed conditions of certification will minimize potential impacts to manatees. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals The LNP's proposed groundwater use meets all of the SWFWMD's water use criteria. To demonstrate that the proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with LNP operations will comply with the SWFWMD water use criteria, including not causing unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, PEF performed a groundwater modeling analysis using the SWFWMD's District-Wide Regulation Model 2 (DWRM2) groundwater flow model. The DWRM2 is an acceptable groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of groundwater withdrawals. The DWRM2 modeling demonstrated that the proposed groundwater withdrawals would not lower surficial aquifer levels to the point of causing unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, or interfere with existing legal users. Groundwater pumping for the LNP is not expected to adversely impact Lake Rousseau, the Withlacoochee River, or other streams or springs in the Project area. Groundwater withdrawals for the LNP are likewise not expected to induce saline water intrusion, cause the spread of pollutants in the aquifer, adversely impact any offsite land uses, cause adverse impacts to wetland systems, or adversely impact any other nearby uses of the aquifer system. To confirm the values used in the groundwater flow model supporting the application, proposed certification conditions require that an aquifer performance testing plan be submitted by PEF, approved by the SWFWMD, and implemented. If leakance and transmissivity values derived from actual onsite well tests differ more than 20 percent from values determined through earlier modeling, PEF is required to revise its groundwater model to incorporate the aquifer test results and undertake further modeling. Updated groundwater modeling results will be used to determine whether alternative water supplies or additional mitigation will need to be implemented. To help ensure that the proposed groundwater use does not cause unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, SWFWMD and DEP recommended that conditions be included in the site certification requiring an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the condition of surface waters and wetlands in areas that could potentially be affected by groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after groundwater withdrawals reach a quantity of 1.25 mgd on an annual average basis. Annual monitoring summaries will be submitted. If, after five years, this monitoring demonstrates that no adverse impacts of groundwater withdrawals are occurring or predicted, PEF may request that monitoring be discontinued. Groundwater withdrawals will be metered and reported to DEP and SWFWMD on a monthly basis. Proposed conditions of certification require periodic water quality sampling be performed on the withdrawn groundwater to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality. Proposed conditions also address ongoing monitoring and compliance by requiring a full compliance report every five years throughout the life of the LNP, to demonstrate continued reasonable assurance that the groundwater use is meeting all of the applicable substantive water use requirements set forth in SWFWMD rules. The SWFWMD has not established water reservations or minimum flows or levels for any waterbody in the vicinity of the LNP. Therefore, the use of water from the CFBC and from the ground will not violate any currently established water reservation or minimum flow or level. Fracture sets (also called solution channels) are small openings through which groundwater moves. Fracture sets are only an issue in groundwater flow if preferential flow paths develop near one of the solution channels. Preferential flow paths tend to develop near existing springs. There are no springs on the LNP site, and subsurface investigations did not reveal any evidence of solution channels under the site. PEF also proposes to withdraw groundwater as part of the dewatering needed for plant construction. PEF proposes to install an impervious diaphragm wall around and below the foundation excavations for each nuclear unit to minimize water flow into the construction site. It is anticipated that dewatering at each unit could last as much as two years. Additional construction dewatering will also be necessary in some locations for installation of the pipelines and other linear facilities. Naturally-occurring groundwater collected during dewatering and excavation activities will be directed into stormwater runoff ponds and allowed to filter back into the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Dewatering is expected to cause only a modest amount of drawdown of the surficial aquifer. Construction-related dewatering activities will be approved by DEP and SWFWMD on a post-certification basis after final construction designs are submitted. Potential Surface Water Discharge Impacts The LNP will have a combined wastewater discharge comprised of several wastewater streams. Blowdown from the cooling towers will comprise about 98 percent of the LNP wastewater. The blowdown will be combined with significantly smaller quantities of plant wastewaters, treated plant sanitary wastewater, and occasionally stormwater. LNP wastewaters consist of effluents from process equipment, floor drains, laboratory sample sinks, demineralized water treatment system effluent, and treated steam generator blowdown. Wastewaters will be processed before discharge. The treatment systems include oil separators (to separate oily wastes from the rest of the waste stream) and a wastewater retention basin (to settle out suspended particles). The combined LNP wastewater, as proposed by PEF in its pending NPDES permit application, will be piped to the CREC and released into the existing CREC discharge canal which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The cooling tower blowdown discharges from the LNP will include saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system and freshwater blowdown from the service water cooling system; the vast majority of this will be saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system. The normal 2-unit recirculating water blowdown rate is expected to be 57,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 81.4 mgd, and the maximum blowdown rate is expected to be about 59,000 gpm or 84.9 mgd. The 2-unit service water blowdown rate is expected to vary from about 130 gpm during normal operation, to a maximum of about 400 gpm. The CREC currently has two NPDES permits authorizing discharges to surface waters of the State. CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 are cooled with once-through cooling water from the CREC intake canal that is then discharged into the Gulf of Mexico via the existing CREC discharge canal. Once-through cooling water is cooling water that is released after condensing the steam, without being recycled in a cooling tower system. CREC Units 4 and 5 have cooling towers that receive make-up water from the CREC discharge canal and release blowdown into the discharge canal. The discharges for all five CREC units are released to the Gulf of Mexico through a single discharge canal at the CREC site. PEF has proposed to utilize the CREC discharge canal for the LNP discharge; however, the final location will be subject to approval as part of DEP's final agency action on PEF's pending application for an NPDES permit. The wastewater flow at the CREC is limited under the existing CREC NPDES permits to 1,898 mgd during the summer and 1,613 mgd during the winter. The expected day-to-day total wastewater flow from the LNP will be 83.4 mgd, with a conservative maximum total flow rate of 87.9 mgd. The proposed LNP discharge would be equivalent to 4-5 percent of the permitted discharge from the CREC. The design temperature of the LNP wastewater discharge is 89.1ºF, which is expected to be met more than 99.5 percent of the time. This LNP design temperature is cooler than the existing permitted temperature of the existing combined CREC discharge (96.5ºF). Even the expected worst case temperature of the LNP discharge (96.4ºF), will be cooler than the existing temperature limit applicable to CREC. With the addition of the LNP discharge, the CREC is expected to continue to meet its existing thermal permit limit. The addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to significantly change the existing area of thermal impact associated with existing CREC discharges. Evaluation of the Project wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to flora and fauna, including seagrasses and shellfish beds, will be minimized. PEF has committed to a condition of certification requiring the post-certification submittal of a surface water monitoring plan to DEP to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to seagrasses. The finding related to shellfish beds is supported by a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the DEP stating that "[r]eclassification of the shellfish harvesting areas will not be necessary if the Project is built as proposed." The LNP wastewater is projected to meet the limits defined under 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater discharge in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to surface water quality will be minimized. Adding the LNP discharge to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to have an adverse impact on manatees. The LNP discharge structure at the CREC is likewise not expected to cause adverse impacts to manatees that may be present in the CREC discharge canal. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other organisms in the Gulf of Mexico will be minimized. The discharge is not expected to have adverse impacts on endangered fish species. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a discharge monitoring plan to ensure that the addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge does not cause adverse impacts. If, after review of the annual reports required under these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a mitigation plan to address those impacts. DEP's final agency action on PEF's application for an NPDES permit for the LNP, if issued, will include final action on compliance with water quality standards and will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Surface Water Management System The LNP surface water management system consists of pipes and ditches that collect and convey stormwater from the plant area into onsite wet treatment ponds before discharge. Stormwater along the heavy haul road will be collected in roadside swales. The plant area will be raised approximately eight feet. Stormwater will drain from this area into three stormwater ponds. Any cross-flows from the plant site toward the raised areas will pass around the site through culverts or ditches. The stormwater ponds and swales are sized to treat stormwater releases to meet SWFWMD rules. In addition, all construction-related surface water management facilities will comply with SWFWMD's surface water management criteria. The design and proper construction and operation of the surface water management system will satisfy SWFWMD's water quantity and water quality criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D- 4.302. PEF has committed to a post-certification submittal of detailed stormwater design information to address floodplain impacts as required by section 4.7 ("Historic basin storage") of the SWFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (adopted in Rule 40D-4.091, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 62-330.200(3)(e)). Solid Waste Disposal There will be no onsite disposal of hazardous waste during construction of the LNP. All hazardous waste will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Contractors will be responsible for having detailed procedures in place to handle hazardous waste. During operation, hazardous waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. PEF has procedures in place for management and control of hazardous materials; such materials will be disposed of offsite through permitted facilities. All solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at a permitted offsite landfill. There will be no onsite disposal of solid waste. Non-nuclear solid waste generated during operation of the LNP will be disposed of offsite at a permitted landfill. A proposed condition of certification precludes processing or disposal of solid waste onsite. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts The LNP is a nuclear-fueled power generating facility that will use uranium dioxide pellets in fuel rods. The LNP will also use a relatively small amount of diesel fuel in its emergency diesel generators, ancillary generators, and fire pump engines. Therefore, the LNP will not emit the typical types and quantities of air pollutants from fossil-fueled power generation such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of air emissions at the LNP will include the two banks of mechanical draft cooling towers and diesel- fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines. Air pollutants that will be emitted during normal facility operation will be limited to particulate matter (PM), both more than and less than 10 microns in diameter, which will be emitted from the low profile cooling towers. There will be a small amount of air emissions from the diesel-fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines; however, these emissions are only expected to occur during the few hours per month when the engines are run for maintenance and testing purposes. There will be no other significant sources of air emissions from operation of the LNP. PM emissions from the draft cooling towers will occur as a result of the entrainment of a small amount of water, as small-diameter droplets, in the exhaust stream from the towers. Particulate matter, consisting of the naturally occurring dissolved solids that will be present in the cooling water, will be contained in these entrained droplets. The droplets and the associated suspended solid particulate matter are known as cooling tower "drift." The amount of cooling tower "drift" is controlled through the use of very high efficiency mist eliminators that will be in the cooling tower. The use of high efficiency mist eliminators on the LNP cooling towers is consistent with state and federal regulations that require the use of Best Available Control Technology to limit such air emissions. The LNP will be located in Levy County which is currently attaining all ambient air quality standards for all pollutants. The LNP will not have an adverse or discernible impact on ambient air quality at the LNP site, or at any location, for any regulated air pollutant. The LNP will not generate power by combusting any fuel. Therefore, there will be no measurable greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, during normal plant operation. The estimated CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating the same amount of electricity as the LNP is approximately 6.4 million tons per year. For comparison, the estimated CO2 emissions from the LNP, which result from periodic testing of the facility's diesel-powered emergency equipment, is only 618 tons/year. Visible plumes from the cooling towers will remain very close to the cooling towers (within approximately 300 feet) under most meteorological conditions. The occurrence of visible vapor plumes at offsite locations is expected to be infrequent. The operation of the cooling towers is expected to have no significant or adverse impacts due to ground level fogging on any roadway or at offsite locations during plant operation. The maximum predicted offsite solids deposition rate from operation of the LNP cooling towers is six pounds per acre per month immediately adjacent to the nearest LNP property boundary. This is below the de minimis adverse impact threshold of nine pounds per acre per month published by the NRC. The rate of deposition is predicted to decrease rapidly and significantly with increasing distance from the plant. Operation of the LNP cooling towers is not expected to cause discernible impacts on any natural resources, including surface waters or wetlands. Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation The noise limits applicable to the LNP site are set by the Levy County Code of Ordinances. The noise limits defined by the County ordinance for the area surrounding the LNP site are 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There are no other local, state, or federal noise regulations that apply to the plant. PEF conducted noise impact evaluations for construction and operation of the LNP. Ambient noise levels were measured at six locations around the LNP site. Noise levels were conservatively estimated by adding the composite average noise levels that would be generated by construction equipment during the loudest phases of construction. Equipment sound propagation factors were obtained from industry references. The noise model known as CADNA/A was used to predict noise levels at onsite and offsite locations, including the nearest residences for both construction and operation. The noise levels during construction activities and during normal maximum operation of the LNP plant site are projected to be below the Levy County noise limits for all hours at all offsite locations, including the locations of the nearest residences. Due to the large buffer surrounding the developed area of the site, and the relatively low noise levels associated with the LNP, there are not expected to be any significant or adverse noise impacts during construction or operation of the LNP. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology (Plant and Transmission Line Corridors) The proposed LNP site has been used for many decades for the production of pine. The clearing of native vegetation, furrowing, bedding, planting, and harvesting (primarily for pine) has altered the site from a natural Florida landscape into a monotypical landscape in both upland and wetland areas with reduced functional attributes. There are no open water bodies or streams on the LNP site. There are some flow-way connections between some of the wetlands, but they are not of the kind that will support long- term fish habitat or aquatic insect communities. Due to the silvicultural nature of the site and recent clearing, the ideal complement of biodiversity on the LNP site is no longer present. The predominant wildlife species are those that tolerate a mono-specific pine tree habitat, such as deer, turkey, and wild hogs. While pre-application surveys indicate that protected species occur at and in the vicinity of the LNP site, several of Florida's listed species are not likely to extensively use the LNP site. Impacts to State-listed and important wildlife species that have been documented or may occur on the LNP site and adjacent uplands will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results and needed measures to avoid and mitigate such impacts. Historically, the 3,105-acre LNP site was dominated by forested cypress wetland systems. However, over the last century or more, those have been harvested and allowed to re- grow, so that many of the wetlands are no longer dominated by cypress trees. Today, most of the forested wetland systems in the footprint of development have been cleared of trees. The anticipated maximum wetland impacts for the entire Project, including the impacts from associated facilities and electrical transmission lines, are estimated to be 765 acres. These impacts are estimated to be: 13.3 acres of open water; 638.4 acres of forested wetlands; and 113.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands. Approximately one-half of the wetland impacts are expected to occur on the LNP site and one-half are expected to occur offsite. The Project's 765-acre wetland impact is a conservative estimate, including long-term and short-term impacts that are the result of direct dredging and filling as well as temporary disturbance. It is likely that the actual impact will decrease as the routing of facilities is refined within the electrical transmission and other corridors and on the LNP site. Based on these anticipated wetland impacts and the functions being provided by these wetlands, PEF calculated the proposed maximum wetland functional loss for the LNP to be 410.9 functional units, as determined under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) contained in Rule Chapter 62-345. The UMAM scoring indicates that, on average, the wetlands being impacted have approximately one-half of the functional ecological value of an ideal wetland system. To comply with the applicable SWFWMD ERP rules under the PPSA process, PEF must offset the wetland impacts caused by the construction and operation of the LNP, associated transmission lines, roads, and pipelines. PEF submitted to DEP a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines (WMP). A primary value of the WMP is an overall increase in ecological function provided across several thousand acres in a regionally-significant location. This regional landscape-level ecosystem benefit substantially augments the value of local-scale mitigation activities. The proposed mitigation for the LNP will potentially achieve greater offset of wetland impacts from a regional perspective and is expected to provide significant long-term ecosystem benefit. The WMP identifies a series of possible scenarios from which the appropriate and ultimate mitigation can be derived. Because impacts are still being refined as corridors are narrowed into actual routes, the information in the WMP is designed to demonstrate that there is available and desirable mitigation to affect the final degree of wetlands impacts, once calculated. The comprehensive mitigation plan, as described in the WMP, is an acceptable alternative to traditional "in-basin" mitigation. DEP conceptually approved this WMP with the understanding that more detailed information will be submitted when final routes are established and actual wetland impacts are known. The amount of mitigation PEF will undertake will be based on the amount of wetlands actually impacted. A condition of certification has been included to require submittal of refinements to the mitigation plan for DEP's approval following final certification. PEF looked at ways to reduce and eliminate wetland impacts at several levels, including site selection, routing of roadways, and commitments through discussions with agencies to further reduce impacts as transmission line routes are selected within the transmission corridors. The Project is designed to comply with SWFWMD ERP criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 4.302. There are not expected to be unacceptable secondary wetlands impacts due to the construction of the Project. Under SWFWMD rules, as long as a disturbance is at least 25 feet from a wetland, secondary impacts are deemed avoided. For the LNP site, unimpacted wetlands are dozens to thousands of feet away from Project development. Further, the rural and remote location of the facility, along with the high level of security associated with a nuclear facility (i.e., fencing, buffering, and reduced public access) makes causally-connected offsite development unlikely (with regard to the LNP site). The LNP will comply with the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The conceptual WMP is designed to be regionally significant and provides ecological benefits beyond the calculated UMAM functional value increase. For example, the WMP has the potential to connect the Goethe State Forest to the historic floodplain of the Withlacoochee River, which will maintain and enhance a large natural wildlife corridor. The LNP is not anticipated to adversely affect the value or functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species, including any aquatic and wetland species, or other related-water resources. There are no documented listed aquatic or wetland-dependent species that might be adversely affected by construction at the plant site. Impacts to wetland dependent species will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results. PEF has addressed all of the wildlife issues subject to the site certification process. The FWC has recommended certification, subject to conditions related to surveying of development areas and appropriate buffers for species prior to clearing, construction, and development to ensure appropriate relocation or mitigation opportunities and implementation of management activities to ensure the long-term well-being of the species. Project wetlands impacts are not expected to adversely affect the quality of receiving waters with respect to the applicable water quality criteria for those receiving waters, or adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. Through implementation of the WMP, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by wetlands. Transportation The primary roadways in the vicinity of the LNP are U.S. Highway 19 (U.S. 19) and County Road 40 (C.R. 40). U.S. Highway 19 is a Florida DOT-maintained, four-lane arterial roadway west of the Project site. C.R. 40 is a Levy County- maintained, two-lane roadway approximately five miles to the south of the plant site. The Levy County Comprehensive Plan has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roadways within Levy County. While LOS standards do not apply to temporary construction traffic, PEF evaluated the impacts of both LNP construction and operation traffic on adjacent roadways. This evaluation shows that future traffic levels with the addition of the Project construction and operation traffic are projected to be less than one-half the adopted LOS standards for U.S. 19 and C.R. 40. Roadway links during construction and operation of the LNP are projected to operate within adopted LOS standards. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits There is an approximate population of 4,700 persons within a five-mile radius of the LNP site. This equates to a population density of approximately 60 people per square mile. The closest towns to the LNP site are Inglis and Yankeetown, which are located approximately 4.1 miles and 8.0 miles southwest of the LNP site, respectively. The total cost of the LNP, including the proposed electrical transmission lines, is approximately $17 billion. The LNP construction workforce is expected to peak at approximately 3,300 workers in 2014. The operation workforce will consist of approximately 800 employees, with an additional 800 workers needed every 18 months for between 20 and 30 days to refuel the facility. PEF sees retention rate benefits when hiring locally and would like to employ the local workforce for construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has programs in place to train local residents to become part of the future workforce for the LNP. These programs focus on both construction and operation personnel and include programs or potential programs at Bronson High School, Chiefland High School, Dixie County High School, the Withlacoochee Technical Institute, and Santa Fe Community College. PEF is also working in partnership with Dunnellon High School (which draws students from Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties) on a Power Academy to prepare students for the construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has a successful nuclear engineering program partnership with the University of Florida to train both nuclear engineers and plant operators, including the use of a first-of-its-kind digital training simulator. PEF has provided grants to modernize the nuclear facilities at the University of Florida. In 2005, there were approximately 395,000 workers in the region (defined as a 50-mile radius around the LNP, including Levy, Citrus, Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Sumter Counties). Specific to construction of a nuclear power plant, there were 4,900 heavy construction workers in the region in 2006. It is probable that more of these 4,900 workers will be available due to rising unemployment rates across the region. Unemployment rates for the three counties immediately surrounding the LNP site have risen from around four percent in 2005 to eight percent in late 2008. There is sufficient housing available in the region to accommodate both LNP construction and operation employees. Construction of the LNP is not expected to significantly increase the number of pupils in the surrounding school systems. The school systems in the region of the LNP will be able to accommodate the increased number of pupils as a result of LNP operations workers and their families. Public services and facilities in the region of the LNP are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. Construction of the LNP will have little, if any, impact on recreational facilities and uses in the area around the LNP site in Levy and Citrus Counties. During LNP operation, recreational facilities and uses will not be impacted. There are no officially-designated landmarks within five miles of the LNP site. The peak construction workforce in 2014 will result in approximately $152 million in annual earnings. Construction earnings in other years will also be substantial. In addition to jobs and earnings, the construction of the LNP will contribute an estimated $263 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. The direct social and economic impacts of the LNP operation are expected to include approximately 800 direct jobs; 1,100 indirect or induced jobs; and associated increases in sales, property tax, and output revenues. These operations workers are expected to generate over $53 million in annual payroll. The LNP overall is expected to contribute nearly $521 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. Local property tax collections will begin when Unit 1 is brought on-line, resulting in approximately $63 million in tax revenue to Levy County in the first year of operation. Annual property tax collections in Levy County of approximately $18 million are projected to increase by $104 million once both LNP units are operational. Archaeological and Historic Sites Construction and operation of the LNP will not adversely impact archaeologically significant sites or historic standing structures. The Project complies with all federal and state standards for identification and protection of archaeological sites. Field surveys of the plant site, the corridor extending south to the CFBC, and the pipeline corridor to the CREC did not reveal any archaeological sites or historic standing structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with PEF's survey methodology and the determination that no sites are NRHP- eligible. PEF has guidelines designed to protect historic sites, landmarks, artifacts, and archaeological sites in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The Florida SHPO has concurred with PEF's approach to protect inadvertent discoveries during land-disturbing activities. Land Use PEF filed applications with Levy County for a comprehensive plan amendment and special exception zoning approval for the LNP. Those applications were approved and are now final. The majority of the existing land use on the LNP site is silviculture, and the property is unimproved. The primary existing land use of the property to the south of the LNP, where the heavy haul road, water pipelines, and other facilities will be located, is likewise silviculture and otherwise unimproved. The properties along the blowdown pipeline corridor to the CREC are primarily vacant and largely unimproved. The nearest residence to the LNP is approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the power block generating facilities, measured from the edge of the nearest power block to the residence. The electrical generating facilities are designed with a minimum 1,000-foot setback from the property line of any property not under the control of PEF. A natural 100-foot vegetative buffer is required to be maintained around the LNP's perimeter where the adjacent property is not under PEF's control. Given the setbacks, the perimeter vegetation, and the 250-foot maximum height limitation under Levy County's special exception for the LNP, the physical structures at the LNP site will not be visible from surrounding properties at ground level. The location of the LNP is consistent with the existing and future land uses surrounding the site. The cooling water blowdown pipelines are located to have the least impact on the existing land uses in the area. The LNP will have little impact on land uses in the vicinity. The LNP is consistent with the Levy County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations (LDRs), the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, and the State Comprehensive Plan contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Electrical Transmission Lines Project Description Generally, the purpose of electrical transmission lines is to transmit large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. Transmission lines operate at voltages above 69 kilovolts (kV). Bulk power, generally operating at 230-kV or 500-kV, is transferred from the generating plant to the substation. At the substation, the voltage of the electricity is changed through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or distribution directly to customers. PEF is seeking certification of nine proposed corridors for transmission lines associated with the LNP. A proposed corridor is associated with each of the proposed transmission lines identified in Findings of Fact 182-189. All of the proposed transmission lines will directly support the construction and operation of the LNP. Corridor Selection Methodology PEF established a multi-disciplinary team to identify a corridor for each of the proposed transmission lines. The role of this team was to select a proposed corridor for certification for each line based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multi-disciplinary team was composed of experts in transmission line design, land use planning, system planning, real estate acquisition, corporate communications, and environmental disciplines as they relate to transmission lines. The multi-disciplinary team engaged in four major steps in this process. The first was to establish and define a project study area for each transmission line. The second step was to conduct regional screening and mapping. The third step was to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The fourth step was to select the proposed corridors and identify the boundaries of those corridors. Data collection was performed in connection with this effort from the databases of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and organizations, as well as from the public in a series of conferences and open houses described in Findings of Fact 8-11. A number of field studies, internal meetings, and individual and small group meetings were held with members of the public as a part of the process. In defining the project study area for each transmission line, the multi-disciplinary team considered the starting and ending points for the lines and other linear facilities in these areas. Within each study area, the multi-disciplinary team gathered regional screening data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study areas, such as various environmental and land use features, existing infrastructure, archeological and historical sites, roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and similar features. The multi-disciplinary team evaluated each corridor using quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria. Relative weights for each quantitative criterion were developed and validated with input from agency representatives and the public during the public outreach portion of the corridor selection process. The weights were applied to the quantitative values for the criteria for each candidate corridor segment and the scores were tabulated for all candidate corridors. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on quantitative weighted scores. The high-ranking candidate corridors were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as the types of wetlands and vegetation present, safety, constructability considerations, and other similar considerations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the high-ranking candidate corridors, the multi-disciplinary team ultimately chose the nine proposed corridors. Once the proposed corridors were selected, the multi-disciplinary team refined the boundaries of each of the PEF proposed corridors. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths by narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints where practicable or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Transmission Line Design A transmission line generally consists of a steel or concrete structure, the conductor, which is attached to the structure by an insulator, and overhead groundwires used for lightning protection and communications for the protection and control systems located in the substation. Access roads and structure pads are also associated with transmission lines. The Project’s 230-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be constructed using single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with braced line post or V-string insulators. The braced line post arrangement is a compressed construction design which minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed. The V-string insulator design allows longer span lengths due to the increased strength of this assembly. Typical heights will range from 80 to 145 feet for the 230-kV structures and 60 to 90 feet for the 69-kV structures. The 500-kV transmission lines will be constructed using tubular steel H-frame or monopole structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with V-string insulators which provide the necessary strength and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed. Structure heights will range from 110 to 195 feet. The span length between structures and the pole height will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, waterbodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. The typical spans between structures supporting 230- kV transmission lines will range from approximately 500 to 700 feet for the braced line post structures and 700 to 1,400 feet for the V-string structures. The typical spans between structures supporting 69-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 250 to 600 feet. The typical spans between structures supporting 500-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary. When new roads are required, they will typically be 18 feet wide and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. Generally, the existing ground will be leveled, a geotextile fabric will be installed, and compacted sand and gravel will be added to arrive at the desired road elevation. Culverts will be installed as required to maintain preconstruction waterflows. Structure pads will typically be 70 feet wide and 100 feet long and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. The size of the structure pads will vary depending upon the heights of the structures supported and other site-specific factors. The designs for these access roads and structure pads have been used by PEF in the past and have been previously approved in Florida. Design Standards The transmission lines will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards. These include the National Electrical Safety Code, the standards of the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, DEP's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, applicable local government requirements such as noise ordinances, and the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual. PEF's own internal design standards incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Transmission Line Construction PEF will work with the regulatory agencies and landowners to determine where the rights-of-way, transmission structures, access roads, and structure pads should be located. As rights-of-way are being selected, they will be surveyed to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests. After the right-of-way is established within the certified corridor, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the right-of-way. Where the proposed right-of-way is in uplands, the right-of-way clearing for the project will consist of vegetation and tree removal as necessary. Where the proposed right-of-way is in wetlands, vegetation will be cleared utilizing restrictive clearing techniques as necessary for specific sites. Restrictive wetlands clearing will be done by hand, with chainsaws or low ground-pressure shear or rotary machines, to reduce soil compaction and damage to vegetation. The cut material will be removed from the right-of-way utilizing either low ground-pressure equipment or temporary construction mats. Care will be taken to minimize rutting and disturbance of root mat. After the right-of-way is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Existing access roads and structure pads will be used whenever practicable. Where a transmission line will be constructed adjacent to an existing transmission right-of-way, improvements to the associated access roads and paths may be made. Where adequate access roads or structure pads do not exist, new roads and pads will be constructed. The next phase of construction will involve the erection of the structures. All structures will be supported with engineered foundations. Tangent structure foundations will normally consist of either direct buried structures with concrete backfill or reinforced-concrete drilled piers. Structures may also utilize guys and anchors at angle and deadend structures to help support the load. Transmission structures are generally delivered to the site using semi-trucks with open trailers and are assembled onsite as close as possible to the foundation. Typically, the structures are framed with the structure arms and insulator assemblies while lying on the ground. During the assembly process, poles are maneuvered into place using cranes and other lifting equipment to facilitate connections. Once assembled, a crane is used to lift the structures for final placement on the foundation. After the structures are erected, conductor installation will commence. The process of installing conductors involves stringing a pilot line into each structure stringing block to form a continuous connection between stringing end points. This pilot line is then used to pull the conductor into position. The conductor is then tensioned to design specifications, transferred to the support clamp, and clipped into position. The operation is performed on all overhead ground wires and conductors. Typical equipment used in the conductor installation operation includes bucket trucks, wire pulling equipment, guard structures, wire reels, trailers, tensioners, and support vehicles. The final stage of construction will be right-of-way restoration which includes removal of all construction equipment and supplies, grading the right-of-way if needed, and planting or seeding of the disturbed area if needed. During all stages of construction, PEF will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with DOT regulations. Sedimentation management techniques, including turbidity screens, temporary culverts, silt fences or staked hay bales, and the seeding or mulching of side slopes, will be utilized to minimize potential impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Corridor Descriptions The LNP will add approximately 185 miles of new 69- kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV transmission lines to be placed within nine proposed corridors. The proposed corridors provide significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provides the opportunity to reduce costs, the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridors varies along the routes to provide flexibility within the corridors to avoid impacts to existing developments, large wetland areas, and other features. After certification, and following the selection of rights-of- way, the boundaries of the corridors will be reduced to those of rights-of-way. The first proposed corridor is associated with the Citrus 1 and 2 lines. The Citrus lines are also referred to as the "LPC" transmission lines and the proposed corridor is referred to as the LPC corridor. The Citrus lines are two 500- kV transmission lines that will connect the LNP to the proposed Citrus Substation, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Citrus 1 and 2 lines will be located in Levy and Citrus Counties. This proposed corridor is approximately seven miles long and one mile wide. The LPC Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LPC Corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Crystal River 500-kV lines, the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the LPC Corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Crystal River lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line at some locations. The LPC corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island (which is wedged between the LWR and the CFBC), and will terminate at the proposed Citrus Substation located just north of PEF's existing Crystal River Central Florida transmission line in Citrus County. The second proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River line, which is also referred to as the "LCR" transmission line and the corridor is referred to as the LCR Corridor. The Crystal River line is a 500-kV transmission line that connects the LNP to the existing CREC switchyard in Citrus County. The Crystal River line will be located within Levy and Citrus Counties. The LCR Corridor is approximately 14 miles long and one mile wide. It begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LCR corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 500-kV lines, and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line in some locations. The LCR Corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and will enter the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At this point, the LCR Corridor turns west and follows the general alignment of the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida Transmission right-of-way into the CREC where it terminates at the CREC 500-kV switchyard. The third proposed corridor is associated with the Sumter line, which is also referred to as the "LCFS" transmission line. This corridor is referred to as the LCFS Corridor. The Sumter line is a 500-kV transmission line that will connect the LNP to the proposed Central Florida South Substation in Lake and Sumter Counties, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Sumter line will be located in Levy, Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The LCFS Corridor is approximately 59 miles long and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile wide. For most of its length, the 500-kV LCFS Corridor is collocated with the existing PEF transmission lines, except in the vicinity of the Central Florida South Substation, where it is collocated with the Florida Turnpike. The LCFS Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. It will be collocated with the proposed Citrus 1 & 2 and Crystal River 500-kV lines and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line. The LCFS Corridor crosses C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and continues south until reaching the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At that point, the LCFS Corridor turns east and follows the existing transmission line right-of-way through Citrus and Marion Counties for approximately 45 miles. The corridor turns southeast crossing into Sumter County and crosses S.R. 44 and I-75. The remaining five miles of the LCFS Corridor follows the general alignment of the Florida Turnpike to the southeast and terminates in the area of the proposed Central Florida Substation near Wildwood. The fourth proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River East 1 & 2 lines, which are also called the "CCRE" transmission lines. This is the CCRE Corridor. The Crystal River East lines are two 230-kV transmission lines that will connect the proposed Citrus Substation to the existing Crystal River East Substation in Citrus County. The lines will be located entirely within Citrus County. The CCRE Corridor is approximately 2.7 miles in length and one mile wide. The west end of the north boundary of the corridor is approximately one- half mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east approximately one-half mile north of West Dunnellon Road (CR-488). The west end of the south boundary of the corridor starts approximately 1 mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east along the northern boundary of the existing PEF transmission right-of-way. At a point approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. 19, the corridor shifts south approximately one-half mile and continues east for another mile. The corridor also includes five existing 115-kV, 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines and the Crystal River East Substation. The fifth and sixth proposed corridors are associated with the Levy North and South lines, which are also referred to as the "IS" and "IO" transmission lines. The Levy North and South lines are 69-kV transmission lines required to supply power for the construction and administration of the LNP. These lines will be located entirely within Levy County, and are mostly located on property owned by PEF in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP. The IS Corridor is approximately 373 feet in length and 400 feet wide. The IO Corridor is approximately 4.5 miles in length and one mile wide. The IO Corridor will begin at the south boundary of the LNP site and extend south to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line located south of C.R. 40 in Levy County. The IS Corridor will begin at the west boundary of the LNP site and extend west to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line that is located parallel to and east of U.S. 19 in Levy County. The seventh proposed corridor is associated with the Brookridge line, which is also referred to as the "CB" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the CB Corridor. The Brookridge line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing CREC to the existing Brookridge Substation in Hernando County. The Brookridge line will be located in Citrus and Hernando Counties. The overall length of the CB corridor is approximately 38 miles and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile. The corridor begins at the CREC switchyard and proceeds east towards the existing Crystal River East Substation then southeast to S.R. 44. The corridor collocates with existing transmission line rights-of- way. At S.R. 44, the corridor turns south, following the existing PEF 115-kV transmission right-of-way. Approximately one mile south of Centralia Road, the corridor turns east and ends at the existing Brookridge Substation. The eighth proposed corridor is associated with the Brooksville West line, which is also called the "BBW" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the BBW Corridor. The Brooksville west line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Brookridge Substation to the existing Brooksville West Substation in Hernando County. This line will be located entirely within Hernando County. The overall length of the BBW Corridor is approximately three miles and one-half mile wide. The BBW Corridor exits the Brookridge Substation, collocated with PEF's existing 500/230/115-kV transmission line right-of-way, and travels along Sunshine Grove Road to the south. It terminates at the Brooksville West Substation. The ninth and final proposed corridor is associated with the Kathleen line, which is also called the "PHP" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the PHP Corridor. The Kathleen line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Kathleen Substation in Polk County to the existing Lake Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. The Kathleen line will be located in Polk, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The overall length of the PHP Corridor is approximately 50 miles, and it ranges in width from approximately 300 feet to 1000 feet. The corridor begins at the Kathleen Substation and travels west. It crosses U.S. 98 and turns south along the existing transmission line right-of-way to the Griffin Substation. At the Griffin Substation, the corridor turns west paralleling C.R. 582. The corridor crosses U.S. 301 and turns north and then west and crosses I-75, continuing northwest and following the existing transmission right-of-way, and then crosses I-275 and the Veteran's Expressway to the Lake Tarpon Substation. No alternate corridors were proposed for any of the nine proposed transmission line corridors. For each PEF- proposed transmission line corridor, the proposed corridor is the only corridor for the respective line that is proper for certification in this proceeding. For each of the proposed corridors, engineering features of interest, natural resource features, and land use features have been identified and depicted on maps, aerial images, and photographs, which have been utilized in the analysis of the corridors. Operational Safeguards The operational safeguards for each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Each transmission line will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including: the National Electric Safety Code; the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; the American National Standards Institute; applicable local government requirements; the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide; and PEF's internal design standards, which incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the applicable standards which regulate the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements has been calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements contained in DEP's Rule 62- 814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are within the values set forth in the rule. The calculations were performed in accordance with the rule requirements, using the maximum voltage and current for each configuration. Operation of any of these transmission lines at maximum voltage and current is not a likely condition. At normal operating levels of voltage and current, the electric fields produced by the transmission lines will be less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions, and the magnetic fields produced will be about 50 percent less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions. The levels of electric and magnetic fields at the edge of the rights-of-way associated with the transmission lines are similar to levels that are experienced by exposure to common household appliances. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. This is known as corona. During periods of fair weather, particulate matter can collect on the conductor causing low levels of audible noise. During rain events, the particles are washed off and replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that can result in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary and masked by the sound of rain falling on vegetation and other surfaces, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise have been calculated using an industry standard software program known as the Bonneville Power Administration Corona Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for each of the transmission lines demonstrate that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way will be less than the noise levels from most rainfall events or conversational speech at a distance of five feet. The calculated noise levels are expected to comply with all applicable noise ordinances. The operation of the proposed transmission lines is expected to cause minimal interference with radio and television reception in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Radio and television interference can be produced by corona on transmission line conductors or as a result of faulty equipment. Based upon the studies that have been performed, it is not expected that significant interference will occur. Beginning on July 12, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has directed all television station operators to convert their transmissions to digital format. Digital signals are unaffected by electric fields or weather disturbances. In the event any homeowner or business experiences abnormal interference as a result of the transmission lines, PEF will investigate the complaints and mitigate impacts appropriately. Part of the BBW Corridor has an existing natural gas pipeline and a proposed additional natural gas pipeline that will be operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. Safety concerns will be addressed in a licensing agreement allowing the pipeline company to utilize the right-of-way. Such collocation is common throughout Florida. The licensing agreement will require that the pipeline company comply with all applicable safety requirements for pipeline operation and will require that the pipeline design be reviewed by an independent engineering company to ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated given the constraints of the design and the proximity of transmission lines. This will ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated near the transmission lines and the electric current. Compliance with Nonprocedural Standards of Agencies The construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed corridors is expected to comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The parties have agreed that the conditions of certification found in DEP Exhibit 1 are the applicable nonprocedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission lines. PEF has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission lines in the proposed corridors in compliance with the conditions of certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of these transmission lines. Consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations There are a number of different land uses within the nine proposed corridors ranging from open lands, recreational lands, mining and agricultural lands, public and conservation lands, commercial uses, and residential. The construction of the transmission lines in the respective proposed corridors is not expected to impact the existing land uses or change those land uses. The location of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors is appropriate from a land use perspective. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the respective corridors are compatible with all types of existing land uses occurring in the vicinity of those corridors. Each of the proposed transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridors consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. After certification of the LNP, each proposed transmission line will be located and constructed established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after certification of the respective corridors. Construction of transmission lines on such established rights-of-way is excepted from the definition of "development" contained in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. To the extent that comprehensive plans or land development regulations of the local governments crossed by the transmission lines include provisions that are applicable to non-development activities, the transmission lines in each of the designated corridors will be consistent and in compliance with those requirements. Meet Electrical Energy Needs of the State In an Orderly, Timely and Reliable Fashion Each proposed transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The anticipated schedule for the transmission line portion of the Project calls for the permitting, licensing and engineering activities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to be carried out such that the transmission lines are constructed and operating in 2015 in advance of certain construction and start-up activities for LNP Unit 1. The proposed corridors maximize collocation opportunities for the transmission lines, enabling the collocated transmission lines to be constructed in a more timely and efficient manner. PEF will make all practicable efforts to minimize the impacts to traffic from the proposed transmission lines. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to facilitate the orderly construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors. Reasonable Balance Between the Need and the Impacts Each of the transmission lines is essential to meet the need identified by the PSC. PEF has a long history of reliably constructing, operating, and maintaining similar transmission lines throughout Florida. Each of the transmission lines is designed to comply with stringent reliability standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will meet the need identified by the PSC. The PSC determined that there is a reliability need for additional base-load capacity by 2016. Levy Units 1 and 2 will add 2200 MW of capacity, and new transmission lines are necessary to accommodate this capacity on the electrical power system. The required transmission facilities include those necessary to connect the LNP to PEF's existing grid and to reliably integrate the additional capacity into the existing transmission system. PEF cannot meet the need identified by the PSC without these proposed transmission lines. PEF's proposed corridors were chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts on the environment. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the designated corridor with minimal adverse environmental impacts. The corridor selection process involved regional screening to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints. Each corridor maximizes utilization of previously disturbed areas, where possible. The corridor width has been selected for each corridor to provide flexibility for selection of the final right-of-way to provide the ability to avoid ecological resources within the corridor to the extent practicable. No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the transmission lines. Each of the transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal, if any, adverse impact to water quality. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to fish and wildlife, including protected animal species. The presence of protected animal species was an important consideration during the corridor selection process, and each corridor avoids areas with known concentrations of protected species occurrences to the extent practicable. The agreed-upon conditions of certification require that preconstruction surveys be conducted, and the results will be submitted to the FWC for analysis. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be required. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to water resources, including wetlands. Water resources, including wetlands, were an important consideration during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Structures will not be constructed in major water bodies. The spans between structures will be varied to avoid wetland areas and other sensitive areas, where practicable. Herbaceous wetland communities, including marsh and wet prairie wetlands, can continue to grow underneath the proposed transmission lines. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to ensure that impacts to water bodies and other water resources are minimized. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impacts to other natural resources, including protected plant species and wildlife habitat. The presence of protected plant species and wildlife habitat were important considerations during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of each of the corridors with collocation opportunities has been altered from its natural state for construction and maintenance of the linear facility already there. This will minimize potential impacts. Minimize Adverse Effects Using Reasonable and Available Methods PEF will use reasonable and available methods during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors to minimize adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the designated corridors will comply with the limits for electric and magnetic fields established by DEP in Rule Chapter 62-814 and by the National Electric Safety Code and related standards. In the corridor selection process, collocation opportunities were considered to be a significant criterion, and the corridors were chosen in a way that maximizes collocation with existing linear facilities. This is advantageous because existing linear facilities often provide existing access, and collocation can minimize the need for new access roads and structure pads and the need for new clearing, generally minimizing impacts. PEF will avoid wetlands and water bodies to the extent practicable by varying the length of the spans between structures. PEF will use restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands, removing vegetation selectively. In cases in which fill is required, PEF will install culverts to maintain water movement. PEF will allow certain vegetation to re-grow, or re- vegetate, in the rights-of-way of the transmission lines following construction, which will maintain suitable habitat for certain listed species. Wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will be appropriately mitigated. Prior to final rights-of-way determination and the beginning clearing in the rights-of-way for the transmission lines, surveys for protected plant and animal species will be conducted to verify their presence or absence in the proposed transmission line right-of-way for each of the lines. In the event that protected plants or animals cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to relocate the individuals in consultation with the FWC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or to provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with the conditions of certification. PEF has agreed to comply with the conditions of certification in the construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines. The conditions require measures to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including impacts to the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and Protect the Broad Interest of the Public The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will serve and protect the broad interests of the public. The public's interest is served through the provision of safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service. The transmission lines are essential for providing that service. The public outreach program carried out by PEF provided the public with an avenue to voice their concerns. Concerns expressed were considered in the selection process. The corridor selection process maximized collocation opportunities for the selection of each of the corridors, where practicable. By following existing linear features where possible, the corridors and the ultimate rights-of-way can conform to existing development patterns and minimize intrusions into surrounding areas. Collocation reduces costs and impacts. The existing land uses found within the corridors are compatible with each of the proposed transmission lines in part because the corridors are collocated with linear facilities to the extent feasible. The transmission lines that are proposed can coexist with the types of development that are found along each of the corridors. As a result of the process utilized by the multidisciplinary team, the corridors minimize the number of homes that may be affected and avoid public and conservation lands to the maximum degree practicable. The transmission lines will minimize the impacts on cultural and historical resources by avoiding those areas where practicable and by performing a preconstruction survey in consultation with DEP and the Division of Historical Resources to determine the appropriate action should such resources be found. Disruption to traffic during the construction of each of the transmission lines is expected to be minor. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to ensure minimization of traffic impacts. Radio and television interference as a result of the operation of the transmission lines will be minimal, and any impacts will be addressed by PEF. The expected noise levels from the transmission lines will be similar to the noise levels resulting from rainfall events and conversation at five feet. The calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable noise ordinances and requirements. The electric and magnetic fields produced by the transmission lines will comply with the applicable standards established by the DEP. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Following the withdrawal of the other intervenors in this proceeding, SACE was the only remaining party opposing certification of the Project. In the prehearing stipulation of the parties, SACE appears to raise five basic issues: (a) there must be express conditions in the agency reports to address impacts to wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and necessary mitigation should the Project not be completed; (b) adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources; (c) business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment"; (d) risks to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation; and (e) agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. SACE did not offer the testimony of any witnesses or present any evidence in this proceeding on these or any other issues. With regard to SACE's first issue, SACE has failed to identify which of the reviewing agencies neglected to propose appropriate conditions or what additional conditions are necessary. In any event, the record shows that DEP, FWC, and SWFWMD all proposed extensive conditions in their agency reports related to protection of wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and/or mitigation of Project-related impacts. With regard to wetlands mitigation, if the Project is not completed, PEF will perform mitigation necessary to compensate for wetlands actually impacted. See Finding of Fact 126. SACE's second contention is that the Project will cause adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources. As detailed in Findings of Fact 73, 115-131, 133-134, PEF has presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands or to water resources that are not fully offset by mitigation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Further, as indicated in Findings of Fact 124-126, 130, and 134, PEF has proposed a comprehensive wetlands mitigation plan that will offset any adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the construction of the LNP. SACE did not present any evidence that this mitigation plan, which has been conceptually approved by the DEP, is inadequate to protect wetlands or meet regulatory requirements. SACE's third contention is related to business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment." These matters are not relevant under the PPSA criteria, Section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes, but are instead addressed by the PSC. A petition for a determination of need for a new nuclear plant must include a cost estimate, base revenue requirements, and information related to joint ownership discussions. See § 403.519(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The PSC has already determined that the Project is needed, specifically finding that "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost." Under Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes, the PSC is the "sole forum" for a determination of need. Reconsideration of factors already considered by the PSC in this proceeding is improper. Further, the record does not support SACE's contention regarding alleged business risks. PEF presented uncontroverted evidence that LNP Units 1 and 2 are on schedule to be in service in the 2016/2017 timeframe and that procurement activities have begun. See Finding of Fact 21. SACE's fourth issue relates to adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. As detailed in Findings of Fact 51, 56, 61, 62, 69–72, 88–92, and 131-133, PEF presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, or vegetation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Finally, SACE contends that the agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. Again, SACE has failed to identify which agency reports failed to address these alleged risks. SACE likewise has not identified any specific regulatory requirement for such evaluations of environmental risks beyond the evaluations provided by the agencies. The record shows that DEP, FWC, SWFWMD, and Levy County all addressed risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and/or vegetation in their agency reports and proposed conditions of certification related thereto. Public Comment and Public Testimony Sworn oral public testimony was received from approximately 69 individuals and unsworn public comment was received from approximately 16 individuals during the portion of the final hearing devoted to that purpose. Many of the individuals who provided public testimony also submitted written comments. Three written comments were received from members of the public who did not attend one of the public comment sessions. Thirty hours were devoted to allowing members of the public to comment on the Project over six separate sessions. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. Several members of the public commented on the benefits of nuclear power in general and the economic benefits of the LNP specifically. Many others spoke in favor of the extensive public outreach conducted by PEF on the Project. Numerous members of the public spoke of PEF's history of being a good corporate neighbor. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Many of these concerns and questions are addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. However, several were outside the scope of the matters considered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed, is too costly, and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. But the PSC already considered those issues in certifying a need for the Project. The PSC's determinations are binding, and those issues were not reconsidered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety, storage of nuclear waste, and radioactive effluent contamination of groundwater via "fracture sets." Radiological issues raised by SACE were stricken because they were preempted by federal regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, radiological safety issues were not considered in the certification hearing. The LNP must be approved by the NRC which regulates radiological safety of nuclear power plants. However, there was evidence that the Florida Department of Health monitors groundwater and other media in the vicinity of nuclear plants, and PEF's subsurface investigation did not reveal any evidence of fracture sets below the LNP site. See Finding of Fact 79. Some members of the public expressed concerns regarding potential infrastructure and lifestyle changes to the Town of Inglis. Specifically, members of the public raised concerns related to strain on local public services; traffic impacts; limits on development due to the LNP; and concerns that financial benefits will go only to Levy County and, more specifically, not the Town of Inglis. First, it should be noted that, along with other affected local governments, the Town of Inglis was provided a copy of PEF's nine-volume SCA on June 2, 2008. The Town of Inglis did not file a notice of intent to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and thus waived its right to be a party. In addition, the Town had the opportunity to submit an agency report or to propose conditions of certification pursuant to Section 403.507, Florida Statutes, but did not. As acknowledged in public testimony by one of the Town Council members, the Town of Inglis's Council is unanimously in favor of the LNP. Nonetheless, as detailed in Findings of Fact 143-146, PEF presented competent substantial evidence that public services and facilities in the region of the LNP (which includes the Town of Inglis) are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. PEF also presented evidence that roadways in the vicinity will continue to operate at or above their adopted level of service capacities. See Findings of Fact 135-137. Further, there is no evidence that development will be restricted as a result of the LNP. Current limitations around the CREC related to increases in density are the result of Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, not the CREC or state regulatory requirements. Finally, while significant tax revenues will go to Levy County, PEF presented evidence that the LNP's operation will contribute $521 million annually to the regional economy, which includes the Town of Inglis. See Finding of Fact 148. By way of comparison, although PEF's CREC is in Citrus County (and outside the Crystal River city limits), the Crystal River City Manager testified that PEF has been good for the Citrus County school system, has provided jobs for residents, and has been very helpful to efforts in the community. Other members of the public expressed concerns that the new jobs created by the LNP will not go to local residents. As indicated in Finding of Fact 141, PEF has and will continue to make efforts to train and employ local residents at the LNP. Other members of the public expressed concern that increased salinity in the CFBC would cause saltwater intrusion in the Lower Withlacoochee River. There is no connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River. While the LNP's withdrawals from the CFBC will increase salinity in the CFBC somewhat, it will not cause increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River. See Findings of Fact 66-67. A member of the public expressed concern that PEF's proposed location for the CWIS would prevent future reconnection of the Withlacoochee River in an effort to provide more freshwater to the Lower Withlacoochee River.3 As detailed in Finding of Fact 68, options for reconnection of the Withlacoochee River have been evaluated by SWFWMD, but would not provide adequate increased freshwater flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River. Another issue raised during the public testimony sessions was the impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation surrounding the LNP. As indicated in Findings of Fact 103-104 and 110-111, PEF presented uncontroverted expert testimony that cooling tower drift will not adversely impact natural resources, including wetlands and surface waters. Several residents of Hernando County expressed concern that a portion of the BBW transmission line as proposed along Sunshine Grove Road is incompatible from a public safety standpoint with existing and proposed natural gas pipelines in this same area. PEF presented evidence, however, that this type of collocation of transmission lines and gas pipelines is commonplace throughout Florida. Further, it was not demonstrated that such collocation is prohibited under or contrary to applicable law or agency regulation. Some of these residents focused their concern on whether locating the BBW transmission line in proximity to a natural gas pipeline would be inconsistent with PEF's internal collocation guidelines, which these residents believe prohibit such collocation because an unsafe operating condition will result. As noted by Hernando County’s attorney and DEP's Siting Administrator, there is no basis in statute, ordinance, or rule to require PEF to comply with its internal guidelines. In any event, PEF presented evidence that the purpose of its internal collocation guidelines is to ensure the safety of persons involved in the construction and installation of a pipeline in proximity to an existing transmission line. Further, PEF is bound by the conditions of certification to comply with requirements of the National Electric Safety Code as they relate to induced currents that might affect a gas pipeline. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 76, Condition XLII(H). Other residents were concerned that construction of the BBW transmission line would be unsafe due to the presence of an existing natural gas pipeline. The conditions of certification require, however, that PEF comply with applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards during construction of each of the transmission lines. The conditions of certification also require PEF to contact the Sunshine State One Call service to locate underground utilities prior to construction activities. Finally, after PEF selects its ultimate location for the BBW transmission line, Hernando County and other agencies will have the opportunity to review the proposed location and notify the DEP Siting Coordination Office if it believes that the construction of the transmission line within the selected right-of-way cannot be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of certification. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 65-66, Condition XXXV(A).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Gigi Rollini, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 For the Department of Environmental Protection: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Levy County: Anne Bast Brown, Esquire Levy County Attorney 380 South Court Street Bronson, Florida 32621-6517 For Hillsborough County: Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 27th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 For City of Tampa: Janice McLean, Esquire Office of the City Attorney Old City Hall, 5th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 For the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: E. Leon Jacobs, Esquire Williams & Jacobs 1720 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5506
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain a two-unit nuclear powered electrical generating facility in Levy County, Florida, including a heavy haul road, site access roads, and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines, subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended; and Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain each of the following electrical transmission line corridors as associated facilities, as described above and subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, Crystal River Transmission Line, Sumter Transmission Line, Levy North Transmission Line, Levy South Transmission Line, Brookridge Transmission Line, Brooksville West Transmission Line, Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
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.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Chandler sought exemption from permitting requirement from the Department to perform certain dredging in two artificial dead-end canals located in Placida Point Subdivision (formerly Porto-Fino Subdivision), Charlotte County, Florida. The Department has denied the exemption on the basis that "the proposed work indicates that it is not for maintenance purposes, and therefore, it does not fit the maintenance exemption". The dredging proposed by Chandler would remove the existing earthen plugs between Coral Creek (an adjacent creek) and the two canals. Coral Creek is a natural body of water and is waters of the State. The two canals were excavated (constructed) during the latter part of 1969 and early 1970 (before April 1970). Although no original design specifications were offered into evidence, there is sufficient competent evidence to show that at the time the canals were constructed earthen plugs were left between the canals and Coral Creek which restricted the water exchange between the canals and Coral Creek. The exchange of water apparently occurred at mean high water, and navigation, if any, was restricted to small boats. Porto-Fino Realty Co., Inc., (Porto-Fino) developed the Porto-Fino Subdivision in 1971, and in early 1971 applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) for a dredge permit to connect the certain existing canals, which included the canals in question, to Coral Creek. As part of the application review, a site inspection was made, and it was found that the earthen plugs left between Coral Creek and the canals when they were constructed allowed water to ebb and flow during periods of high tide. As a result of this site inspection, it was recommended that before any further consideration be given the permit application, that the applicant be advised that the canals had to be adequately diked. The record is not clear on whether this permit was granted, but apparently it was not because this subject was raised again in 1974 with Lou Fusz Motor Company, the present owner of Porto-Fino Subdivision, by the Board and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps). Apparently, it was determined by the Board, and possibly by the Corps, that the plugs had washed out and needed to be repaired. In 1975, at the request of the Board, the earthen plugs were repaired and culverts placed in the plugs to allow flushing of the canals. The earthen plugs are presently in existence in the mouth of the canals, and are colonized by mangroves, Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The mangroves are mature trees 10-15 feet in height, and approximately 10-15 years old. The plugs do not show any signs of any recent dredging in or around the mouths of the canals. The plugs form a barrier to navigation between the canals and Coral Creek. The canals have not been used for navigational access to Coral Creek since they were repaired in 1975. The canals have not been previously dredged to maintain navigational access for boat traffic to Coral Creek, and are not presently used for navigational access to Coral Creek. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the earthen plugs, as they presently exist, are man-made barriers that separated the two canals from Coral Creek. There is insufficient evidence to show that the repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was illegal. The repair of the earthen plugs in 1975 by the developer was necessary because the original plugs had not been properly constructed or had washed out over the period of years. Coral Creek and the canals in question are surface waters of the state as defined in Rule 17-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Canals which are used for navigation have to be periodically dredged to maintain navigational access. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the dredging proposed by Chandler would not be "maintenance dredging" as contemplated by Rule 17-312.050(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Procedural Matters. Filing of the Application and Notices. FPC filed the DWS transmission line Application on July 2, 1992. The Notice of Receipt of Transmission Line Certification Application, the Notice of Certification Hearing on Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, and the Reminder Notice of Certification Hearing were published in newspapers of general circulation in Volusia and Seminole Counties, and in the Florida Administrative Weekly in accordance with the requirements of Section 403.527, Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 17 Florida Administrative Code Stipulations. DCA, GFWFC, ECFRPC, DOT, Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Lake Mary, and City of Sanford have entered into stipulations with FPC regarding the certification of the DWS transmission line. These state, regional, and local agencies have agreed that the location of the DWS transmission line corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line as set forth in the Application will, under the provisions contained in the stipulations, comply with the nonprocedural standards of each agency and/or be consistent and in compliance with the local government comprehensive plans and land use regulations of the local governments. It was further agreed that the Siting Board should adopt Conditions of Certification substantially in compliance with those set forth in Attachment A to this Recommended Order. No party filed an alternate corridor for consideration in this proceeding. Summary of Need for DWS Transmission Line. The Determination of Need for the DWS transmission line was issued by the PSC pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida Statutes, by Order No. 24993, dated August 29, 1991. The several reasons cited in the Determination of Need Order for why the DWS transmission line is needed in the Central Florida area are summarized below: First, the DWS transmission line is needed to enable FPC to continue to meet its reliability criteria in the Greater Orlando area. Specifically, the DWS transmission line is needed to maintain reliability in case of a single contingency outage of either the Sanford-North Longwood 230 or the North Longwood-Winter Springs 230 Secondly, the DWS transmission line is needed for transmission of electrical power if additional generating units are added to the FPC DeBary power plant site or, in the absence of new generating units, to facilitate the flow of power from north of the DeBary power plant south to the Greater Orlando area. Project Design. The DWS transmission line will consist of a single overhead 230 circuit and will proceed from the FPC DeBary power plant site located in Volusia County south to the Winter Springs Substation in Seminole County. The total length of the DWS transmission line corridor is 19.1 miles. The transmission line corridor extensively follows existing transmission line rights-of-way, roadways, and other linear facilities. From the St. Johns River south to the Winter Springs Substation, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line or be located within an existing transmission line right-of- way. The transmission line corridor ranges in width from 350 feet to one mile. As part of this certification, FPC is seeking approval for the conversion of the Lake Emma Substation located in the City of Lake Mary from 115-kV to 230 kV to 230 from the DWS transmission line. An entire detailed site plan review package for the Lake Emma Substation was included as Appendix C to the Application. Location of the Preferred Corridor, Land Use, and Biophysical Environment. DeBary Power Plant to St. Johns River The proposed corridor begins in the vicinity of the FPC DeBary power plant in Volusia County and proceeds south to Konomac Lake, the cooling pond for the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Sanford power plant. The corridor is approximately 0.5 miles wide along this portion and follows the CSX Railroad and two existing transmission line rights-of-way in this area. At the southern end of Konomac Lake, the corridor expands to one mile wide to encompass several linear facilities, including U.S. Highway 17/92 and several existing transmission line rights-of-way. South of the FPL Sanford plant, the corridor follows the existing FPC Turner-North Longwood (TNL) transmission line right-of- way to the St. Johns River. From the FPC DeBary power plant to the St. Johns River, the corridor crosses unincorporated portions of Volusia County. Predominant land uses in this portion of the corridor are characterized by utilities such as the FPC DeBary power plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and the FPL Sanford power plant. This portion of the corridor also includes numerous linear facilities, including the CSX Railroad, U.S. Highway 17/92, and numerous transmission line rights-of- way. Low and medium-density residential housing, including a portion of the Orlandia Heights Subdivision, is also located along this portion of the corridor. The types of natural land cover in the portion of the corridor from the DeBary power plant to the St. Johns River include areas of sand pine scrub, pine flatwoods, wet prairies, and improved pastures. Much of the natural land cover has been disturbed by development. Major waterbodies crossed by the corridor in this area include Konomac Lake, which is a manmade cooling pond, and the St. Johns River. St. Johns River to the Winter Springs Substation. After the corridor crosses the St. Johns River, it enters Seminole County. From the St. Johns River, the corridor proceeds south and crosses U.S. Interstate 4 (I FPC TNL transmission line right-of-way along this portion of the corridor. Land uses in this portion of the corridor include undeveloped land, low-density residential development, transportation corridors, and utilities. Just south of the St. Johns River, the natural land cover is composed of cypress and cleared marsh and pasture. Where the corridor approaches the I there are some areas of mixed wetland hardwood forest. The St. Johns River is the only major waterbody in this area of the corridor. After the corridor crosses I a portion of the City of Sanford. The corridor widens to 2,500 feet in this area to allow flexibility for siting around the proposed Seminole Mall and the I corridor include undeveloped land, utility corridors (FPC DeBary-Altamonte Springs/DeBary-North Longwood (DA/DL) and TNL transmission line rights-of-way), transportation corridors (I Pine/mesic oak, citrus groves, improved pasture, and xeric oak comprise the natural land cover in this portion of the corridor. No major waterbodies are crossed in this portion of the corridor. The corridor enters the City of Lake Mary after it crosses 25th Street (CR 46A). Just south of 25th Street, the corridor narrows to 600 feet to avoid existing and proposed development and follows Rinehart Road south to Lake Mary Boulevard. The predominant land uses in this portion of the corridor are utilities (DA/DL and TNL transmission line rights-of-way and the Lake Emma Substation) and transportation (Rinehart Road). Other land uses include commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. Natural land cover is comprised of improved pasture, longleaf pine/xeric oak, and xeric oak communities. The corridor crosses Lake Emma and some other small, unnamed waterbodies in this portion of the corridor. South of Lake Mary Boulevard, the corridor enters unincorporated Seminole County. The corridor follows Rinehart Road, and then the FPC DA/DL and TNL transmission line rights-of-way south to the area of the FPC North Longwood Substation. In the vicinity of the North Longwood Substation, the corridor widens to 3,800 feet to allow flexibility in siting the DWS transmission line around the substation area. Land uses in this portion of the corridor include transmission line rights-of-way, commercial, industrial, and residential development. Remnants of a mixed hardwood forest make up the predominant natural land cover in this area. No major named waterbodies are crossed by the corridor in this area. After exiting the FPC North Longwood Substation area, the corridor narrows to approximately 800 feet, turns southeast, and proceeds along the northern portion of the City of Longwood to U.S. Highway 17/92. Predominant land uses along this portion of the corridor are the FPC North Longwood Substation, several transmission line rights-of-way, industrial development, undeveloped land, and some low-density residential development. Natural land cover is characterized primarily by small areas of wetland hardwood forest that are located on the edge of the Spring Hammock Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) property. No named waterbodies are crossed by the corridor in this area. From U.S. Highway 17/92, the proposed corridor turns south and proceeds through portions of the Cities of Winter Springs and Casselberry, and then turns east and proceeds to the Winter Springs Substation, the termination point of the proposed corridor. The corridor ranges in width from 350 to 400 feet in this area and follows the North Longwood-Rio Pinar (NR) 230 transmission line. FPC intends to locate the proposed DWS transmission line on a structure with the NR transmission line along this portion of the corridor. Because the corridor is relatively narrow in this area, the existing NR transmission line is the predominant land use within this portion of the corridor. Other land uses adjacent to the existing transmission line include a wastewater disposal facility, medium and high-density residential development, and some industrial development. The types of natural land cover along this portion of the corridor include small areas of sand pine, improved pasture, disturbed pine flatwoods, and disturbed oak. Gee Creek is the only named waterbody crossed by the corridor in this area. Exclusion Areas. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S agreed to exclude certain areas within the proposed corridor from consideration when locating the DWS transmission line right-of-way. A map showing the general location of these "exclusion" areas is set forth in Appendix 5 to the Conditions of Certification. (See Attachment A to the Recommended Order.) Proposed Design, Construction, and Maintenance of the DWS Transmission Line. Structures. Four typical structures will be used for the DWS transmission line. Double-circuit, single-pole structures with conductors in a vertical configuration will be used where the transmission line will be collocated with another transmission line or be designed to have a double- circuit capability. A single-pole structure with conductors in a vertical configuration will be used where only a single-circuit structure is required for the DWS transmission line. A triple-circuit, single-pole structure with the upper transmission line conductors in a vertical configuration and the underbuilt transmission line conductors in a delta configuration will be used where the DWS transmission line will be located on the same structure with two other transmission line circuits. Typical span lengths between structures will range between 600 to 1,000 feet. Typical structure heights will range from 80 to 135 feet where the DWS transmission line is either located in a single- circuit configuration, designed to have a double-circuit configuration, or located in a double-circuit configuration with one other transmission line circuit. Where the DWS transmission line is located with two other transmission line circuits, structure heights will range from 160 to 170 feet. Collocation of the DWS Transmission Line. From the DeBary power plant site to the southern portion of Konomac Lake, the DWS transmission line will be constructed within or immediately adjacent to an existing linear facility such as transmission line or railroad rights-of-way. From the southern portion of Konomac Lake to the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will be within or immediately adjacent to an existing linear facility right-of-way or will replace an existing transmission line which will be removed. From the St. Johns River to the North Longwood Substation, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line which will be removed. From the North Longwood Substation to the Winter Springs Substation, the DWS transmission line will be located with one or more existing transmission line circuits on a single transmission line structure. Phases of Construction. Construction of the DWS transmission line will take place in several phases: right-of-way clearing, access road and structure pad construction, dismantling of existing transmission lines (where applicable), foundation placement, structure erection, conductor and shield wire stringing, and clean-up. Clearing. Very little clearing will be required for the DWS transmission line since the majority of the right-of-way will be within or adjacent to an existing transmission line or other linear facility rights-of- way. Where clearing is required, rotary mowers will be used in upland, non- scrub habitats. In upland scrub habitats and wetland areas, restrictive clearing will be used. Restrictive clearing will be done using hand-clearing tools or low-ground pressure machinery. Restrictive clearing includes the removal of vegetation from areas extending from the transmission line centerline to 15 feet on each side of the outer conductors and in work areas approximately 100 feet by 150 feet around structure sites. In addition, where access from an available adjacent road is required, a path approximately 20-25 feet wide may be cleared for such access. Access Road and Structure Pad Construction. While access roads and structure pads are required for the construction and maintenance of the DWS transmission line, no new access roads are anticipated for the proposed transmission line. Access to the DWS transmission line will be from adjacent public roads or via existing access roads. Some of the existing access roads may need upgrading. In particular, the access road south of the St. Johns River will need to be upgraded. In some wetland areas, temporary construction matting in lieu of access road upgrade can be used. Design requirements for access roads and structure pads are described generally in the Application and Condition of Certification S Dismantling Existing Transmission Lines. Where the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line, dismantling of the existing transmission line will be required. Dismantling of the existing transmission line involves removing the conductors and shield wires, disassembling the insulator assemblies, and removing the existing transmission line structure. Foundation Placement. Depending on the soil conditions at structure sites, three types of foundations are possible for the DWS transmission line structures. Direct embedded foundations are constructed by augering a shaft in the ground, placing the foundation in the ground, and backfilling around the foundation shaft with either crushed rock or concrete. Concrete-filled caisson foundations are constructed by augering a hole, placing reinforcing steel and anchoring bolts in the shaft, and filling the shaft with concrete. Vibratory- driven foundations are constructed by driving the foundation pole into the ground with a vibratory hammer. Any excavated material from foundation construction will be dispersed around the foundation site or, if in a wetland area, removed and disposed of in a suitable upland area. Structure Erection. Transmission line structures will be assembled on the ground and then placed into the foundations using cranes and other support vehicles. Once the structures have been raised, insulator assemblies and hardware components will be attached. Conductor and Shield Wire Stringing. Standard wire pulling and tensioning equipment will be used to string the conductors and shield wires on the DWS transmission line structures. Clean-up. Clean-up activities will take place through all phases of the construction process. Duration of Construction. Along a typical mile of the DWS transmission line, each phase of construction is expected to last one to two weeks. The entire construction of the DWS transmission line should take approximately 18 months. Transmission Line Load Design. The DWS transmission line is designed for a nominal operating voltage of 230,000 volts with a maximum operating voltage of 242,000 volts. The maximum current rating (MCR) for the DWS transmission line is 1,980 amperes. Transmission Line and Right-of-Way Maintenance. Transmission lines typically require minimal maintenance. Annual inspections of the DWS transmission line will be made by air or ground to ensure the safe operation of the transmission line. Maintenance activities in the right-of- way will be consistent with the initial clearing, if any, of the right-of-way. Restrictive clearing practices will continue to be used to maintain the right-of-way in upland scrub and wetland areas. Herbicides approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be used on targeted species and will be applied by a licensed applicator pursuant to Condition of Certification S Compliance with Codes and Engineering Standards. Construction of the DWS transmission line will comply with applicable construction and material codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code (Ed. 1990), the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide (May 1990), and the electric and magnetic field standards of Chapter 17 line will also comply with applicable engineering and material standards issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Testing Material (ASTM), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). Construction of the Lake Emma Substation. The DWS transmission line will provide power to the existing Lake Emma Substation. This connection will require that the Lake Emma Substation be converted from 115 capacity. Conversion of the Lake Emma Substation will involve relocation of the boundary fence, followed by foundation construction and equipment installation. The site plan review package for the Lake Emma Substation conversion was included in the Application and approved by the City of Lake Mary and the SJRWMD, agencies with jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site. The SJRWMD has agreed that the stormwater management system as proposed to serve the Lake Emma Substation conversion is consistent with the applicable nonprocedural standards of the District. Construction on the Lake Emma Substation conversion will last approximately nine months. Stipulations Concerning the Design of the DWS Transmission Line. FPC entered into stipulations with DER, DCA, GFWFC, DOT, DNR, ECFRPC, Seminole County, Volusia County, the City of Casselberry, the City of Lake Mary, and the City of Sanford regarding Conditions of Certification applicable to the location and construction of the proposed transmission line and Lake Emma Substation conversion. All of the Conditions of Certification regarding the design or location of the proposed transmission line and Lake Emma Substation construction are encompassed within the ranges of design and location proposed in the Application. Appropriate Conditions of Certification affecting the location and construction of the DWS transmission line and Lake Emma Substation are included in Attachment A to this Recommended Order. Impacts of the DWS Transmission Line Upon the Public. Impacts on Existing Land Uses. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will have minimal impact upon adjacent land uses. South of the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will replace an existing transmission line or be located within existing transmission line rights-of-way. North of the St. Johns River, the DWS transmission line will be either within or adjacent to an existing linear facility right-of-way, or replace an existing transmission line. Collocation of the DWS transmission line will minimize the need for additional right-of-way and minimize disruption to existing land uses. To further minimize the impact to adjacent land uses, FPC has agreed to exclude certain areas of the proposed transmission line corridor from consideration for right-of-way location and transmission line construction. These exclusion areas, which are set forth in Condition of Certification S include certain residential developments, community facilities, public lands, and environmentally sensitive areas. There are no known significant archaeological sites within the corridor. To ensure that significant archaeological artifacts are not disturbed, a survey of archaeologically sensitive areas will be conducted prior to the construction of the DWS transmission line. Construction Noise: Noise from the construction of the DWS transmission line will be that typically associated with trucks and other construction equipment. Construction activities will be scheduled to take place during daylight hours only. Transmission Line Noise. During fair weather, the DWS transmission line will not emit audible noise above ambient noise levels. During wet weather, including heavy fog, when water droplets may form on the DWS transmission line conductors, audible noise may be emitted from the transmission line. Where the DWS transmission line is located alone within a right-of-way, the maximum audible noise level at the edge of the right-of-way will be approximately 42.5 dBA. Where the DWS transmission line is located with one or more other transmission lines, the audible noise at the edge of the right-of-way will vary between 36.7 dBA to 47.3 dBA depending on the number of transmission lines and the width of the right-of-way. The noise from the proposed DWS transmission line in foul weather will be similar to the sound of rain falling in a field. Therefore, transmission line noise may be masked by the rain during foul weather. The audible noise from the DWS transmission line will comply with the noise ordinances of Seminole County, the City of Casselberry, and the City of Longwood. The City of Sanford has a unique noise standard which establishes individual noise standards at different octave bands. Audible noise from the DWS transmission line will, in foul weather, exceed the standard in the four highest octave bands set forth in the noise standard; however, the sound of rainfall during foul weather also will exceed the standard at those four frequency bands. Furthermore, there is no practical way for the proposed transmission line to comply with the City of Sanford noise standard. Therefore, FPC seeks and is entitled to a variance from this portion of the Sanford noise standard. Radio and Television Interference. The proposed DWS transmission line will not interfere with frequency- modulated (FM) radio reception or the audio portion of television, which is transmitted on FM frequency. Amplitude-modulated (AM) radio transmission and the video portion of television transmission may be susceptible to interference from the DWS transmission line. The amount of interference is dependent upon the strength of the signals from the radio station and television station transmitters and the strength of the interference from the transmission line. During fair weather, radio transmission from over 90% of the Type A AM radio stations would be received without interference along the edge of the right-of-way. At a distance of 10 feet or more from the edge of the right-of- way, 100% of the transmissions from Type A stations would be received without interference. Sixty-three percent of the weaker Grade B AM radio stations would be received at a distance of 10 feet or greater from the edge of the right-of- way, and 97% of the Grade B stations would be received at a distance of 15 feet or more from the edge of the right-of-way. Natural radio interference from foul weather will mask any increase in interference from the transmission line during foul weather conditions. Transmission line interference with the video portion of television reception is very rare. The proposed DWS transmission line will not interfere with the audio or video television reception from either Grade A or Grade B television transmissions at the edge of the right-of-way in either fair or foul weather. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S complaints of radio and television interference and will take appropriate corrective action for impacts to audio or television interference caused by the proposed transmission line. Other Communications Equipment. The transmission line will not cause any interference with cable television, telephone, or cellular telephone reception. Electric and Magnetic Fields. The DWS transmission line, like all electrical equipment, will produce electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields from transmission lines are measured in kilovolts per meter (kV/m) and magnetic fields are measured in milligauss (mG). Standards for electric and magnetic fields produced by transmission lines are set forth in Chapter 17 Those standards limit the electric field for a 230 more than 8 kV/m within the right-of-way and 2 kV/m at the edge of the right-of- way, and the magnetic field to no more than 150 mG at the edge of the right-of- way. Calculations to demonstrate compliance with the standards in Chapter 17 at the edge of the right-of-way and calculations for magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way are made using the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) computer program. The electric and magnetic fields are calculated based on the design of the transmission line, the maximum operating voltage of the transmission line, the maximum current rating for the transmission line, and the minimum conductor-to-ground clearance. The DWS transmission line will comply with the electric and magnetic field standards in Chapter 17 detailed design of the DWS transmission line will not be finalized until the right-of-way is identified following certification, electric and magnetic field calculations for 14 typical and other probable transmission line configurations were performed for the proposed DWS transmission line. These calculations are included in Appendix G to the Application. All of the transmission line configurations for which calculations are reflected in Appendix G of the Application will be below the electric and magnetic field limits established by Chapter 17 Condition of Certification S developed during the final design of the DWS transmission line that is not included in Appendix G to the Application at least 90 days prior to the start of construction. Impacts of the DWS Transmission Line Upon the Environment: Water Resources, Vegetation, and Wildlife. Water Quality. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the water within or adjacent to the proposed corridor. Location of the DWS transmission line adjacent to or within existing cleared rights-of- way minimizes construction and clearing activities which could contribute to erosion and turbidity. Water quality treatment is currently provided for some existing access roads by roadside swales. Additionally, where required, turbidity barriers and revegetation will be used to control erosion and turbidity from placement of poles and associated construction. Finally, pursuant to Condition of Certification S water quality treatment methods if necessary to comply with state water quality standards. Water Quantity. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not have an adverse impact on water quantity. No new access roads will be constructed using methods which could impact water quantity or water flow. Where existing access roads are upgraded, specifically south of the St. Johns River, culverts will be used to maintain or improve the existing flows, and compensating storage will be provided for any fill placed in the 10 or 100-year floodplain area. Consumptive Use. No groundwater or surface water withdrawals are anticipated which exceed the SJRWMD's permitting thresholds for consumptive use of water. Should such groundwater withdrawals occur, they will comply with the consumptive use requirements of Chapter 40C Navigation. Where the DWS transmission line crosses the St. Johns River, the height of the structures will ensure that there are no impacts to navigation since the conductor clearance will be consistent with that of the existing transmission line, which is being replaced in this area. Management and Storage of Surface Waters. The management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) system proposed for the DWS transmission line consists primarily of culverts and roadside swales where access road construction will take place. The system contains appropriate components which have been determined to meet the criteria and standards set forth in Chapters 40C-4 and 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the MSSW system will comply with the nonprocedural requirements of the SJRWMD. It will also operate effectively and not increase any potential for damage to offsite property nor endanger life, health, or property. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S professional engineer that it complies with the construction standards required by the Conditions of Certification for this transmission line. Lake Emma Substation. The construction of the Lake Emma Substation conversion will not adversely impact water resources adjacent to the site. Stormwater runoff from the driveway and substation site will be conveyed by curb and gutter to two separate retention areas. Both retention areas exceed the retention volume and recovery time criteria as required by the nonprocedural regulations of SJRWMD. SJRWMD and the City of Lake Mary, the two agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site, have reviewed the Lake Emma Substation Site Plan Review Package included as Appendix C to the Application and agree that the conversion construction of the Lake Emma Substation will meet all applicable nonprocedural requirements. Vegetation. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will have a minimal impact upon the vegetation within the proposed corridor. Because the proposed transmission line will be located adjacent to or within existing rights-of-way, little new clearing will be required. Additionally, no new access roads are planned, further minimizing impacts due to access road construction. Where scrub habitat is found, restrictive clearing practices will be utilized if clearing is necessary. Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands from the location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will also be minimal. No new access roads will be built which could result in loss of wetland areas. Furthermore, since existing rights-of- way will be utilized for the DWS transmission line, little, if any, clearing will be required. Where clearing is required in wetlands, restrictive clearing practices will be utilized. Wildlife Habitats. The location, construction, and operation of the proposed DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor will not adversely affect wildlife or the conservation of any fish or wildlife habitats. The use of existing rights-of-way, and in some cases existing structures, greatly reduces any potential impacts to wildlife habitats. If clearing is needed, sensitive wildlife habitats such as scrub and wetland habitats will be cleared using restrictive clearing techniques, pursuant to Condition of Certification S Threatened and Endangered Species. The location, construction, and operation of the DWS transmission line will not result in harm or harassment to any threatened or endangered wildlife species. Other than the manatee habitat in the St. Johns River, none of the wildlife habitats within the proposed corridor are essential for the survival of any threatened, endangered, or other listed species. Pursuant to Condition of Certification S a survey for threatened and endangered species prior to the construction of the DWS transmission line. If any threatened or endangered species are determined to be present in the transmission line right-of-way and to be impacted by the construction of the transmission line, FPC will consult with DER, GFWFC, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the appropriate steps for minimizing, avoiding, or otherwise addressing those impacts. Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies. Attachment A to the Recommended Order sets forth the Conditions of Certification agreed to by the parties to this proceeding. Appendix 4 to the Conditions Certification sets forth the list of nonprocedural requirements applicable to the certification of the DWS transmission line, including the conversion construction of the Lake Emma Substation. Copies of these regulations were introduced into evidence by FPC at the certification hearing. Agencies, including DER, DCA, DOT, GFWFC, SJRWMD, ECFRPC, Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Sanford, and the City of Lake Mary, either through written stipulation or testimony, have agreed that the DWS transmission line will conform to these nonprocedural requirements if located, constructed, and maintained as set forth in the Application and in conformance with the Conditions of Certification. Furthermore, the City of Lake Mary and SJRWMD, the two agencies with jurisdiction over the Lake Emma Substation site, have agreed that the conversion construction at the Lake Emma Substation will comply with the nonprocedural requirements applicable to that facility if constructed in conformance with the site plan review package set forth as Appendix C to the Application. FPC and the agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the DWS transmission line have identified certain variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief from the nonprocedural requirements that may be needed for the location, construction, and maintenance of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor. These variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief are identified in Appendix 4 to the Conditions of Certification. Evidence admitted at hearing, including the location of the proposed corridor and the design and construction of the proposed DWS transmission line, together with the Conditions of Certification attached as Attachment A to this Recommended Order, support the issuance of the necessary variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief. It is also the position of DER that these variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief are appropriate and should be granted by the Siting Board. Compliance with Comprehensive Plans. The applicable comprehensive plans for Volusia County, Seminole County, City of Sanford, City of Lake Mary, City of Longwood, City of Casselberry, and the City of Winter Springs were introduced at the certification hearing. The location of the DWS transmission line in the proposed corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line are consistent with these local government comprehensive plans.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving FPC's DeBary-Winter Springs 230 Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Attachment A to this Recommended Order, and grant the variances, exceptions, exemptions, and other relief identified in Appendix 4 to the Conditions of Certification that may be necessary for the location, construction, or maintenance of the DWS transmission line. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela I. Smith, Attorney at Law Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733-4042 Representing Applicant Richard W. Moore Carolyn S. Raepple Attorneys at Law 123 South Calhoun Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Richard Donelan Gary C. Smallridge Assistant General Counsels Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Representing DER Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Representing PSC Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Representing DCA M. B. Adelson IV Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. MS-35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Representing DNR William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Representing DOT James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Clare E. Gray Kathryn Mennella Assistant General Counsels St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32078 Representing SJRWMD Robert A. McMillan, County Attorney Lonnie A. Groot Assistant County Attorney Seminole County Services Building 1101 East First Street Sanford, FL 32771 Representing Seminole County Douglas M. Weaver Assistant County Attorney 123 West Indiana Avenue Deland, FL 32117 Representing Volusia County Gerald S. Livingston Attorney at Law Kreuter & Livingston, P.A. 200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150 Orlando, FL 32801 Representing East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Kenneth W. McIntosh, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Casselberry Ned N. Julian, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Lake Mary Gretchen R. H. Vose, City Attorney 2705 W. Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Representing City of Longwood William L. Colbert, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, FL 32772-4848 Representing City of Sanford Frank C. Kruppenbacher, City Attorney Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, FL 32801 Representing City of Winter Springs Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issues are (1) whether a driveway connection on Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to closure because it poses safety concerns, and (2) whether a second driveway connection on Respondent's property should be modified because it fails to meet current access management standards.
Findings Of Fact A. Background The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating access between state roads and private property abutting those roads. See §§ 335.18 through 335.188, Fla. Stat. State Road 544 is a part of the state highway system. Since 1998, Respondent has owned a small, irregularly shaped parcel of property located at 502 Havendale Boulevard (State Road 544), Auburndale. The 0.46-acre parcel lies on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest. Commercial establishments are located on the other three corners. In December 1998, Respondent leased the property to a tenant who operates Townsend Motors, a used car lot. The business has operated continuously at that location since that time. Aerial photographs reflect the lot has a capacity of around 30 or so vehicles. Most vehicles are displayed where the triangle-shaped lot comes to a point at the intersection and along the side of the lot facing State Road 544. Other vehicles are parked throughout the middle or rear of the lot. They are rearranged from time to time to enhance sales. To replace cars that are sold, the tenant typically buys a few cars at a time, which are delivered by a tow truck. Auto carriers and large trucks with trailers are not used to deliver vehicles. On the "rare" occasion in the past when a "big transport" made deliveries, the truck used the parking lot in a nearby Publix store to the east. State Road 544 is classified as a class 7 road. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(1), Table 2. That classification is assigned to roads where adjacent land is developed to the maximum feasible intensity and roadway widening is limited. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(2). The regulation provides that a driveway connection on a class 7 road must be at least 125 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. This amount of spacing reduces driver confusion and the potential for rear-end collisions. Respondent's parcel has two driveway connections, less than 125 feet apart, facing State Road 544. The first connection is approximately 60 feet east of the intersection and is known as the western connection. The second connection lies further east and is known as the eastern connection. A third driveway connection is located on the western side of the parcel facing 42nd Street Northwest. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered. See § 335.1825, Fla. Stat.; Fla Admin. Code 14-96.011(3)(a). Neither connection on State Road 544 is permitted. A driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence prior to July 1, 1988, when access permits were first required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3)(a). Because the driveway connections were in place before 1988, they qualify for that status. To retain that status, however, a driveway must be consistently used by the owner. If use is discontinued for a period of one year or more, the use is considered abandoned. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.005(2)(c). If a driveway loses its grandfathered status through abandonment, the owner must apply for an access permit; otherwise, the driveway is subject to closure. A connection that retains its grandfathered status may still be modified if safety or operational issues exist. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14- 96.011(4)(b)(the Department may modify a grandfathered connection "if such modification is determined to be necessary because the connection would jeopardize the safety of the public or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of the state highway"). The parties agree the eastern driveway is grandfathered and has been consistently used by the tenant since 1998. There is a dispute over the status of the western driveway. The Department must allow owners of private properties adjoining a state road to have "reasonable access" to and from their property. See § 335.18(2)(a), Fla. Stat. As a general rule, limiting the number of driveway connections promotes better traffic movement and an increased level of safety and mobility for the system as a whole. To determine the number of connections necessary to establish reasonable access, the Department considers the projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, the type and intensity of the land use, the access management classification of the state road, and the standards for that classification. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.002(25). The Intersection Project The genesis of this dispute is a safety project (Project) at the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest adjacent to Respondent's property. The Project was initiated after the Department received pedestrian complaints concerning safe travel across the intersection to access retail and food stores and a lack of crosswalks that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Project is only 0.038 miles in length and is limited to improvements at the intersection and the installation of sidewalks adjacent to Respondent's parcel and the three other corner commercial properties. There will be minimal impact to current vehicular patterns, and no increase in capacity is expected. Part of the design effort for the Project included an evaluation of existing driveway connections for potential modifications that will improve traffic safety or traffic operations on the roadway. This evaluation was limited to driveways on State Road 544, as the Department has no jurisdiction over driveways on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road. During the planning process, the Department noted that the western driveway is less than 125 feet from the intersection, violates spacing requirements, and raises safety concerns. Accordingly, the Department proposes to remove it, "saw it over," and install type F curb and gutter along the roadway. To comply with access management standards for class 7 roads, the Department also proposes to narrow the width of the eastern driveway from around 60 feet to 36 feet and "widen the wings somewhat" to allow larger vehicles to swing into and out of the car lot. (Wings are the sides of the driveway that slope down from the top of the curb to the street level.) No changes to the driveway facing 42nd Street Northwest are proposed, and no other driveways on State Road 544 near the intersection will be modified. The Department determined that no other practical alternatives to this action exist. Based on its evaluation of the property, the Department concluded that one direct connection on State Road 544 and an indirect connection on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road, provide reasonable access to the property. The Department intends to install new pedestrian signal poles and increase access to a nearby bus stop. The Project includes connected sidewalks for the four commercial properties on the corners of the intersection and enhanced special emphasis crosswalks that are designed to comply with the ADA and connect to the existing Publix sidewalk to the east. The high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian signalization improvements, and removal of the western driveway will improve traffic movement through the intersection and enhance motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. A Department Safety Office Benefit Cost Analysis revealed there were a total of 60 rear-end or angle crashes at the intersection during the five-year period 2010 through 2014 and that some could have been prevented with better signage and signals. The study projects 11 crashes will be avoided over the upcoming five-year period once the Project is completed. Besides reducing angle and rear-end crashes at the intersection, the proposed modifications will improve safety and operational conditions for pedestrians and motorists who will have greater connectivity to adjacent commercial properties. Respondent's Objections Respondent raises a number of objections to the Department's proposed action. She contends the western driveway is not abandoned, and even though it fails to meet current spacing requirements, it should not be closed; the proposed modification to the eastern driveway is not warranted by safety or operational concerns; the Department violated a number of statutory provisions during the process leading up to the issuance of the Notice; the proposed action will deny her and the tenant reasonable access to the property; and the changes will reduce the value of the property. The Western Connection To comply with insurance requirements, in 1998 the tenant erected bollards (short vertical posts embedded in the driveway) around most of the parcel to restrict access to the premises. Among other locations, bollards were placed along the entire back side of the western connection, blocking off vehicle access through that driveway. Bollards were also placed on roughly half of the back side of the eastern connection, leaving less than 30 feet open to allow vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Even though the bollards remained in place for almost 20 years, Respondent considers them nothing more than temporary fixtures, as they could be removed at any time by sawing them off at ground level or pulling them out of the concrete. The bollards remained in place until shortly after the Notice was received by Respondent in early January 2017. They were then removed by the tenant from the western driveway (and other areas). The tenant denies the Notice triggered their removal and maintains they were removed to provide "extra room for the FedEx and stuff like that to get in." He added that his current insurance company no longer requires bollards for security purposes. The Department contends the western driveway connection was abandoned because bollards blocked vehicle access through the driveway from December 1998 until January 2017. The tenant's testimony confirms this assertion. The tenant admits he has "not frequently [been] using the westernmost driveway," but maintains the connection was never abandoned, as Fedex trucks and the mail carrier regularly parked on the driveway apron, which lies between the roadway and the bollards. Emergency responders also use the apron when responding to accidents at the intersection, and disabled vehicles traveling eastbound on State Road 544 are pushed onto the apron. The bottom line is that even though the apron may have been used, the driveway itself was not, and the connection was basically used as a "pull-off." In fact, the tenant acknowledged that until January 2017, except for customers who used the parking lots of adjacent businesses located south of the parcel, all other customers used the eastern connection to access the property. The evidence supports a finding that, even if the car lot has remained in business continuously, and Respondent did not intend to abandon the driveway, for the reasons stated above, it was effectively abandoned for more than one year. Because the western driveway is only 60 feet from the intersection and violates spacing standards, it is subject to closure based on safety concerns. Without closure, additional traffic will enter and exit the car lot, there will be less driver reaction time for vehicles to stop, and it will increase the potential for more pedestrian injuries and vehicle crashes. The Eastern Connection The eastern driveway is 58 feet wide when measured at the back of the property line. Until January 2017, less than 30 feet were usable because bollards blocked the remainder of the connection. The maximum width for a class 7 driveway connection is determined by the number of vehicle trips per day that enter a property and whether the connection is in a rural or urban location. Under current design standards for urban locations, a 24-foot driveway connection is typically allowed. See Dep't Ex. 15. Assuming a large volume of traffic entering or exiting the driveway, a maximum of 36 feet may be permitted. Id. Although there is no evidence that a large volume of traffic enters or exits the premises, after speaking with the owner's representative, Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width from 24 feet to 36 feet and widen the sides (wings) to make the driveway more accessible by customers and vehicles making deliveries. By comparison, the nearby Publix store has a 24-foot connection to State Road 544, although it also has several indirect connections on the local streets. The modified connection is of sufficient length and size for vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Other Objections Notice Respondent contends the Department did not comply with section 335.199(1), Florida Statutes, before issuing the Notice. That subsection provides as follows: Whenever the Department of Transportation proposes any project on the State Highway System which will divide a state highway, erect median barriers modifying currently available vehicle turning movements, or have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner, the department shall notify all affected property owners, municipalities, and counties at least 180 days before the design of the project is finalized. The department's notice shall provide a written explanation regarding the need for the project and indicate that all affected parties will be given an opportunity to provide comments to the department regarding potential impacts of the change. Subsection (3) of the statute also requires at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located. The Department has always construed this provision as applying only to large projects that involve an expenditure of "upward of a million dollars" and take out or block medians, remove turn lanes, or reconfigure intersections in conjunction with a modification or closure of a driveway connection. Because the Project entails the expenditure of $119,936.00, and only new curbs, sidewalks, striping, and pedestrian signals are contemplated, the Department considers it a "very limited scope" project and one that does not implicate the statute. For small projects such as this, the Department provides preliminary notification to the property owner and tenant, if any; a written notice setting forth the proposed agency action and the reason for the changes; an opportunity for the owner to meet with Department representatives to express concerns; notice to the affected local governments; and ultimately an administrative hearing, if one is requested. This process complies with section 335.1825(3), which only requires "reasonable notice" to the owner before closing an unpermitted connection. Before the Notice was issued, oral notice regarding the Project was given to the tenant by a Department representative. During the meeting, the tenant told the representative that he "didn't mind" if the western driveway was removed. Also, a Department representative spoke by telephone with Mr. Combee before the Notice was issued, but Mr. Combee says he was under the impression the Department was only seeking to close the connection on 42nd Street Northwest. An on-site meeting with Mr. Combee and his counsel was conducted in February 2017. Based on concerns expressed by Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width of the eastern driveway from 24 to 36 feet and widen the wings to provide greater accessibility into and out of the lot. Besides meeting with the tenant and Mr. Combee, the Department informed the City of Auburndale and Polk County about the intersection project and asked them whether any comments had been received from the public regarding the intersection. Assuming arguendo that section 335.199 applies to every project involving the closure or modification of a driveway connection, regardless of its size, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Lack of an Engineering Study Respondent contends the Department violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-96.011(4)(b) by failing to conduct a formal engineering study to substantiate the safety and operational concerns for closing and modifying the connections. In lieu of a signed and sealed engineering study, the Department performed a Safety Cost Benefit Analysis documenting the five-year crash history at the intersection. The study also includes an engineer's estimate of the type and cost of specific improvements planned to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians at the intersection. See Resp. Ex. 5. Nothing in rule 14-96.011(4) or (5) requires that a formal engineering study be conducted before closing an unpermitted connection or modifying a grandfathered connection. In fact, the rule cited by Respondent provides the "problem may be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and dated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida." (emphasis added). Therefore, both driveways are subject to removal or modification without any type of formal study being conducted. Here, the Department relied on a study of the crash history at the intersection, access management standards for connections on class 7 roadways, and safety concerns expressed by members of the public. These measures are adequate to support the Department's proposed action. Reasonable Access Respondent contends the Department's proposed action leaves her without "reasonable access" to the property. To support this contention, her engineering expert opined that both driveways on State Road 544 are necessary in order for large trucks making deliveries to enter and exit the lot. The engineer assumed incorrectly, however, that semi-trucks and trailers now access the property to make deliveries, and a 36-foot driveway will be too small to accommodate that type of vehicle. He also opined that large trucks cannot access the property through the 42nd Street Northwest connection because a building is located in the middle of the parcel and prevents them from being driven across the lot and exiting through the eastern connection. The expert agrees a 36-foot driveway provides reasonable access for automobiles and small trucks. The evidence shows that replacement vehicles are normally delivered by a tow truck hauling no more than one or two at a time and large semi-trucks and trailers do not make deliveries at the property. Assuming that the mail carrier or FedEx wish to continue parking where the apron now sits while they deliver the mail or a package, they can do so by pulling over the six-inch curb and parking on the grass. The evidence supports a finding that one direct access point on State Road 544 and one indirect access point on 42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to the property and result in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system. Economic Concerns Respondent contends the value of her property will be diminished as a result of the closure of the western connection. However, economic injury is not a statutory consideration for closing or modifying connections, and redress for that type of injury, if any, lies in another forum. Management of Project The Department routinely allows construction project administrators who are not professional engineers to manage the day-to-day work on intersection projects such as this. While the project plans were signed and sealed by a professional engineer, who is the project engineer of record, a construction project administrator, Mr. Freeman, will take the plans and "make it a reality in the field." Respondent contends Mr. Freeman is violating section 471.003(1) by performing certain investigative, evaluating, planning, and designing activities without an engineering license. Assuming arguendo this is true, jurisdiction over that issue lies with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers and not the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Respondent's western driveway and modification of the eastern driveway, as part of the Department's State Road 544 Safety Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) David W. Holloway, Esquire David W. Holloway, P.A. 13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B Seminole, Florida 33776-3539 (eServed)
The Issue The issues for determination are whether either of the properly proposed corridors (the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor) for the Collier-Orange River #3 230-kV transmission line (the COR #3 Line) comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2003); and, if so, which of the corridors have the least adverse impacts with respect to the criteria in Section 403.529(4)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes, including cost. (All citations are to the 2002 version of the Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.) If the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Preferred Corridor (FPL Corridor) is determined to have the least adverse impacts, or if the two corridors are determined to be substantially equal in adverse impacts, the Siting Board must determine whether the FPL application for corridor certification should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. § 403.529(4) & (5)(c), Fla. Stat. If it is determined that the Alternate Corridor proposed by Collier Enterprises, Ltd. (CE) and Barron Collier Companies (BCC) has the least adverse impacts, including costs, since this corridor was rejected by FPL for consideration pursuant to Section 403.5271(1)(b), Florida Statutes, certification shall be denied or FPL shall be allowed to submit an amended application to include such corridor. § 403.529(5)(b), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The TLSA establishes FPL and the DEP as parties to this proceeding, as well as the following upon their filing of a notice of intent to be a party, which each has done: Florida Department of Transportation, SFWMD, Lee County, City of Fort Myers, and the City of Bonita Springs. The following agencies did not participate in the proceeding and did not file a notice of intent before the 30th day prior to the certification hearing and each one is therefore deemed to have waived its right to be a party: PSC, Department of Community Affairs, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and Collier County. § 403.527(4), Fla. Stat. Approximately five linear miles of FPL’s Corridor is located on real property owned by BCC. One section, i.e., 640 acres, is located along SR 82 adjoining FPL’s Corridor, one section north and east of Lake Trafford to the east of the FPL Corridor, and four sections along the north side of Immokalee Road, CR 846. Virtually all of those lands along Immokalee Road on the north side are stewardship-receiving areas, which means they can receive a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. See Findings of Fact 90 and 102. Locating the proposed transmission line on real property owned by BCC may result in adverse environmental impacts to BCC’s real property if not subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Such impacts could include, but may not be limited to, impacts to wetlands. Additional buffering may be required for BCC’s property. BCC’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Approximately 5.5 linear miles of FPL’s Corridor is located on real property owned by CE in Collier County. Material here, CE owns land just north (and west) of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and south of the Lee County Electrical Cooperative (LCEC) 138-kV ROW that turns to the east. CE land proceeds south of Oil Well Road, with the southernmost tip adjacent to I-75. (BCC also owns adjacent land east of this location.) See Findings of Fact 93-94 and 99. These lands are among a large group of landholdings designated as the Rural Land Stewardship Area that is designated in comprehensive plan amendments. The allowed density as noted above is up to four dwelling units per acre in a variety of forms, including compact rural development, village, towns, and hamlets that could provide for a range of mixed uses on these lands. These lands can be classified as either sending or receiving lands. See Finding of fact 99. Locating the proposed transmission line on real property owned by CE may result in adverse environmental impacts to CE’s real property if not subject to appropriate conditions of certification. Such impacts could include, but may not be limited to, impacts to wetlands. CE may also need to undertake additional landscaping and buffering in order to conceal the view of the transmission line. The view of the Camp Kaeis slough (located approximately one mile west of the intersection described in Finding of Fact 4) from CE property may be impacted in the future. See Finding of Fact 94. CE’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Intervenor, Parklands Development, L.P. (Parklands), is the owner of the east one-half (1/2) of Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County, Florida, less approximately 83 acres in the northeastern portion of the east one-half of Section 4 which is owned by DiVosta and Company, Inc. Parklands has also developed the western one-half of Section 4 and still owns portions of that one-half section that have not been sold to individual lot owners. These parcels are within the City of Bonita Springs. In addition, Parklands is the owner of substantially all of Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. Parklands further has a contract to purchase 180+ acres in the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County, Florida, from Corkscrew Growers, Inc. Parklands’ substantial interests will be affected by action of the Transmission Line Siting Board because construction of the Alternate Corridor could affect Parklands’ use and development of its property. In addition, Parklands has an interest in assuring the availability of a reliable source of power for its developments. Accordingly, Parklands’ substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. Intervenor, DiVosta Homes L.P., successor by merger with DiVosta and Company, Inc. (DiVosta), is the owner of approximately 468 acres of real property in the City of Bonita Springs, Lee County, Florida, as identified in the Warranty Deed attached to its Petition to Intervene. In addition, DiVosta owns approximately 83.61 acres in the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; approximately 109.05 acres in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Lee County; approximately 214 acres in Section 26, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and approximately 6 acres in Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, both in Collier County, Florida. DiVosta’s substantial interests will be affected by the action of the Transmission Line Siting Board because construction of the Alternate Corridor could affect DiVosta’s use and development of its property. In addition, DiVosta has an interest in assuring the availability of a reliable source of power for its developments. Accordingly, DiVosta’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding. The City of Bonita Springs is a municipality in Lee County, Florida. The City of Ft. Myers, a municipality, appeared at the final hearing. Pursuant to Section 403.527(4)(c)2., Florida Statutes, domestic non-profit corporations formed, in whole or in part, to promote the conservation and protection of the environment or to promote comprehensive planning or orderly development of the area in which the proposed transmission line or corridor is located are parties to the proceeding upon the filing of a notice of intent to be a party. Having complied with these statutory requirements the following are parties to this proceeding: Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Florida Audubon Society, Florida Wildlife Federation, and Responsible Growth Management Coalition. Kenneth E. Smith’s substantial interests are affected by and subject to determination in this proceeding because FPL’s Preferred Corridor includes real property owned by Mr. Smith east of Green Meadows Road. See Findings of Fact 80 and 243. STIPULATIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES The following parties signed stipulations with FPL in which they adopted the position and witnesses of FPL at the certification hearing: DiVosta Homes, L.P., Parklands Development Limited Partnership, Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Responsible Growth Management Coalition. FPL, BCC, and CE also entered into a stipulation that the location, construction and maintenance of the COR #3 230 kV transmission line (COR #3 Line) in either the FPL Corridor or the portion of the Alternate Corridor within the existing Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations could both be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and would comply with all non-procedural requirements of agencies. The stipulation reserved the right of BCC and CE to argue as to the extent to which locating, constructing and maintaining the COR #3 Line in either corridor would be consistent with applicable comprehensive plans and non- procedural requirements of agencies. FPL reserved the right to argue as to the inapplicability of any provisions of local government comprehensive plans to the location, construction and maintenance of electric transmission lines within established ROWs. The stipulation was entered into the record as Joint Exhibit 9. The parties also stipulated that the COR #3 Line could be constructed on either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor in compliance with the electric and magnetic field standards of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. FPL APPLICATION General FPL submitted the application to the DEP on April 30, 2003. The DEP determined that the application was complete on May 13, 2003, and sufficient on August 21, 2003. On October 10, 2003, the DEP issued its Written Analysis, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and including proposed conditions of certification. Project Description An electrical transmission line’s purpose is to transport large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. At the substation, the electricity can be either increased or reduced in voltage through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or for distribution at lower voltages directly to customers. Florida has a highly integrated electric transmission line system. High voltage transmission lines connect the various electric generating utilities to one another. The interconnected electric grid provides benefits to the state because it allows electric utilities to share generation capacity, resulting in lower electrical rates, and to back up one another in emergencies. FPL’s service area generally covers the eastern half of the Florida peninsula and Southwest Florida. FPL is seeking certification of a corridor between the Orange River substation (east of Ft. Myers, Lee County) and the Collier substation (near Naples, in Collier County) within which it will ultimately construct the COR #3 Line on a narrow ROW. Once all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the width of the 15- foot to 60 foot ROW. (A ROW consists of the actual property rights that FPL will acquire to construct the transmission line. A corridor is a much larger area that includes the boundaries of the ROW within it. Once a ROW is established, the boundaries of the corridor become moot. See generally § 403.522(10), Fla. Stat.) The service area for the proposed COR #3 Line (the “Project Service Area”) is southern Lee County and Collier County. The Project Service Area is bounded on the north by the Fort Myers Power Plant switchyard and the Orange River substation, on the east by a line that follows the boundary between Lee and Hendry Counties, on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the south by FPL’s southernmost customer in Collier County.1 (FPL’s Ft. Myers Power Plant is north of and nearby the Orange River substation and is interconnected with that substation with transmission lines.) The proposed FPL Corridor is approximately 53.9 miles in length. If approved, FPL expects to incorporate an approximately 14-mile 230-kV transmission line into the new line between the Orangetree substation, located (south) on Immokalee Road (CR 846), and the intersection of FPL’s existing Collier- Orange #1 and #2 transmission Common ROW and Livingston Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of the proposed FPL Corridor, the FPL Common ROW, and other landmarks.) There are three 138-kV lines flowing south out of the Ft. Myers Power Plant and a fourth radial line that is not included in the Project Service Area. There are four existing 230-kV lines flowing southeast out of the Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Orange River substation. (See FPL Exhibit 10.) There are three 230-kV lines that flow south out of the Orange River substation and eventually terminate at the Collier substation to the south. One phase is known as Collier- Orange River #1 and the other is Collier-Orange River #2. A third 230-kV line runs from the Orange River substation south along the Common ROW then west to the Alico substation and then from Alico (loops back to the east) and south along the Common ROW to the Collier substation. (See FPL Exhibit 10.) One 500-kV line flows south out of the Orange River substation along the Common ROW and then, east of the Southwest Florida International Airport, flows east to Andytown. Id. The Project Service Area is an electrical “peninsula,” that is, all electricity is brought into the area and flows from the north to the south from the Fort Myers Power Plant or the Orange River substation and then south. (See FPL Exhibits 9 and 10.) The Project Service Area is dependent on the transmission line system to import electricity from the north. (The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) found, in part, that “[t]he principal bulk transmission link into the region south of Ft. Myers is an existing 230-kV connection between the Orange River substation, just east of Ft. Myers, and the Collier substation adjacent to Naples. Thus, the area south of Ft. Myers, including Naples, is considered an electrical peninsula.”) The primary path for transmission lines bringing electricity into the Project Service Area is on the existing Common ROW between the Orange River substation east of Fort Myers in Lee County and the Collier substation east of Naples in Collier County. This single Common ROW contains all three of the 230-kV transmission lines, as well as some other 138-kV and a 500-kV transmission line segments, that collectively bring about 70-75 percent of the electricity into the Project Service Area. See also Findings of Fact 22-24. The three objectives of the COR #3 Line project are: (1) to address the need, as confirmed by the PSC, to provide FPL’s existing and future customers in the Project Service Area with additional electricity; (2) to enhance the reliability of electric service to the customers in the Project Service Area by locating the new line on a geographically separate route from the existing lines on the Common ROW; and (3) to provide a secondary feed, known as “looping,” to the new Orangetree distribution substation in eastern Collier County. Need for the COR #3 Line The PSC determined a new 230-kV transmission line between the Orange River substation and the Collier substation is needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity in Southwest Florida and the need to provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, particularly those in Southwest Florida. The PSC noted that FPL’s planning studies indicate this additional transmission capacity will be needed by December 2005 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions that could result from a single contingency event.2 The PSC found that construction of the COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separate from the Common ROW will enhance system reliability, integrity, and restoration of service more than locating the line on the existing Common ROW. The PSC also found that placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW is “not optimal” due to concerns with serving the Project Service Area via a “single corridor”3 and the “inability for future expansion of FPL’s transmission system to the east of the existing corridor” or Common ROW. The PSC recognized, however, that any party to the site certification hearing may propose an alternate corridor and that the Siting Board will make the final corridor selection upon consideration of the factors and criteria specified in Section 403.529, Florida Statutes. Transmission Line Design The typical design for the COR #3 Line will be a single-pole unguyed concrete structure, 90 feet above grade in height, with the conductors framed in a vertical configuration. Each of the three conductors is anticipated to be a 1,431 thousand circular mils (kcmil), aluminum conductor, steel reinforced alumoweld core (ACSR/AW). There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating (MCR) for the line will be 1,905 amperes.4 In some locations, electric distribution lines and communication cables may also be attached to the structures beneath the conductors. The span length between structures will typically vary between 250 feet and 700 feet, depending on site-specific ROW widths and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length may vary to accommodate such things as locating poles to coincide with property boundaries or existing collocated utility facility poles, to minimize or avoid wetland impacts, to cross other utility lines, and to facilitate wide crossings of water bodies and roadways. Shorter structures may be required in proximity to an airstrip to comply with applicable clear zones. Where the transmission line turns angles in excess of 10-15 degrees, the structures may be guyed to support the differential tension. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary to provide access for construction, maintenance, and emergency restoration. Pads may be installed in low or wet areas. Access roads may be built in some areas where linear features, such as an existing line or road, do not exist. Where constructed, the typical road top width will be about 14 feet, with a 2:1 side slope, and a minimum elevation of 6 inches over mean or seasonal high water. Structure pads will have variable sizes (e.g., 45’X50’, 34’X50’, and 35’X60’), depending on site-specific requirements, but will be of sufficient size to provide access to structure locations for the large construction equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. Culverts will be installed beneath access roads and structure pads with spacing, diameter, and length to maintain pre-construction flows. The design of the COR #3 Line complies with good engineering practices. Transmission Line Construction The transmission line will be constructed in seven phases: surveying; ROW clearing; construction of access roads and structure pads; line construction; pole framing; line stringing; and ROW restoration. Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step towards construction. Since 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing roads and utility facilities, the need for acquisition of private property has been minimized. After property rights have been acquired, the initial phase of construction is to clear the ROW. Collocation of the FPL Corridor with existing roads and utility facilities will enable required clearing to be minimized. Clearing will consist mainly of tree trimming and the occasional removal of trees that exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet in height that could come in conflict with the line will be removed by hand-clearing or use of very low ground pressure equipment. Low-growing herbaceous vegetation will not be cleared from wetlands. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Typically, access road and pads are only required in wet and low areas. This enables all subsequent construction activity in those wet areas to remain on the newly constructed access road and pad. The next phases of construction involve the physical transmission line construction. Initially, materials are brought to the jobsite. Next, holes are augered at each pole location and the poles are then erected using cranes or other heavy equipment. The hole is then backfilled with the excavated material or, if that material is unsuitable, with suitable fill from offsite. Typically, the pole is embedded into the ground approximately 16 feet to 20 feet. After the poles are set, the poles are framed; that is, the insulators and hardware are installed on the pole.5 Then through a wire pulling operation the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then properly sagged and tensioned to provide the proper vertical clearances. Next, the conductors are “clipped in” to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW restoration or clean up. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state or federal roadways in compliance with applicable Management of Traffic (MOT) regulations or plans. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques, such as the use of silt screens and hay bales, will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation. Turbidity testing is also performed. While each phase of construction will typically take only one to seven days in an area, the entire COR #3 Line construction process will last approximately 13 months. The COR #3 Line will be constructed in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, the DEP’s regulations on electric and magnetic fields,6 the Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, the Lee County and Collier County noise ordinances, and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electronic & Electrical Engineers (IEEE), American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI), as well as FPL’s own design standards. See Findings of Fact 226 and 252. Methodology for Choosing the FPL Corridor Importance of Geographic Separation On project initiation, FPL management instructed its multi-disciplinary corridor selection team to identify, if it could (“to the greatest extent practicable”), a corridor for the COR #3 Line that is geographically separate from the existing Common ROW. This instruction was based on the importance of maintaining some geographic separation between the existing Common ROW and the new COR #3 Line to enhance reliability of electric service in the electrical peninsula to be served by the new line. It is not prudent utility planning or practice to carry excessive amounts of power on any one line, substation, transformer or transmission ROW. While FPL has approximately 15 common ROWs on its system with power transfer capability equivalent to four 230-kV transmission lines or more, no common ROW, other than the one between the Orange River and Collier substations, is an electrical peninsula that lacks a power generation source at one end. In other words, the existing Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations is the only Common ROW on the FPL system that serves an electrical “peninsula.” Since all other FPL common ROWs have a generation source at both ends, the historical outages, resulting when all of the transmission lines on those ROWs were taken out of service, have generally been on the order of hours or minutes. This may be because FPL has the ability to respond quickly, if by no other means, by restarting those power plants on either end of the common ROW to get electricity back to its customers. This strategy is not a reasonable option in the Project Service Area because there are no electric generating plants connected to the transmission system within the Project Service Area south of the Orange River substation. The planning standards of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) provide that there are situations when it is appropriate for a utility to decide to do more than is required by those standards. In determining whether to go beyond NERC standards, the consequences of a situation occurring may be considered even if the frequency of such a situation causing an electrical outage would be rare. In this case, FPL decided that a worst case scenario loss of up to 80 percent of the electric capacity (all transmission lines on the Common ROW including the COR #3) in the Project Service Area potentially for as long as six days, which could affect about 600,000 people (less the population of the Project Service Area that may be served via the 138-kV transmission lines), was a severe enough consequence to warrant identifying a geographically separate ROW to the extent possible.7 See also Findings of Fact 185 and 297. Corridor Selection and Public Involvement FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives within the Project Study Area. This multi-disciplinary team was comprised of a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. As noted herein, FPL management provided the team with the major premise that FPL wanted a geographically separate corridor for the COR # Line. During the route evaluation study, the multi-disciplinary team did not identify or evaluate the Common ROW as a route option, nor did they seek input from the public on use of the Common ROW for the COR #3 Line. However, the team responded to public inquiry on this subject and explained to the public the basis for FPL’s desire for a geographically separate corridor. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area,8 and identified dozens of line segments which could be assembled into more than 3,700 alternate routes for the COR #3 Line. FPL also engaged in an extensive public participation program to gather input for its route evaluation study. This public participation program included several open houses, establishment of a Community Advisory Panel, mass mailings, a community survey, a toll-free telephone number, a website, and numerous meetings with regulatory agencies, community associations, homeowner groups, and individual homeowners and property owners. The public participation program provided substantive input to the route evaluation study in terms of a study area boundary, siting opportunities and constraints in the area, identification of route segments to be evaluated, and weights to be assigned to the route evaluation criteria. For example, the study area is dominated by a very large area of environmentally- sensitive lands, wetlands, and lands acquired or proposed for acquisition under several land acquisition programs for conservation purposes, generally referred to as the Corkscrew Swamp System. Due to input from the community during the public participation program, the multi-disciplinary team expanded the study area to the east to include route alignments suggested by the public/agency participants that could avoid the environmentally sensitive Corkscrew Swamp System. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 3,700+ routes quantitatively, using ten weighted criteria, and then evaluated in more detail, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria, the top three distinct routes. The Gencore (literally generates corridors) computer software was used to help the team identify highly ranked distinct alternatives (combinations of segments), which were then subject to further, more detailed evaluation. (The FPL Corridor was ranked using the Gencore computer analysis and it became number 16 out of 3,784 alternatives studied.) Ultimately, FPL’s multi-disciplinary team identified the route of the FPL Corridor as providing the most appropriate minimization and balance of factors to address the project objectives. At the public hearing held on February 11, 2004, a representative of the CREW Land and Water Trust, a non-profit public/private partnership organization formed in 1989 to protect the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed expressed appreciation for FPL’s public participation work with other interests in the area to identify its FPL Corridor. Collier County Commissioner Tom Henning also noted FPL’s impressive public involvement efforts in selecting its FPL Corridor. Once the preferred alignment was identified, the multi-disciplinary team delineated the boundaries (width) of the FPL Corridor to provide flexibility, including efforts to avoid or minimize impacts, for locating the eventual ROW within that corridor. The southernmost 1.8-mile segment of the FPL Corridor uses the existing Common ROW. After FPL’s multi-disciplinary team met significant community opposition to the geographically separate alternative routes identified by FPL in this area, FPL determined that the risk of using the Common ROW for this short segment was acceptable because: the Common ROW is significantly wider in this segment than to the north and allows for some physical separation between the COR #3 Line and the existing 230-kV lines; if a multiple outage of all lines on the Common ROW occurred in this 1.8-mile segment, fewer people would be affected than if the outage occurred further to the north because power could still be provided to several substations located to the north of this 1.8 mile segment; and the likelihood of a multiple outage of all lines in this 1.8-mile segment is lower than anywhere else along the Common ROW because there is extensive development on either side of the ROW and a major roadway on the east, lessening the likelihood of a wildfire, vandalism, sabotage or terrorism. Agencies’ Review of FPL’s Application and Resulting Determinations Each state, regional, and local agency with regulatory authority over the project reviewed FPL’s Application and submitted to the DEP a report as to the impact of the proposed COR #3 Line on matters within the agency’s jurisdiction, as required by Section 403.526(2), Florida Statutes. The DEP then compiled these reports and made a recommendation that the COR #3 Line be granted approval, subject to appropriate conditions, which have been amended. See Preliminary Statement, p. 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE FPL CORRIDOR Approximately 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear features, such as roads and transmission lines. This collocation will minimize impacts of the new COR #3 Line. Approximately three miles of the total line length of the FPL Corridor is not immediately adjacent to either a dedicated road ROW and/or an existing transmission line ROW. The width of the FPL Corridor varies along the route to provide flexibility within the corridor to minimize or avoid impacts to such areas as existing developments and large wetland areas. A large portion of the FPL Corridor is within the territory of the LCEC. From the Orange River Substation to State Road (SR) 82 The FPL Corridor begins at the north at the Orange River substation, which is east of Fort Myers. From the Orange River substation, the FPL Corridor proceeds west for about one mile along the north side of, and generally paralleling, Homestead Lane/Tice Street. In this area, the corridor is 2,600 feet wide to provide flexibility in meeting the FAA and Lee County tall structure ordinance clearance requirements from the Strayhorn airstrip south of Homestead Lane. Approximately one mile west of the substation, the corridor turns south and is located on an existing FPL 138-kV 100 and 160 foot-wide transmission line ROW for about three miles to SR 82. The land uses around the substation are primarily agricultural and some low-density residential. Along the existing FPL ROW in this segment, the land uses are primarily agricultural, with some low-density development to the west of the FPL Corridor. This segment of the FPL Corridor includes development, lands undergoing development, and agricultural lands that have very little or no value from a vegetation and wildlife perspective. The few isolated natural habitats in this segment have already been affected by man’s activities. At the public hearing, two residents who live on Tice Street expressed concern for the COR #3 Line being placed close to their homes and asked that the line be placed on the existing Common ROW or in the far northern section of the FPL Corridor. FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that requires it to locate the COR #3 Line north of Tice Lane (and Homestead Road) in order to minimize potential impacts to the existing residential areas. (See Joint Exhibit 5A, p.11-Condition of Certification XVIII.D. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11, filed at DOAH with the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by FPL and other parties and April 19, 2004, Notice of Filing Corrected Conditions of Certification, paragraph D, “FPL agrees to locate the transmission line north of Homestead Road and Tice Lane in order to minimize potential impacts to the existing residential areas subject to the preferred corridor.” This latter set of draft conditions were not admitted into evidence and should be considered by the Siting Board with all parties given an opportunity to comment thereon.) Notwithstanding, the residents were concerned that the precise location of the line was unknown. Along SR 82 to Sunshine Boulevard (Including “Line Swap”) At SR 82, the FPL Corridor turns east and follows SR 82 in a southeasterly direction for about 7.5 miles to the intersection with Sunshine Boulevard and Green Meadows Road. In this area, the corridor is 500 feet wide, centered on SR 82, to allow the possibility of placing the COR #3 Line on either side of the roadway. Where this segment crosses the existing Common ROW, FPL will use a “line swap” configuration to maintain a separation of about one-half mile between the new COR #3 Line and the existing transmission lines on the Common ROW.9 See FPL Exhibits 6-7.) Thus, the FPL Corridor includes a lateral 400- foot-wide segment in this area that follows Buckingham Road for about 2,500 feet to the east of the Common ROW and then traverses south along the west side of the section line to SR 82. The land use along the north side of SR 82 is the Lehigh Acres residential subdivision. On the south side of SR 82, the land uses are largely agricultural. In the vicinity of the “line swap,” on the north side of Buckingham Road, is Lee County’s resource recovery facility. See Finding of Fact 75. Due to the presence of a major roadway, Lehigh Acres, a large subdivision north of SR 82, and developing lands and farmlands south of SR 82, there are some natural habitats, but in this segment of the FPL Corridor, the natural habitats have been somewhat diminished. The approximately one-mile portion of this segment that is not collocated with existing roads or transmission lines crosses pine flatwoods and mixed forest habitat in an area that is already disturbed by the east-west crossing of Colonial Boulevard. Lee County’s resource recovery (or “waste-to-energy”) facility, including an incinerator and recycling facility, is located on the north side of Buckingham Road. Lee County plans to expand the recycling facility by extending it about 140 feet- 150 feet to the south, towards Buckingham Road. The recycling facility’s rezoning approval requires a 200-foot setback from Buckingham Road, including a significant vegetative buffer. These requirements will continue to be met with the expansion of the recycling facility, even though some of the vegetative buffer that exists between the recycling facility and Buckingham Road will have to be removed. Lee County is concerned that even more vegetation in that buffer will have to be removed if the COR #3 Line is placed on the north side of Buckingham Road. FPL has agreed to locate the COR #3 Line south of the northern ROW line of Buckingham Road in Lee County, if possible. If FPL is unable to obtain the necessary property interests to place the transmission line ROW within this area, FPL will locate the transmission line adjacent to the northern edge of the road ROW, such that there is no intervening land between the transmission line and the Buckingham Road ROW. Any trees or shrubs disturbed by FPL north of the centerline of Buckingham Road ROW will be replaced on adjacent Lee County property at FPL's expense. (See Joint Exhibit 5A, p. 12, Condition of Certification XVIII.G. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11.) From the Intersection of SR 82 and Sunshine Boulevard/Green Meadows Road to FPL’s 500-kV Transmission Line ROW At the intersection of SR 82 and Sunshine Boulevard and Green Meadows Road, the FPL Corridor turns south and follows Green Meadows Road, a private road, for about two miles to the existing FPL 500-kV transmission line ROW. A new ROW will be required here. In this area, the corridor is 200 feet wide, is centered on Green Meadows Road, and includes the roadbed of Green Meadows Road within its boundaries. The land uses on the west side of Green Meadows Road are primarily agricultural. On the east side, there is some vacant land, some agricultural land, and some low-density residential land use, perhaps with a density of five residential units per acre. (During the public hearing, there was testimony that there are approximately five residences on Green Meadows Road.) Other than the isolated freshwater marsh along the southwest side of Green Meadows Road, the agricultural and residential areas along Green Meadows Road are of little or no ecological value. Intervenor, Kenneth E. Smith, owns a home on the east side of Green Meadows Road. Mr. Smith expressed concern about the aesthetics of the transmission line, property values, the potential proximity of the line to his home and potential health risks associated with the line being nearby his home, and emergency evacuation if an extreme event brought down one or more transmission structures. Mr. Smith suggested that the FPL line be “co-located to existing facilities” and not along Green Meadows Road. Lines of similar design to the COR #3 Line exist in all types of land uses throughout Florida. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) governs the proximity of transmission lines to structures, and FPL has committed to comply with that Code. In emergency situations where there is a concern that evacuation could be hampered, residents have the option to go to a shelter established within the County for such purposes. Moreover, FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that requires it to finalize a route that minimizes potential adverse impacts to the existing residences on the east side of Green Meadows Road by locating the transmission line on the west side of the road to the extent practicable. (Joint Exhibit 5A, p. 11, Condition of Certification XVIII.E. See also March 17, 2004, draft of conditions, p. 11 and April 19, 2004, corrected conditions, paragraph E- “To the extent practicable, FPL must finalize a route that minimizes potential adverse impacts to the existing residential areas on Green Meadows Road by locating the transmission line on the west side of Green Meadows Road.”) At the public hearing, a property owner with mining interests on both sides of Green Meadows Road expressed support for placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW. The same person is president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association, which is located in a rectangular area at the south bend in Immokalee Road, near Corkscrew Swamp and Bird Rookery Swamp to the west. See Finding of Fact 98. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Along the FPL 500-kV Transmission Line ROW At the intersection of Green Meadows Road and the FPL Andytown-Orange River 500-kV 330 foot-wide transmission line ROW, the FPL Corridor turns southeast and runs along the 500-kV ROW for approximately 13 miles. In this segment, the FPL Corridor is 400 feet wide to include the existing FPL 500-kV ROW plus 70 feet to the north of that ROW. The land uses along this segment are primarily agricultural and some vacant land. The western portion of this segment (Lee County) of the FPL Corridor includes many natural areas; however, the wildlife habitats that actually occur on the FPL 500-kV ROW are shrub and brushland and some freshwater marshes. The eastern portion (Collier County) of this segment of the FPL Corridor is mostly citrus lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. From the FPL 500-kV Transmission Line ROW to Immokalee Road At a point approximately two miles west of the intersection of SR 82 and SR 29, the FPL Corridor turns south and follows section lines and an existing LCEC 138-kV transmission line ROW for approximately six miles. In this six- mile segment, the corridor is 300 feet wide, centered on the LCEC transmission ROW, except in an area of development near Lake Trafford Road where the corridor is reduced to 200 feet to avoid intrusion into existing residential development to the west. About two miles north of Immokalee Road, the LCEC line turns to the east, but the FPL Corridor continues south to Immokalee Road. In this two-mile segment, the corridor is 500 feet wide. The land uses in this segment are primarily agricultural and vacant land, except in the vicinity of Lake Trafford, where there is residential development on the west side of the FPL Corridor around Lake Trafford Road. On the east side of the FPL Corridor, just north of Lake Trafford Road, there is a proposed Habitat for Humanity subdivision. See Finding of Fact 91. The portion of this segment north of Lake Trafford Road is largely citrus and residential lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. South of Lake Trafford Road, the FPL Corridor crosses two small wetland systems that are a part of the Corkscrew Swamp System. The first of these is crossed in a location where the FPL Corridor is collocated with the LCEC 138-kV transmission line and access road. This prior disturbance has created a shrub swamp habitat in this wetland. (The “unnamed flowway” is located east of Lake Trafford.) Farther to the south along this segment, the FPL Corridor crosses agricultural lands and a narrow section of Baucomb Strand, which is primarily forested and somewhat undisturbed. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) BCC owns four sections of land along the north side of Immokalee Road, west of the intersection of Immokalee Road and the LCEC ROW in this segment. This property is within the Immokalee urban area, which allows for a more intense future residential use. See also Finding of Fact 2. At the public hearing, an officer of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., expressed concern that placement of the COR #3 Line in this segment would preclude use of five lots within a proposed adjacent 165-lot Habitat for Humanity development. However, in this location FPL will collocate the COR #3 Line entirely within the LCEC easement, and there is not likely to be an impact on any of the proposed Habitat building lots. This segment of the FPL Corridor is within the territory of the LCEC. Currently, LCEC receives its electricity from FPL’s Buckingham substation, from which it serves about 29,000 of its customers on a radial line.10 If the COR #3 Line is located in this segment of the FPL Corridor, LCEC plans to construct a 230- to 138-kV substation in Collier County near the LCEC’s Immokalee substation to provide reliability looping to three of its four existing substations and two proposed substations in this portion of its territory. The proposed interconnection between the COR #3 Line and the LCEC system will also improve the reliability to its fourth existing substation by taking 20-30 miles off its single source line. Without looping of LCEC’s substations, if the source of power is lost at the FPL Buckingham substation or if LCEC’s radial line is taken out of service at any location, it would cause a blackout to the residents served downstream from that loss of service. Currently, there is no alternative source of power for LCEC’s substations. Along Immokalee Road to Orangetree Substation The FPL Corridor follows the Immokalee Road (County Road (CR) 846) alignment, turning west, south, and west again for approximately 15 miles to the Orangetree substation, which is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, just west of Wilson Boulevard in eastern Collier County. For most of this 15-mile segment, the corridor is 400 feet wide, centered on Immokalee Road, allowing collocation along either side of the road ROW. For the last two miles northeast of the Orangetree substation, while the corridor continues to include both sides of Immokalee Road, it is narrowed on the east side to exclude existing residential development and is 300 feet wide. This segment of the FPL Corridor traverses largely agricultural land, some low-density residential areas, and vacant land, some of which is a portion of the Corkscrew Swamp System proposed for acquisition as conservation lands. This crossing of Camp Keais Strand (a Cypress and freshwater marsh system) is designated as Save Our Rivers lands, and occurs where Camp Keais Strand is already impacted by the crossing of Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Along this segment of the FPL Corridor, there is little existing residential development. There is one planned residential area, the Orangetree and Waterways of Naples community, and the low-density development of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision that is a very large residential subdivision. The gross densities of these developments are .77 units per acre for Orangetree/Waterways of Naples, and .44 units per acre for Golden Gate Estates. Farther to the west, after Immokalee Road has turned to the south, the FPL Corridor crosses the eastern edge of Bird Rookery Swamp. It is in this location that a Cardinal Air Plant was observed on the west side of Immokalee Road. See Finding of Fact 269. FPL has agreed to Condition of Certification XVIII. that requires FPL to use all available means to locate the transmission line ROW to the east of Immokalee Road in this area. (Joint Exhibit 5A, Condition of Certification XVIII. F., p. 11.) To the east of Immokalee Road lie predominantly agricultural and developing lands, which have very little or no value to wildlife. Transmission Lines in Rural Areas CE offered testimony expressing concern for placement of the COR #3 Line in this rural area. However, transmission lines are common in such rural areas since these lines are used to: provide connections between urban areas, as would the COR #3 Line; interconnect systems of different electric utilities; transport power from power plants, which are often in rural areas, to where the electricity is used; bring electricity to processing facilities, such as phosphate and juice processing plants, which are also often in rural areas. In rural areas, transmission lines are commonly sited along rural roadways. At the public hearing, the president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association expressed support for placement of the COR #3 Line on the existing Common ROW. His concern with the FPL Corridor in this segment was the aesthetic impact on the rural area and the increased cost of using the FPL Corridor. See also Finding of Fact 82. Plans for Future Development Adjacent to the eastern area of this segment of the FPL Corridor, CE owns approximately 1,920 acres north of Immokalee Road and approximately 19,000 acres to the south of the road. See Finding of Fact 4. CE’s property, which is already bisected by Immokalee Road, is not subject to urban development, such as commercial, residential, industrial, or recreational development, except some lands are used for recreational hunting. The property is used for agriculture, water management and environmental uses. These lands are part of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area, within which a property owner may designate agricultural lands and sensitive habitats as sending areas to transfer development rights to other property, called receiving areas. (Mr. Conrecode identified land north and south of Immokalee Road until Oil Well Road, as holdings or parcels of concern. The uses are “primarily cattle grazing, vegetation grow crop production and environmental.”) CE is in the process of designating these lands, but has not yet decided which of this property to designate as sending or receiving areas. The rural character of this area may be short-lived, as CE plans to develop its property adjacent to this segment of the FPL Corridor within the next 5 to 10 years. Such development could include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, ecological, and mining and minerals extraction. One of CE’s goals is to maximize the potential return on its properties. CE is concerned placement of the COR #3 Line adjacent to its property would impact the viewscape of the Camp Keais flowway area, the access to its property from Immokalee Road, and its ability to use the 20+ mile-long Camp Keais natural environmental system as a visual amenity to other properties. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of Camp Keais.) CE is also concerned that when it develops its land adjacent to the COR #3 Line it will have to spend money to buffer and offset the visual and perceived impacts to residents and other business uses in the area by installing berming and landscaping. In the eastern area of this segment, west of the lands referenced above that are owned by CE, BCC owns four square miles of property on the north side of Immokalee Road. See Finding of Fact 2. As noted herein, most of the BCC lands that border Immokalee Road are Stewardship Receiving Areas under the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. This land could receive future residential development up to a density of four dwelling units per acre. BCC anticipates this land will be developed (residential with commercial within the community) within the next 10-15 years. Incorporation of Existing 230-kV Line from Orangetree Substation to FPL Common ROW (Not To Be Certified) The COR #3 Line will incorporate an existing 230-kV transmission line from the Orangetree substation west along the north side of the Immokalee Road ROW, south along Collier Boulevard or CR 951, and then west following an existing FPL transmission ROW (with a single 138-kV transmission line within the ROW) to a point along the existing Common ROW at its intersection with Livingston Road, approximately 1.8 miles north of the Collier substation. Certification is not being sought for this segment of the line. Southernmost 1.8 Miles of Existing Common ROW The final segment of the FPL Corridor follows the easternmost 250 feet of the existing 405 foot-wide Common ROW from the western end of the Orangetree 230-kv transmission line, south to Collier substation. The corridor follows the west side of Livingston Road. The land uses in this area are primarily existing planned residential development. The urbanized character of this segment precludes the presence of any significant wildlife habitat in this area. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATE CORRIDOR The Alternate Corridor is approximately 36.8 miles long and is proposed to lie generally in or adjacent to FPL’s Common ROW transmission corridor that runs between the Orange River and Collier substations. As described in more detail above, the Alternate Corridor will leave the Common ROW at the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road and proceed east along Immokalee Road across CR 951 to the Orangetree substation. Like the FPL Corridor, the Alternate Corridor will connect at the Orangetree substation to incorporate FPL’s new 14-mile long 230-kV line (currently under construction) to accomplish completion of the new 230-kV circuit from FPL’s Orange River substation to the Collier substation. Unlike the FPL Corridor, the Alternate Corridor was selected by the CE/BCC consultants without any public outreach to obtain input from the community.11 The consultants gathered information about the location of properties owned by CE and BCC. Other than the Grey Oaks Development adjacent to the existing Common ROW, which ROW is incorporated into the southernmost 1.8 miles of both the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor, there is no CE or BCC property adjacent to or traversed by the Alternate Corridor. See Findings of Fact 2-5. During the public hearing, Collier County Commissioner Tom Henning stated, in part, that he “would have hoped” that CE and BCC would have had a public meeting in the community prior to selecting the Alternate Corridor like FPL had done when selecting its FPL Corridor. Utilization of the Existing Common ROW The BCC and CE Alternate Corridor exits the Orange River substation on the existing Common ROW and proceeds south approximately 30 miles to Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4 and CE Exhibit 61.) The existing Common ROW within the Alternate Corridor is wide enough to accommodate at least two additional 230-kV circuits. This segment of the Alternate Corridor within the Common ROW traverses over nine miles of wetlands. See Finding of Fact 286. The specific number of acres of wetlands that may be impacted by placing the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor is unknown. On-site wetland delineations would be performed, if the Alternate Corridor were chosen, to locate the jurisdictional limits of the wetlands. Specific pole locations and pad locations and sizing would need to be determined. Thereafter, impacts to wetlands would be determined. From a review of aerial photography it appears that the Common ROW has not been cleared from edge to edge and certainly not maintained routinely edge-to-edge. Some wetland vegetation clearing may be required in order to construct a new line on the opposite side of the existing poles if those are selected. Immokalee Road From Existing Common ROW to Orangetree Substation At the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road, the Alternate Corridor turns east and follows Immokalee Road approximately 8.5 miles to the Orangetree substation. (See FPL Exhibit 4 and CE Exhibit 61.) To provide for making the eastward turn at the intersection, the proposed Alternate Corridor is extended to 500 feet on either side of the centerline of the existing Common ROW from a point 1,000 feet north of the intersection of the Common ROW and Immokalee Road to the same intersection. From that intersection, the Alternate Corridor extends east to the Orangetree substation, along Immokalee road, at a width of 500 feet, north and south from the centerline of Immokalee Road (for a total of 1,000 feet in width). (See CE Exhibit 29, p. 2.) There are 20 planned residential communities and one section of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision along the Immokalee Road portion of the Alternate Corridor. The gross densities of these residential developments range from .51 to 12 units per acre on the north side of Immokalee Road, and from 2.11 to 12.84 units per acre on the south side of the road. On the north side of Immokalee Road, all but one of the residential developments has gross densities greater than one unit per acre. On the south side of Immokalee Road all but one of the residential developments have gross densities greater than three units per acre. There is one planned residential community that is actually developed into two communities, Orangetree (Orangetree and Waterways of Naples), and eight units of Golden Gate Estates residential subdivision located along the north or west and south or east sides of the Immokalee Road portion of the FPL Corridor. The gross density for the Orangetree planned community is .77 units per acre and .44 units per acre for Golden Gates Estates. See Finding of Fact 94. The land segment west of CR 951 is more urban and developed, as opposed to the land segment east of CR 951, which is more rural. Siting Constraints within Immokalee Road ROW There was diverging evidence on whether the COR #3 Line could be located and constructed within the Immokalee Road ROW along the ROW segment from the FPL Common ROW running east along Immokalee Road to the intersection of CR 951. During the public hearing, Donald Scott, the director of Collier County's Transportation Planning Department, testified and appeared in this capacity. He stated that Collier County is going to widen to six lanes, the portion of Immokalee Road from Livingston Road (the FPL Common ROW) to CR 951, i.e., a portion of the Alternate Corridor. (See FPL Exhibit 4 for the location of the road-widening project.) He also stated that the County has “some concerns with where the poles might possibly be placed in regards to utilities and other issues we’re dealing with within the corridor.” He wanted “to be on the record to raise our concerns - - and need for more work. [He understood] it can be within a wide corridor and it might not affect the road, but we have concerns with our widening, and would like to work with F.P.L. more and see if it’s even feasible.” Mr. Scott further explained: “The section from Livingston to I-75 will start construction by the end of this year. It’s about 90 percent design plans right now. The section from I-75 to County Road 951 is due to start 2006 with a design build.” Mr. Scott also stated: “We’re having a lot of problems particularly between Livingston and I-75.” During their case-in-chief, BCC and CE’s experts, Dr. Glover and Ms. Day, opined that the COR #3 Line could be located within the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road from the FPL Common ROW east to the intersection at CR 951. Dr. Glover opined, in part, that the COR #3 Line could be built on the north side of Immokalee Road, between the road and the SFWMD canal with good engineering practices. He based his opinion, in part, on the placement of an existing 230 kV line on concrete, single pole structures that start at the Orangetree substation and run westerly to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), located on the north side of Immokalee Road and south of the canal. Ms. Day thought that there may be room for the line within the 1,000-foot corridor. She was uncertain as to a specific location for the line within the corridor, but suggested that it would be the subject of more detailed studies. During rebuttal and in response to the testimony of Dr. Glover and Ms. Day that the COR #3 Line can be built in the Alternate Corridor segment as described above, FPL’s transmission line engineer, Mr. Hronec testified over objection that he was doubtful that the COR #3 Line could be built within the Immokalee Road ROW in this segment due to road widening plans and the presence of multiple underground utilities. (As discussed in more detail below, Mr. Hronec also opined that a line could not be located within the SFWMD canal north of Immokalee road.) His opinion testimony was based upon conversations with the Collier County Transportation Planning and Engineering Departments, a review of the County’s proposed road projects and plans to widen the segment, and personal observations of the segment. (As of FPL’s case-in-chief when Mr. Hronec testified initially, he had not studied the ROW to the west of CR 951 in the same detail as he had to the east of CR 951.) There are numerous utility facilities in place within Immokalee Road ROW in this segment of the Alternate Corridor, both north and south of the road pavement. There is also a generally continuous guardrail adjacent to the north side of the roadway. There appear to be guardrails on the south side of the road, but not continuous. By agreement of the parties, memorialized in the Order dated February 24, 2004, page 2, CE was authorized to file transcripts of deposition(s) in response to Mr. Hronec’s rebuttal testimony. On March 19, 2004, CE timely filed the transcript of the deposition of Mr. Conrecode. Mr. Conrecode, a Florida-registered Professional Engineer, was formerly the capital projects director for Collier County and the public works administrator for Collier County. In both positions, he had responsibility to design and plan the road network in Collier County as well as the construction of existing road facilities and new road corridors. He is also involved with other transportation-related entities. Mr. Conrecode reviewed Collier County’s plans for the widening of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor. He also spoke with Clarence Tears, the director of the Big Cypress Basin, regarding the concerns of SFWMD. Mr. Conrecode opined that there was “substantial amount of space between the guardrail at the north side of the road and the top bank of the canal” to place the transmission line poles. (He also took into consideration the location of existing underground utilities.) He also stated, “the configuration on the north side of Immokalee Road is very similar to what FP&L encountered on [CR] 951 as they ran the connection from the Collier substation to the [n]ew Orange Street [sic] substation, the proximity from the top of the bank to the edge of the road.” Mr. Conrecode also opined that the transmission line could be located within the canal ROW north of the canal and on the south side of the canal. He felt that the area north of the canal had the best and most abundant access east of I-75, but that it was not the only engineering solution. He also opined that the transmission line could be placed within the SFWMD ROW, i.e., placed longitudinally in the SFWMD ROW, notwithstanding, Mr. Hronec’s testimony to the contrary. No persuasive evidence was offered regarding the specific setbacks required from the existing utilities, guardrails or pavement to establish the COR #3 Line in this area. DOT road-design standards would need to be consulted. Siting Constraints to the North of Immokalee Road ROW To the north of the Immokalee Road ROW between Livingston Road and CR 951, there is a SFWMD canal. Mr. Hronec opined that SFWMD prohibits construction of electric transmission lines longitudinally within their ROW (“works of the district,” here the canal). Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E-6 pertains to the “works of the [SFWMD].” Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-6.011(4) provides: “The District has determined that an unencumbered 40 foot wide strip of right of way, measured from the top of the bank landward, is required in order for the District to perform the required routine and emergency operations and maintenance activities necessary to insure flood protection to the entire community. In this 40 foot right of way, subject only to limited exceptions provided in this rule, the district shall not authorize any aboveground facilities or other encroachments.” (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-6.121(2) and (6) and 40E-6.221(2); CE Exhibit 18.). The SFWMD published Volume V, “Permit Information Manual,” pertaining to “Criteria for Use of Works of the District,” September 15, 1999 (Manual). Regarding “Transmission Lines,” the a portion of the Manual provides: “The use of the District’s Works or Lands for the construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines has the potential to interfere with the District’s operation, maintenance and allied purposes. Applicants should acquire their own right of way and should not look to the District to utilize District-controlled Works or Lands, which were acquired for water management and other allied purposes. This policy should not be construed as a prohibition against the construction of distribution or transmission line crossings, nor is it a prohibition against use of short segments of District’s right of way for the construction of local distribution facilities when such facilities will not interfere with operations and maintenance and are otherwise acceptable to the District.” The SFWMD also provides for five operational zones described in the Manual at page 28 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-6.011(7), Figure 1, pertaining to Zones 1 through 5 and providing distances from the canal channel and the top of the bank outward. (Zone one is the canal channel from the top of the bank to the opposite top of the bank; Zone two is the point on the ROW from a point five feet landward from the top of the bank; Zone three is between five and 20 feet landward from the top of the bank; Zone four is from 20 to 40 feet landward from the top of the bank; and Zone five is any ROW located further than than 40 feet landward from the top of the bank.) (See CE Rebuttal Exhibit 2.) Mr. Conrecode offered testimony regarding the potential placement of the COR #3 Line within the “Zones.” He observed that FPL, in its existing Orangetree line, has located the poles along CR 951 of the existing canal. No representative from the SFWMD testified in this proceeding. However, the Governing Board of the SFWMD adopted Resolution No. 2003-1207, and concluded that the Alternate Corridor “would not adversely impact the water resources and other matters with the [SFWMD’s] jurisdiction.” (CE Exhibit 18.) Also, several ROW conditions are attached to this Resolution, including the requirement that the permittee submit drawings “showing the proposed facilities for a determination of compliance with the requirements of Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C.” Id. at 8 of 19. (See also CE Exhibit 18, pp. 18 and 19 of 19, Land Management Footnotes (1)-(8).) Aside from the brief public hearing testimony of Mr. Scott, no representative from Collier County Transportation Planning Department, testified regarding the possible placement of the COR #3 Line north or south of Immokalee Road in the location of the Alternate Corridor. As noted, Mr. Conrecode opined, based upon conversations with Mr. Tears, in conjunction with his reading of the SFWMD rules and Manual provisions and Collier County plans for the area, that the COR #3 Line could be placed within the SFWMD canal ROW. Locating and constructing the line in this area would depend on locating the line with precision and then consulting with SFWMD staff. (See CE Exhibit 18.) In the areas north of the SFWMD canal, there are a number of places where development has already filled in up to and abutting the canal which may not leave room for placement of the COR #3 Line. It would be possible to construct portions of the COR #3 Line north of the SFWMD canal in the other areas where development has not yet filled in immediately adjacent to the canal. Several residents who live north of the canal in this segment of the Alternate Corridor, including the president of the Longshore Lake Homeowners Association (this subdivision is located a half of a mile east of the I-75 interchange on Immokalee Road (see FPL Exhibit 4), testified at the public hearing and expressed concern that the proposed transmission line might be placed adjacent to their existing development rather than in the largely undeveloped segment of the FPL Corridor along Immokalee Road. Siting Constraints to the South of Immokalee Road ROW The COR #3 Line might be able to be built on private easements adjoining the south side of Immokalee Road ROW, if private easements could be acquired. FPL’s transmission line engineer is concerned about the ability to acquire a private easement adjacent to the Immokalee Road ROW within the Alternate Corridor because a showing would be required in eminent domain proceedings that this is the best available route. Mr. Conrecode agreed that placing the transmission on the south side of Immokalee Road could be a problem in practice because of the locations of the existing ROW. He believes FPL would have to acquire additional ROW for the location of the poles. But, because of the adequacy of the ROW to the north side of the road, Mr. Conrecode believed that it would not be necessary to consider the south side of the road. Placement of the COR #3 Line on the south side of Immokalee Road would likely negatively impact many existing buffers and visual amenities as follows: The live oaks that presently buffer the Windsong Club Apartment townhomes from the road and existing distribution line, which goes along the south side of Immokalee Road in this area, would have to be removed or severely pruned. These townhomes face Immokalee Road and are set back only 20 to 30 feet from the sidewalk. Most of the trees and palms that presently buffer the Ibis Cove homes from Immokalee Road and adjacent distribution line would have to be removed. The backs of these homes are about 30 to 40 feet from the sidewalk. The Hong Kong orchid and sable palms that buffer the Pebblebrook Lakes homes from Immokalee Road and the existing distribution line would have to be removed. These homes are set back approximately 10 to 15 feet from the back of the property line. The developer of Saturnia Lakes previously paid to have the existing overhead distribution line on the south side of Immokalee Road buried for several hundred feet in front of its development. In addition to adding an overhead power line in this area, the vegetative area that presently buffers the Saturnia Lakes homes from Immokalee Road would also probably need to be greatly reduced. The Washingtonia palms and the large oak at the entrance to Heritage Greens would conflict with the COR #3 Line and would need to be removed. The pine trees in front of the Laurel Oaks Elementary School and Gulf Coast High School would be in conflict with the COR #3 Line if it were placed on the south side of Immokalee Road in this area. The street trees in front of two of the churches would probably have to be removed if the COR #3 Line were constructed on the south side of the road. Other Land Use Issues This segment of the Alternate Corridor conflicts with the two highest-ranking criteria for corridor selection identified in the results of the community survey conducted by FPL’s multi-disciplinary team during its route selection study-- avoidance of homes and schools. There are two schools, Laurel Oaks Elementary School and adjacent Gulf Coast High School, and three churches on the south side of Immokalee Road between the Common ROW and the Orangetree substation. (One parcel is being purchased for another school east of CR 951.) There is already a 230-kV transmission line on the north side of Immokalee Road from CR 951 east to the Orangetree substation. The structures for that line are not of sufficient strength to also support the COR #3 Line. If the COR #3 Line were built on the south side of Immokalee Road for this four- mile segment, there would be a transmission line on both sides of Immokalee Road. FPL’s experience has been that placement of a transmission line on both sides of a road is not supported by the community. Other Engineering Considerations Between the Common ROW and CR 951, it may be theoretically possible to cross back and forth across Immokalee Road in an attempt to avoid the proximate homes, churches and school sites on the south side, but such multiple crossings of the road may require taller structures to maintain required vertical clearances while crossing both the road ROW and the 100-foot-wide SFWMD ROW. If the crossings were not right angles, this configuration would require long expanses of conductor cables going over both the Immokalee Road ROW and the SFWMD canal, which would be undesirable. Such a zigzag configuration would also require approvals from SFWMD for multiple crossings of its canal in a short area. No credible evidence was offered to show whether approval could be obtained. Mr. Hronec did not believe this configuration would violate any local laws or ordinances of Collier County. A zigzag configuration may also require either guying or use of more substantial foundations to support the differential tension for structures where the conductors turned large angles, typically exceeding 10-15 degrees. This configuration is likely to create visual clutter, accentuating the visual impact of the line. The minimization of the number of crossings of a roadway or canal would be good engineering practice. This segment of the Alternate Corridor also presents the engineering challenge of crossing I-75 at an interchange in excess of 1,200 feet in width. DOT restricts the ability to place structures within the confines of such an interchange. Therefore, this crossing may require multiple elevated structures, the tallest of which could exceed 120 to 130 feet in height, to achieve the required vertical clearances of about 24 feet above the pavement. However, there is no rule that would prohibit the construction of the COR #3 Line in and adjacent to the interstate interchange. See Finding of Fact 253. Can the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 accommodate the COR #3 Line? CE offered the testimony of Mr. Conrecode, and others, suggesting possible alternatives for the placement of the COR #3 Line in this segment of the Alternate Corridor. FPL offered credible rebuttal evidence. This segment of the Alternate Corridor may accommodate the COR #3 Line. However, the actual location and construction of the COR #3 Line within this segment of the Alternate Corridor presents significant engineering design and construction constraints and potential impacts upon the public for the reasons stated herein. See also Findings of Fact 226, 230, 252, and Endnote 17. Orangetree Substation to Collier Substation The southernmost portion of the Alternate Corridor between the Orangetree and Collier substations is identical to the FPL Corridor. WHETHER AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH CORRIDOR WILL COMPLY WITH SECTION 403.529(4), FLORIDA STATUTES, CRITERIA Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The Project Service Area is presently served by (a) three 230-kV transmission lines (a fourth 230-kV line runs from the Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Orange River substation) that run from the Orange River substation into the Project Service Area, two of which run directly to the Collier substation, and the third runs (loops) to FPL’s Alico substation and continues to the Collier substation; (b) three 138-kV lines that run from Ft. Myers Power Plant to the Project Service Area, generally in the western portion of the Project Service Area. See Findings of Fact 20-26. Whether the COR #3 Line is built in FPL’s Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will not change the electrical peninsula character of the Project Service Area because the area will still be fed from the north only. FPL has a responsibility to provide safe and reliable service to its customers. The provision of reliable electric service to its customers is important to FPL. In the past, FPL has consistently demonstrated the ability to plan a reliable electric system consistent with NERC and FRCC planning standards. Electric system reliability involves both the “adequacy” of the system to serve load (demand), and the “security” of the system to continue serving load, even after one system component is taken out of service. Electric system integrity requires having all elements of the electric system in service, protected from overloads or abuse. System integrity is closely related to system reliability. The NERC is a national organization that adopts standards for electric system planning and reliability that are used nationwide. The FRCC, which represents all of the investor-owned utilities, cooperative systems, municipal electric utilities, independent power producers and power marketers that operate in peninsular Florida east of the Apalachicola River, participates in the development of, and has adopted the national planning standards established by NERC for the reliability of electrical transmission lines. NERC’s planning standards, which are relied upon in the entire electric utility industry nationwide for the planning of new electrical transmission line facilities, address four transmission systems standards – normal and contingency conditions: Category A – all facilities in service and operating normally (voltages are appropriate) and no loss of load (customer electric demand or supply); Category B – a single element of the transmission system is out of service (also referred to as a “single contingency,” transmission system is stable, and no loss of load to customers; Category C – two or more elements of the transmission system are simultaneously taken out of service, transmission system required to achieve a stable operating state without overloaded transmission lines and with appropriate voltages and without cascading outages and with a variable loss of some customer load; and Category D – an extreme event resulting in two or more (multiple) elements being removed or cascading out of service. (FPL Exhibit 12, Table I.) Construction of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor would be consistent with the NERC planning standards. Similarly, whether the proposed COR #3 Line is located on the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor, it will provide looping to the Orangetree substation.12 Looping of this substation will improve the reliability of electric service to customers served by the Orangetree substation because it will provide an alternate source of electricity that can sustain the substation in the event one source is taken out of service. The loss of the Common ROW has not been studied by FRCC as a Category D event. FRCC has studied extreme events, such as the loss of generating plants, e.g., Crystal River, St. Lucie, Turkey Point, and Martin, and the loss of 500-kV lines in Common ROWs. According to Dr. Glover, under NERC standards, a utility has the discretion to address a Category D event that does not result in cascading outages. But he was not aware of another utility applying a Category D event to other than cascading system-wide outages. FPL plans its system to withstand any single contingency without loss of load (loss of service) to any of its customers, consistent with the NERC planning standards. Category D events (extreme events) include the loss of multiple generating units at a single site, loss of a substation, loss of a transmission line with three or four circuits on it, and loss of all transmission lines on a common ROW. (FPL Exhibit 12, Table I.D.) Following a Category D extreme event, one would expect at least some of a utility’s customers to experience loss of electric service for some period of time. A utility is required by the NERC planning standards to ensure that a Category D event on their system does not result in cascading outages, where the outage spreads in a domino fashion and impacts other utilities’ systems. A “cascading outage” is an outage event that begins in one area but spreads to another area, causing outages in the second area. For example, an outage starting in another state and causing outages in Florida, or an outage starting in one Florida utility’s service area and causing an outage in other Florida utilities service area, is considered to be a “cascading outage.” The Project Service Area is an electrical peninsula and cascading of an outage to other areas is not likely. A loss of a substantial electrical load in a large area caused by a single event taking multiple electric system elements out of service, even if it does not result in cascading outages, is also classified as a Category D event. Under the NERC planning standards, although a utility is not required to evaluate all Category D extreme events, a utility must exercise its judgment as to which extreme events it will evaluate and which non-cascading Category D events it will institute actions to mitigate. (See FPL Exhibit 12, Footnote e to Table I.D. of the NERC Planning Standards which states: “A number of extreme contingencies that are listed under Category D and judged to be critical by the transmission planning entity(ies) will be selected for evaluation. It is not expected that all possible facility outages under each listed contingency of Category D will be evaluated.”) Allowing some customers to temporarily lose their electric service (referred to as “load shedding”) is an acceptable practice when needed to preserve reliability to the remainder of a utility’s customers. Electrical Vulnerability of Project Service Area There are types of extreme single events that can take all of the transmission lines out of the service on the Common ROW including hurricanes, tornadoes, wind-blown debris, plane crashes, wildfires, vandalism, sabotage and terrorism. The Common ROW in the Project Service Area is vulnerable to several extreme events that could take out of service all the transmission lines within that ROW. For example, there are five airports (including the Southwest Florida International Airport, approximately one mile from the FPL Common ROW) in the vicinity of the Common ROW, resulting in a potential for plane crashes. Portions of the Common ROW go through undeveloped areas where wildfires could cause an outage, as has happened on other FPL common ROWs. While no outages of the lines on the Common ROW have been caused by tornadoes or hurricanes since 1989, these types of weather events occur in the Project Service Area.13 These weather events and associated large wind-blown debris can also result in a complete outage of lines on a common ROW. While FPL cannot control the frequency of Category D events that can result in a common ROW outage, it has some control over the duration and consequences of the outage. Due to the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area, an electrical outage caused by an extreme event affecting the Common ROW would last as long as it took to repair the damaged lines because there is no other way to deliver electricity to FPL’s customers in the south end of the “peninsula.” If a transmission line is damaged by an extreme event like a plane crash, hurricane, tornado or sabotage, depending on the severity of the event, all of the phases of construction required for a new transmission line, other than possibly surveying, may be required to reconstruct the damaged line. Depending on the severity of the damage, an extreme event damaging all of the transmission lines on the Common ROW could result in hundreds of thousands of FPL customers being out of service for approximately two to six days.14 See Finding of Fact 297. (Mr. Armand testified, in part, that FPL’s assertion of an outage lasting up to six days is “totally unrealistic.” He believed that there is a very small probability of a corridor outage in the Common ROW with the COR #3 Line located in it, and that if there were to be such an outage, it would be less than 12 hours in duration, i.e., to get one line operational. See Finding of Fact 296.) Even though FPL is recognized as an industry leader in service restoration efforts, and it has in place an emergency response plan to restore structurally damaged transmission facilities in the Common ROW, it may take a minimum of two days to get the first damaged circuit back in service, depending on the extent of the damage. Reliability Enhancement from Geographic Separation Placement of the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW like the FPL Corridor spreads the risk and lowers the likelihood that all 230-kV lines serving the Project Service Area would be taken out of service by a single event. While outages of all transmission lines on common ROWs (Category D events) are a relatively rare occurrence, they do occasionally occur. (FPL Exhibit 11.) It is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty a mathematical probability of such a Category D event occurring. Since 1985, FPL has experienced 12 events where all transmission lines on a common ROW on its system have been taken out of service due to hurricane, tornado, birds, plane crash or wildfire.15 (FPL Exhibit 11.) (In 1977, FPL experienced an outage on the Andytown line.) See Findings of Fact 295-297. The typical corridor outage is of relatively brief duration. Of the 13 corridor outages reported in FPL Exhibit 11 and BCC Exhibit 7, several were 16 or fewer minutes in duration. The Turkey Point Corridor suffered a 120-hour outage as a result of Hurricane Andrew and, as a result of the hurricane, FPL experienced transmission line “outages in a large area of Dade and Broward Counties.” While not accounting for all reported corridor outages, other corridor outages lasted approximately 11 hours (Volusia-Smyrna #’s 1 and 2 115-kV (plane)) and approximately 17 and 10 hours (Duval-Thalmann 500-kV and Duval- Hatch 500-kV, respectively (plane)). Except for the outage occurring in the Turkey Point Corridor that has seven 230-kV lines, there have been no transmission line corridor outages involving four or more transmission lines. There have been no reported common corridor outages in the Common ROW or the Project Service Area. There are many reported single-transmission line outages within the Collier-Orange River Corridor, but none attributable to a plane crash, hurricane, or tornado. Many of the reported transmission line outages in the Collier-Orange River Corridor have been attributed to unknown causes, equipment failures, foreign interference, lightning, birds, and human elements (other than vandalism). In the Collier-Orange River Corridor, there have been eight line outages on six different days caused by fire and one outage due to vandalism. (BCC Exhibit 5-(1989-2003).) When planning a transmission line system in Florida, the loss of all transmission lines in a common ROW is one of the probable extreme events that should be evaluated. The loss of an entire generating plant is another. All of the 230-kV transmission lines on the Common ROW are on two structures for much of its length. In these places, an extreme event would only have to destroy two structures to take all of the 230-kV lines on the Common ROW out of service. Guide G6 in NERC’s planning standards, which represents a good planning practice, provides that the transmission system should be planned to avoid excessive dependence on any one transmission circuit, structure, ROW or substation. Guide G6 is a reasonable basis to plan a new ROW geographically separate from an existing ROW that already contains multiple transmission line circuits. Similarly, the FRCC crisis response plan identifies physical security measures for which utilities should plan to enhance the reliability of Florida’s transmission system. These physical security measures were adopted following September 11, 2001. That plan recommends that utilities consider not placing too many transmission lines on a common ROW because of terrorist-type threats, sabotage, or disgruntled employees. Minimizing risk to infrastructure is also consistent with the planning philosophies of homeland security. Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Contingency Assessment In the context of contingency assessments for transmission lines, two types of evaluations are possible: deterministic and probabilistic. When using a deterministic evaluation, a utility determines whether an event can occur and, if so, the consequences of that event. If the consequences are severe, the utility evaluates the steps it could take to mitigate the adverse effects. When using a probabilistic evaluation, a mathematical computation is used, based on historical data. This method is used when, for example, calculating the probability that all generators in Florida might not meet future loads in the future. NERC’s planning standards do not require a probabilistic evaluation when assessing Category D contingencies. The president of FRCC, Mr. Wiley, is not aware of any utility using a probabilistic evaluation for transmission line planning in his forty years of experience. In planning the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW, FPL used a deterministic evaluation. FPL determined that an extreme event could cause an outage of all lines on the Common ROW, and that the consequences of such an outage were severe enough to warrant looking for a geographically separate ROW. If an extreme event like a plane crash takes out of service all of the transmission lines on the existing Common ROW, leaving the COR #3 Line undamaged on a geographically separate ROW within the FPL Corridor would allow FPL to restore service to about 60 percent of the demand in the Project Service Area in the worst case. With the available electricity, FPL could direct power to circuits with critical facilities within the Project Service Area, such as hospitals, police stations and fire stations, and rotate the blackout among many of its other customers until the damaged lines were reconstructed. Alternatively, if the COR #3 Line were placed on the existing Common ROW and all of the transmission lines on the ROW were taken out of service by an extreme event, FPL would only be able to serve about 25-30 percent of the load in the Project Service Area through the 138-kV transmission network until the damaged lines were rebuilt. In such an event, there may not be enough electricity to energize all of the feeders that serve critical facilities in the Project Service Area. Further Justification for Geographic Separation The “not-in-my-backyard” approach of many landowners is a well-known impediment to transmission line construction, and obtaining property rights for new transmission lines is becoming increasingly difficult. Getting land for a new transmission line ROW is more difficult when development has already occurred than when land is still relatively undeveloped. The population and demand for electricity in the Project Service Area are both growing rapidly. FPL projects there will be a need to add more transmission lines to bring power into the Project Service Area within the next 10 to 15 years. Even though there is room on the existing common ROW to accommodate the addition of at least two new transmission circuits (one on the existing COR #2 structures and one on new structures), it is prudent for FPL to establish a geographically separate transmission line ROW in the Project Service Area for the COR #3 Line before future development makes it more difficult to do so. The Common ROW between the Orange River and Collier substations is the only common ROW on FPL’s system with no generating plant connected on each end. For all the other FPL common ROWs, if there is an extreme event that takes out of service all the lines on that ROW, the resulting outage will last only as long as it takes to redirect power from FPL’s fleet of generators. In the Project Service Area, there is currently no way other than the Common ROW to adequately feed the significant electrical demand in the Naples area. Thus, an outage in the Project Service Area caused by an extreme event on the Common ROW would last as long as it took to repair the damaged lines, which could take several days. Collier County’s Director of Emergency Management testified that, in his opinion, it is simple common sense planning to provide as much separation as possible between the COR #3 Line and the other 230-kV lines on the Common ROW. It is highly unlikely that an extreme event would affect both the Common ROW and the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate route. Thus, the geographic separation would enhance the ability to restore electric service to the community. The FPL Corridor also facilitates the timely provision of reliability looping to LCEC’s existing and future substations. If the COR #3 Line is not built in the FPL Corridor, this reliability looping would be farther in the future and it would cost substantially more to achieve because of the increased distance between the LCEC system and the closest point on the Alternate Corridor. Other Projects that Might Improve Reliability of Electric Service in the Project Service Area Rejected BCC offered testimony suggesting FPL has the option of upgrading its 138-kV transmission system located to the west of the Common ROW to 230-kV facilities in the Project Service Area rather than building a new 230-kV line. In making this suggestion, however, BCC’s witness assumed, and concluded, that there would be physical space to accomplish such an upgrade. (He had not inspected all of the existing 138-kV facilities in this area.) FPL’s transmission line engineer noted that a number of the existing 138-kV substations on that system have insufficient physical space to allow for the conversion, although he did not recall which substations are physically incapable of expansion to accommodate the conversion. No persuasive evidence was offered by BCC to explain how the electrical demands in the area could be met while the lines were being reconstructed. As another alternative for eliminating the peninsula effect, BCC suggested that FPL could have resolved its reliability concern and eliminated the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area by installing generation capacity in that Area.16 But this option was one of the alternative projects considered by the PSC in the need proceeding for this project, and it was rejected. FPL has not pursued a suggested option to relocate the transmission lines off of common ROWs to increase reliability on its common ROWS outside the Project Service Area because they all have generation on both ends, allowing FPL to feed demand using generation facilities even if all the lines on a common ROW are out of service. Here, while FPL is not proposing to “relocate” a line off the Common ROW, it is proposing to take advantage of the fact that a new line is needed by constructing it off the Common ROW, achieving the same result suggested by this option. BCC appears to be concerned that use of either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor for the COR #3 Line will increase the percentage of transmission capacity in the Project Service Area that comes through the Orange River substation. Although BCC offered testimony that loss of the Orange River substation would result in similar numbers of customers being out of service as a Common ROW outage, FPL’s decision to not duplicate that substation facility is reasonable. Duplication of the Orange River substation would probably be too expensive, although the specific amount is uncertain. Also, while a transmission line is a linear facility, a substation is a finite location, resulting in much less exposure to an extreme event. Moreover, substations are very robust facilities that are able to withstand higher wind and mechanical forces, and are less vulnerable to wildfires than transmission lines. For all these reasons, a complete outage of the Orange River substation is less likely than an outage of all the lines on the Common ROW. FPL’s Judgment to Seek a Geographically Separate ROW Consistent with Prior Action This is not the first time FPL has decided to seek a geographically separate route for a new transmission line even though space was available on a common ROW. On one other occasion, FPL chose to locate a transmission line on a geographically separate route from an existing common ROW where there was room to accommodate the new line. FPL made that decision for geographic separation for many of the same reasons it is seeking a geographically separate route for the COR #3 Line. FPL lost all three lines in the common corridor that resulted in a complete blackout and no amount of load shedding could arrest the frequency decline and prevent the blackout. In that instance, after a 500-kV common ROW outage caused an electrical outage in South Florida for over three hours, FPL chose to put its next 500-kV transmission line on a geographically separate route. FPL’s service area generally covers the eastern half of the Florida peninsula and southwest Florida. FPL has approximately 15 common transmission line corridors of varying lengths that have at least the transmission line capacity of four 230-kV lines. The total transmission line capacity of these corridors ranges from four 230-kV lines to as many as nine 230-kV lines, as well as (a) two 500-kV lines and three 230-kV lines; (b) three 500-kV lines; and (c) one 500-kV line and seven 230-kV lines. FPL has installed new 230-kV transmission lines in common corridors since 1992. FPL is planning to add additional generating capacity at its Martin generating station and an additional 1,100 MW of capacity at its Turkey Point station. It does not appear that FPL has relocated any of the 230-kV lines out of the Turkey Point corridor in order to achieve geographic diversity. CE and BCC suggest that the current state of FPL’s corridors and generating plants described above is inconsistent with FPL’s Corridor. All of the reasons for FPL’s decisions to plan and construct and add to the facilities noted above are not apparent in this record. However, the unique nature of the Project Service Area, in part, distinguishes FPL’s plans to locate the COR #3 Line in FPL’s Corridor from other projects. Geographic Separation Appropriate for COR #3 Line The contingencies that FPL addressed in its evaluation of the reliability of the proposed COR #3 Line Project were reasonable and appropriate under the NERC planning standards. Given the electrical peninsula nature of the Project Service Area, it is prudent to locate the new COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separate from the existing Common ROW to enhance reliability for the customer. Construction of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor would provide greater system reliability and integrity for FPL’s customers. Use of this geographically separate ROW would mitigate the possibility of all transmission lines on the Common ROW being taken out of service simultaneously and leaving a substantial percentage of FPL’s customers in the Project Service Area without power for an extended period of time. Construction of the COR #3 Line on a geographically separate ROW, such as the FPL Corridor, is prudent and will ensure electric system reliability, integrity and service restoration. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion The PSC recognized that FPL’s planning studies indicate that the COR #3 Line is needed by December 2005 to alleviate potential overloads and low voltage conditions from a single contingency event. The COR # 3 Line can be constructed in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor and meet the requirements set forth in Finding of Fact 47, except as otherwise noted herein regarding the potential significant constraints to locate and construct the COR #3 Line within the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 along Immokalee Road. Location of the COR #3 Line on either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a timely fashion in that the single-contingency planning criteria established by NERC will be met. However, the FPL Corridor would meet the electrical energy needs of the state in a more orderly fashion than the Alternate Corridor because: The Project Service Area is a fast growing area of the state and new distribution substations will likely be required in the eastern portions of Lee and Collier County. Those future substations can be fed more efficiently from the FPL Corridor than if the COR #3 Line is placed on the existing Common ROW and long east- west transmission lines (similar to the Immokalee Road segment of the Alternate Corridor) are required to feed those substations. In transmission line siting, it is easier to locate a new transmission line in an area before it becomes developed. The Alternate Corridor incorporates a 4-mile stretch of Immokalee Road that is already densely developed. In contrast, much of the FPL Corridor’s route is presently undeveloped or agricultural in nature. Both CE and BCC acknowledge plans to develop their lands adjacent to Immokalee Road along the FPL Corridor within the next 10 to 15 years. While there is space on the Common ROW for placement of additional 230-kV transmission lines that may accommodate electric demand for another 29 to 44 years, it is not prudent to wait that long to establish a geographically separate ROW. By that time, CE and BCC plan to have developed their lands and it is not unreasonable to expect that the then-existing residents and businesses on that eastern stretch of Immokalee Road will be in the same position as those currently located along the western stretch of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor. These residents will be occupying development in place that has not been planned to accommodate an adjacent transmission line. Comply with the Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor could comply with all applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The segment of the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 may accommodate the location and construction of the COR #3 Line, subject to the significant engineering design and construction constraints discussed herein. See Findings of Fact 120-156, 226. Be Consistent with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The location, construction, and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will be consistent with all applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans. The COR #3 Line ROW will be established through the grant of approval from an existing ROW owner or FPL’s acquisition of an easement or fee simple interest in property. These acquisitions can be through purchase, eminent domain, or by grant. No segment of the COR #3 Line will be constructed until the ROW for that segment has been established. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan is essentially silent on transmission lines as a land use. There are two potentially applicable policies in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Myers. One indicates that land should be provided for utilities, and the other explicitly provides that the City’s land development regulations shall only permit, among other identified uses, utility lines, poles, and/or pipes in wetland areas. In the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, essential services (which include transmission lines) are permitted uses in all future land use designations crossed by the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor. Similarly, Section 2.6.9.3 of the Collier County’s Land Development Code exempts “structures supporting lines or cables” from the regulations. Effect a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Transmission Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Resulting from the Location of the Transmission Line Corridor and Maintenance of the Transmission Lines In determining whether it is practicable to locate the COR #3 Line on a route that is geographically separated from the existing Common ROW, three relevant factors to consider are the costs of the geographically separate route, the benefits of that route, and the technical ability to construct the COR #3 Line on the alternative route. The need for the COR #3 Line is not disputed. All parties agree that reliable electric service is desirable. The type of transmission line design proposed for the COR #3 Line occurs in all types of land uses throughout Florida. By collocating the new line with existing linear features, such as roads, property boundaries and other transmission line ROWs, both the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor conform to the existing patterns of land development, and will consolidate land use/environmental impacts to a single area, as opposed to locating the new line in a non-collocated alignment. Collocation also reduces the amount of new ROW needed. For example, next to a road, the new line will only need a ROW that is up to 15 feet in width, whereas up to a 60-foot ROW is required where the line is not collocated with an existing linear feature. Impact Upon the Public Two priorities expressed by the community in the Project Service Area during the public outreach activities were the minimization of impacts to homes and schools. The FPL Corridor minimizes impacts to existing homes by following a route where there is little residential development and where planned residential development is low density. There do not appear to be any schools within or adjacent to the FPL Corridor, although the Collier County School Board is in the process of acquiring land on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately three miles east of CR 951 and west of the Orangetree substation. (See FPL Exhibit 6-5, proposed site designated with a circle.) Intervenor, Kenneth E. Smith, whose residence is located on Green Meadows Road along the FPL Corridor, expressed concern about the potential for health effects from electric and magnetic fields. See also Findings of Fact 11 and 80. BCC’s representative, Thomas W. Sansbury, is employed by the Grey Oaks Development Corporation as its president; Grey Oaks Realty Corporation as its president and broker of record; and Grey Oaks Community Services. The Grey Oaks community is on the west side of Livingston Road and near the Collier substation. (FPL Exhibit 4.) (A member of the board of BCC owns Grey Oaks Development Corporation and Grey Oaks Community Services.) Mr. Sansbury has extensive experience in the sales, management, and operations of developments. He also advised that there is sales resistance when developments are close to or adjacent to transmission lines. He advised of the need and cost for buffering of properties that are nearby transmission lines. Mr. Sansbury also believed that BCC has the ability to plan and develop other commercially successful developments (like Grey Oaks, for example) that are adjacent to other transmission lines. He also expressed concern about the public’s perception of effects from electric and magnetic fields and sales resistance he has received from being close to or adjacent to transmission lines. Mr. Sansbury, who served on the Environmental Regulation Commission when the DEP’s rule limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with electric transmission lines and substations were adopted, agreed that the experts who testified at the Commission’s hearings around the state supported a determination that there is no conclusive evidence that there is any danger or hazard to public health at the 60 Hertz electric and magnetic fields found in Florida, although he stated that typical buyers do not support such a determination. The COR #3 Line will comply with the standards adopted by the DEP, limiting the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines in all areas of the FPL Corridor. The Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road (from the Common ROW to CR 951) is adjacent to high-density residential development and two existing schools. See Finding of Fact 242. Yet, avoiding homes and schools are high priorities in this community. There are several techniques that can be used to lessen the potential impact of an adjacent transmission line on development. They include the installation of an earth berm and/or landscaping to buffer the development from the transmission line; alignment of residential units so the living space at the rear of the homes are faced away from the line; and the placement of lesser-valued or non-residential units, like golf courses and commercial uses, closest to the line. It is easier to implement these mitigation techniques prior to development taking place or prior to development being planned and approved, than after the development is complete or approved. From a land use perspective, the Common ROW portion of the Alternate Corridor is suitable for the placement of the COR #3 Line. Also, from a land use perspective, the FPL Corridor from the Orange River substation south to its intersection with Immokalee Road is similar in land use impacts to the portion of the Alternate Corridor on the existing Common ROW north of the intersection with Immokalee Road. In these areas, both corridors follow existing linear facilities and are suitable for location of the COR #3 Line from a land use perspective. (See, e.g., FPL Exhibit 4.) Aside from some environmental area issues discussed herein, the main difference in land use impacts between the FPL Corridor and the Alternate Corridor occurs along their two different Immokalee Road segments. There is little existing development in the FPL Corridor along Immokalee Road (east of CR 951), whereas the existing residential and commercial development in the Alternate Corridor between the Common ROW and CR 951 is quite extensive. Placement of the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road between Livingston Road (which is just east of the Common ROW) and CR 951 would have more significant impacts on residential areas than placement of the line within the FPL Corridor. The existing residential development within the Alternate Corridor in this area is much higher density, and the FPL Corridor provides greater opportunity for future development to accommodate or plan around the line as an existing feature. In addition to the existing residential development along Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor, several other developments are already planned and have received at least some of their approvals. Also, to place the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor along Immokalee Road between Livingston Road and CR 951, a zigzag configuration may be required. See Findings of Fact 150-153. This zigzagging would create visual clutter, whereas placement of the line in the FPL Corridor parallel to a road would allow the line to blend into the other linear elements and not predominate. While construction of the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor could comply with applicable standards as listed in Finding of Fact 47, compliance with good engineering practices may be difficult to achieve along the segment of Immokalee Road within the Alternate Corridor because of the uncertainty of where the COR #3 Line can be located and the constraints discussed herein. See Finding of Fact 156. The crossing of I-75/Immokalee Road interchange within the Alternate Corridor without placement of structures within the DOT I-75 interchange, may require the use of multiple elevated structures, some of which might exceed 120 feet or 130 feet in height to achieve the appropriate vertical clearances over the elevated roadway. See also Finding of Fact 154. CE offered testimony that the COR #3 Line could have a negative impact on the quality of a car trip to the vehicle’s occupants. Yet there are between two and three times the number of vehicles each day on the segment of Immokalee Road traversed by the Alternate Corridor, compared to the segment in the FPL Corridor. Along Immokalee Road, the FPL Corridor is a better choice than the Alternate Corridor from a land use planning perspective. In planning future development land holdings of CE and BCC, CE and BCC would have the flexibility to install berms and landscape materials to buffer future development from the COR #3 Line and Immokalee Road. Both CE and BCC have experience buffering development from transmission lines and achieving a commercial success with such development. Evidence presented by BCC of the potential for the COR #3 Line to impact the “sales velocity” (speed with which a residential lot or home sells) and property value impact to its lands along the FPL Corridor has some merit but is not persuasive. When selling homes in Collier County, the preferred orientations that affect values of homes in Collier County are to have the living space facing west, toward a golf course or water. The two villa properties used for comparison in this testimony are not comparable to one another from a landscape architecture perspective. The Muse villa properties are on the eastern portion of the Grey Oaks community and are buffered from the FPL ROW by a buffer area, landscape berm, and roadway. The units are faced away from the ROW. The Muse contains approximately 26 residential units of 2,600 to 3,000 square feet. The Santiva community has similarly sized and number of units and is on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road (western border of the property) and buffered from this road by a canal, a berm, and a road. The Santiva units sold out are essentially one year and six months while the Muse units, which buffered the power lines sold out in approximately three years. While the villas (The Muse) that sold more slowly face west and are adjacent and west of Livingston Road along the Common ROW, the view from the living space is over a single golf hole, whereas the villas (Santiva) that sold more quickly have a view of both a lake and several golf holes. Accordingly, the villas that sold more quickly are more desirable from a landscape architecture perspective because of the lot layout. Also, the villas that sold more quickly were in a later phase of the development that occurred after the development had already achieved a good reputation in the community. Nevertheless, the units that do not border on a transmission line are more desirable and valuable than those that are adjacent to a transmission line in this area. Also, utilizing golf holes as a buffer increases the cost of the development. Evidence was also presented regarding property value impacts and sales velocity regarding the estate homes section (on Dalia Way) lots on two sides of the street. The homes that face east on the right side of the street, and were buffered from multiple transmission lines on the existing Common ROW by a golf hole, sold for less and more slowly than the homes that faced west on the other side of the street. Part of the differential between the lots was because of the favorable western view. Mr. Stansbury observed that the prices of the lots facing the transmission lines were approximately 15 percent lower than the others. In any event, there was no persuasive evidence presented that the impact to property value or sales velocity from the multiple transmission lines on a wide ROW in view of the eastern-facing estate lots is comparable to any impact from a single pole transmission line such as the proposed COR #3 Line. Immokalee Road is adjacent to the properties owned by CE and BCC and is an arterial roadway that is planned for future expansion to four or possibly six lanes. Even without a transmission line, both CE and BCC use earth berms and landscaping to buffer development from adjacent arterial roadways. Any impact to CE and BCC there that may result from their desire to buffer the COR #3 Line adjacent to Immokalee Road from their future development along the FPL Corridor is likely to be incremental in that CE and BCC would already be planning to buffer that future development from the arterial roadway. During the public hearing, several people inquired why the COR #3 Line would not be placed underground. The evidence shows that an underground configuration for the COR #3 Line is not cost-effective, and that repair times could increase from hours for an overhead line to days or weeks for an underground line. Impact Upon the Environment From an environmental perspective, the objective of the corridor selection process was to minimize crossings of the various land use and environmental siting constraints, as well as to maximize any collocation opportunities with existing linear facilities. As a result, the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length. A new north-south transmission line corridor in this area of Florida cannot be established without crossing a significant wetland system. One major siting constraint in selecting a corridor from Orange River substation to the Orange Tree substation is the Corkscrew Swamp System. Avoidance of potential impacts to the Corkscrew Swamp System is the primary reason why the FPL Corridor extends so far to the east. Even the Alternate Corridor that uses the existing Common ROW crosses more than two miles of wetlands associated with the Corkscrew Swamp System. The Corkscrew Swamp System is a large ecosystem dominated by wetlands, primarily consisting of cypress wetlands. It also includes large expanses of pine flatwoods and other natural systems. Throughout the Corkscrew Swamp System, there are numerous endangered and threatened species. It is the home to some of the high-profile endangered species in the State of Florida, including the Florida panther, bald eagle, and black bear. (The Corkscrew Swamp Ecosystem is estimated to encompass approximately 64,500 acres.) The Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, a large Audubon-owned and managed wildlife sanctuary, and also a major tourist attraction in the area, is located in the area north of Immokalee Road and east of the big turn to the south. The FPL Corridor essentially avoids the Corkscrew Swamp System by going around it to the east of the System along the north-south section of Immokalee Road, touching it only on the edges where disturbances already exist, such as existing roadways and transmission lines. Since 95 percent of the FPL Corridor is collocated with existing linear facilities, already-existing access should be sufficient for construction and maintenance of the COR #3 Line in many areas. Where existing access is available, in some areas finger roads to the new structure locations may be required. This ability to use existing access in many areas will minimize the amount of filling required for this project. There are two locations within the FPL Corridor where the Sleeping Beauty Water Lily, a listed plant species, is known to exist. One of these locations occurs just west of the Orange River substation along the eastern edge of an existing citrus grove in an agricultural ditch, and the other location occurs in a roadside ditch along the south side of SR 82. In addition, the listed Cardinal Air Plant was observed to occur along the eastern edge of Bird Rookery Swamp and on the west side of Immokalee Road. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) They also could occur in other areas including other cypress trees along and outside the FPL Corridor. They are locally abundant. FPL has generally agreed to avoid the removal of listed plant species that occur on public lands and waters where practicable. Where such removal is unavoidable, FPL has agreed to abide by the mitigation or other requirements of regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over listed plants. In addition, FPL has specifically agreed to avoid through all available means, including the exercise of the power of eminent domain, placing the COR #3 Line on the west side of Immokalee Road where the land has been designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands by Collier County. (Joint Exhibit 5A Conditions of Certification, Section XVIII.F, p.11, Attachment 4.) This is the same area where the Cardinal Air Plant was observed to exist. As noted, the Corkscrew Swamp System is also home to endangered and threatened animal species, including the Florida panther. The Florida panther is one of the most endangered species in the State of Florida. The entire study area for the COR #3 Line is located in Florida panther habitat. The Florida Panther utilizes large expansive pine flatwoods and swamp systems and drainages to travel. Radio-telemetry has indicated the presence of the panther along Immokalee Road to the south of the Corkscrew Swamp System. By collocating along Immokalee Road in these areas, the FPL Corridor will not result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the Florida Panther, and will not increase the animal’s exposure to more human presence or vehicular traffic. The wood stork, the bald eagle, and the Florida Black Bear are also found in the vicinity of the FPL Corridor. The FPL Corridor avoids known wading bird breeding colonies, including wood stork breeding colonies. In addition, because it is collocated with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length, the FPL Corridor is not likely to result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the wood stork. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will have minimal adverse impacts on the wood stork. There are no known active bald eagle nests within one half mile of the FPL Corridor, although they could be observed throughout the study area and are likely to occur along the FPL Corridor. In addition, as with the wood stork, only minimal habitat that the bald eagle might use will be removed. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Transmission Line in the FPL Corridor will have minimal adverse impacts on the bald eagle. There have been black bear observations along Immokalee Road in the vicinity of the FPL Corridor, including, unfortunately, black bear mortalities. The black bear, much like the Florida Panther, utilizes large thickets and swamp systems and move several miles in a day. As with the Florida panther, by collocating along Immokalee Road in these areas, the FPL Corridor will not result in the removal of significant additional habitat that could be used by the black bear, and will not increase the animal’s exposure to more human presence or vehicular traffic. The construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect the black bear. The FPL Corridor avoids and minimizes impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats because the existing habitats along much of the FPL Corridor are already disturbed. In addition, by avoiding known locations of endangered or threatened species, and by collocating with existing linear facilities for approximately 95 percent of its length, the amount of additional clearing that will be required is minimized. Consequently, the construction of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor will not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources and will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. There will be some fill required in wetlands for the construction and operation of the COR #3 Line in the FPL Corridor. Where the line must cross wetlands, FPL may have to construct access roads and pole pads in the wetlands to facilitate construction and maintenance of the new transmission line. FPL has agreed to follow a number of procedures to avoid and minimize the impacts from such fill in wetlands. First and foremost, the location selected for the FPL Corridor avoids numerous wetlands. Within the wetlands crossed by the FPL Corridor, wetland impacts will be minimized in the following ways: by careful alignment of the ROW, such as by taking advantage of upland islands located within these wetlands for pole locations where practicable, thus avoiding placing a fill pole pad in the wetlands; by incorporating the number and size of culverts necessary to maintain existing surface water hydrology and flow; and by minimizing the size of pole pads placed in wetlands based on site-specific conditions. In addition, FPL has agreed to remove existing exotic vegetation from the wetlands within the FPL Corridor. This will provide a benefit to those wetlands from which exotic vegetation is removed. CE offered testimony estimating that construction of the COR #3 Line in the entire length of the FPL Corridor would require the placement of 2.05 acres of fill in wetlands, with .75 acres through the construction of an access road to the Baucom Strand portion of the FPL Corridor (less than a mile north of the portion of Immokalee Road which turns north toward the LCEC 138-kV ROW) and another 1.3 acres by the placement of 25-fill pads in the remaining areas, e.g., four fill pads for the wetlands at the “unnamed flowway” located east of Lake Trafford on the LCEC 138-kV ROW; four structure pads for the entire length of Baucom Strand (assuming a continuous access road of 2,300 feet); seven fill pads at the Camp Keais Strand located over a mile west of the segment of Immokalee Road which turns west after leaving the LCEC 138-kV ROW; one fill pad at the “freshwater swamp” located on Green Meadows Road; and nine fill pads in the Bird Rookery Swamp area. (See FPL Exhibit 4.) Ms. Johnson (for CE) assumed that the power lines would be placed to minimize impacts to wetlands; the approximate spacing of the poles would be 700-foot maximum and that the pads would be 45 feet by 50 feet. Ms. Johnson stated that while the water management district employed her, permits were issued for projects with that amount or more of wetland impact, and agreed that it is possible for a project to include 2.05 acres of impacts to wetlands and still meet the permitting requirements. FPL offered rebuttal evidence regarding CE’s wetland impact analysis. Mr. Simpson opined, in part, that there might be approximately 1.23 acres of impacts to the areas described by Ms. Johnson. See Finding of Fact 281. FPL has agreed to appropriately mitigate for wetland impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. CE also offered testimony that construction of the COR #3 Line on the Alternate Corridor would not cause any significant impacts to wetlands. Based on the National Wetland Inventory Data Base, there are over nine miles of non-continuous wetlands along the Alternate Corridor. However, there was no precise quantification of adverse impacts to wetland areas within the Alternate Corridor. Also, the evidence is inconclusive where the actual boundary of the CREW Trust Lands is in relation to the Alternate Corridor. It is difficult to determine at this stage of the siting process what the exact acreage of wetland impacts will be if the COR #3 Line is constructed in either the FPL Corridor or in the Alternate Corridor. Before wetland impact amounts can be calculated, site-specific wetland determinations would have to be made and site-specific pole placement and pad designs would have to be completed. The construction of the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor will be consistent with the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. (See also Joint Exhibit 9.) The Need for the COR #3 Line as a Means of Providing Abundant Low-Cost Electrical Energy The PSC determined that the COR #3 Line is needed, taking into account the factors set forth in Section 403.537(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In the need proceeding, the PSC considered several alternative projects, including four alternative transmission projects in the Fort Myers-Naples region and the construction of new generation facility near Naples. The PSC determined that “[t]he present value cost of the project proposed by FPL in a new right-of-way is estimated at between $32 million and $57 million, subject to final right- of-way routing and conditions of certification by the” Siting Board. According to the PSC, placement of the COR #3 Line in the existing Common ROW, “was the least cost alternative with an estimated net present value cost of $25 million,” or potentially costing up to $32 million less than a geographically separate route. However, the PSC found that “this alternative is not optimal due to concerns with serving an electrical peninsula via a single corridor and the inability for future expansion of FPL’s transmission system to the east of the existing corridor.” Stated otherwise, the cost to construct the COR #3 Line in the Alternate Corridor will be approximately $11 to $12 million less than in the FPL Corridor without consideration of placing the COR #3 Line on a separate pole line along the Common ROW with an estimated incremental cost of approximately $6.5 million above the previous estimate.17 The PSC also determined that “[t]he other four alternatives were either more costly (estimated net present value costs between $101 million and $138 million) or did not meet undervoltage and thermal overload conditions under all single contingency events.” (See Joint Exhibit 1, App. A pp.5-6.) The value of system line losses (lost energy) if the COR #3 Line is placed in the FPL Corridor would be between approximately $120,000 to $250,000 per year higher than if the Alternate Corridor is used. The benefits of placing the COR #3 Line in the geographically separate FPL Corridor are best understood in terms of the consequences to be mitigated or avoided in the event of an extreme event taking out of service all transmission lines on the Common ROW. While loss of all the transmission lines on a common ROW due to an extreme event (such as plane crash, wildfire, hurricane, tornado, wind-blown debris, vandalism, sabotage, or terrorism) is an unlikely event, it has happened at least 12 times on FPL’s transmission system since 1985, even though some of the total corridor outages have been of relatively short duration. See Findings of Fact 188-190. (See also FPL Exhibit 11; BCC Exhibit 7.) CE and BCC, through Dr. Glover and Mr. Armand, strongly contested the relative likelihood of such an extreme event and the extent of any outage, if the event occurred in the Common ROW. Dr. Glover concluded that the probability of a hurricane with sufficient force to disable all of the lines in the Common ROW would actually do so while not disabling another line located within a few miles of that ROW must be regarded as approximately zero, and the probability greater than zero regarding the impact of tornadoes, but still very, very small. He regarded the probability of a Common ROW outage due to a plane crash as very, very small or low, and due to terrorism as far-fetched and unrealistic at best. He further opined that transmission lines located in remote areas are more vulnerable to outages due to vandalism or sabotage as are the risks associated with wildfire. Mr. Armand opined that there would be a very small probability of a corridor outage on the Common ROW with the COR #3 Line located within it, and if there was, it would last less than twelve hours. He also stated that FPL’s assertion that an outage on the Common ROW could last up to six days was “totally unrealistic,” based, in part, on the devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew to the transmission lines at Turkey Point that took five days to restore. FPL’s experts opined that if the COR #3 Line were added to the Common ROW, and an extreme event occurred there, it could result in a 30-minute to five to six-day blackout affecting between approximately 376,000 and 600,000 people (less the population of the Project Service Area that may be served via the 138-kV transmission lines), as a worst-case scenario. (It appears that the population of the Project Service Area as of January 2003 was 594,900 with population growth expected to be 18,800 per year.) When an electrical outage occurs there are numerous adverse predicable consequences to the community. Traffic lights do not function and traffic accidents increase. Elevators get stuck. Fire alarm systems may become inoperable or may not operate properly. Response time for emergency vehicles is increased due to increased call volume and the emergency vehicles’ loss of preemptive control of traffic signals. Fire hazard is increased due to use of candles, fuel- powered lanterns, barbecue grills and improper fueling of gasoline-powered generators. Community wellness services, like Meals on Wheels and dialysis centers, are impacted. Medical emergencies increase due to injuries that occur during attempts to make emergency repairs, and the lack of light that results in more household accidents and affects the ability to mix and administer medications at home. Emergency management communications with the community regarding shelter locations, available retail operations for water, ice, emergency repair supplies, medicines, etc., are hampered due to many people not having adequate battery-powered receivers. Telephone communications are compromised due to many cordless phones not operating and cell phone batteries not being recharged due to the lack of electricity. There is no vertical water storage in Collier County; the pumping of potable water is mechanical and electrical. Pumps on private drinking water wells, most of which do not have back-up generators, do not function. Very few sewage lift stations have back-up power capability. Once those stations’ capacities are exceeded, effluent can spill outside the station into creeks and roadways, and backup into homes. Moreover, the Southwest Florida economy is dominated by hospitality and tourism-related organizations as part of its economic structure. These companies require continuous and reliable electric power in order to meet the needs of their clients and customers in the marketplace. Failure to have reliable electric power in the community, even for a brief period of time has significant impacts to business. By affecting traffic flow, a power outage hampers the ability of employees to get to and from work. During an electrical outage, a business is not able to operate and be productive as an enterprise because sales do not take place and services are not delivered. Typically, businesses affected by an electrical outage cannot operate. This, of course, affects the ability of that company to generate taxable sales and thereby erodes productivity in the community. FPL decided the consequences to the community in the Project Service Area of a widespread multi-day electrical outage would be too severe and, therefore, chose to seek a geographically separate route for the COR #3 Line to mitigate the impacts of such an outage. FPL’s decision is reasonable and is supported by the weight of the evidence. When the severity (length) and magnitude (number of people affected) of an electrical outage are relatively high, it does not matter that the risk is relatively low. From an emergency management perspective, it is worth providing redundancy to the transmission system and spreading the risk. Putting the COR #3 Line on the geographically separate FPL Corridor is somewhat analogous to a homeowner buying homeowner’s insurance. While the likelihood of any one home suffering a loss from fire, tornado, hurricane, or vandalism is also very low, a homeowner may decide it is prudent to spend money to purchase insurance if the potential loss they could suffer would be catastrophic. In that type of decision, as in the one here, it is important to consider the consequences of the event even though the event is very unlikely to occur. There would be no significant difference between the cost to maintain the COR #3 Line in either the FPL Corridor or the Alternate Corridor. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION The design, construction, and operation of the COR #3 line in the FPL Corridor will comply with the Conditions of Certification. (Joint Exhibit 5A.) See also Preliminary Statement, p. 5 and Findings of Fact 71 and 81 for recent amendments and corrections. (All parties should be given an opportunity to comment on all of the Conditions of Certification, including the amended and corrected Conditions of Certification filed post-final hearing. Id. ) The Conditions of Certification establish a post- certification review process through which the final right-of- way, access road and structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. While the FPL Corridor has few homes in close proximity to it and limited wetland crossings, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that further minimize land use and environmental impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order approving FPL’s Collier-Orange River #3 230-kV Transmission Line Application for Certification subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Joint Exhibit 5A as may be amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2004.
