Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses adduced at the hearing and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following: The Beker-Manatee transmission line was planned and given budget approval by Petitioner in 1974. This action was taken by Petitioner as a result of a documented request by Beker Phosphate Corporation to provide high-voltage service to the proposed Beker Phosphate Corporation mine in Manatee County, Florida. Right-of-way acquisition was begun in June, 1975, and more than one- half of the right-of-way has now been acquired by Petitioner. The original projected in-service date for the transmission line was July 1, 1976, however, completion was delayed due to, inter alia, alleged environmental problems encountered by Beker Phosphate Corporation in bringing its phosphate mine into production. Presently, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Beker-Manatee transmission line energized by the Spring of 1980. Additionally, Petitioner plans to construct an electrical transmission line between the proposed Keentown substation in Manatee County, and a proposed substation in DeSoto County near Arcadia, Florida, which is called the Whidden Substation. (Herein, sometimes called the Keentown-Whidden transmission line). The Keentown-Whidden transmission line was planned and budgeted by Petitioner during late 1975 as the most appropriate means of satisfying Petitioner's needs including providing reliable and adequate service to the Arcadia area; to provide service for specific customers (future) near the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and utilization of its existing facilities including existing transmission lines; to provide bulk power transfer capacity from Manatee into other parts of Petitioner's service area and to improve all transfer capacity between Tampa Bay and the lower west coast of Florida for mutual load supporting generation for emergency and economic reasons. According to its present plans, Petitioner plans to complete construction and have the Keentown-Whidden transmission energized by the summer of 1981, that is more than one year after the Beker-Manatee line is built and energized. On October 14, 1977, Respondent issued a binding letter of interpretation concluding that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a development of regional impact within the guides of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and pertinent regulations since it formed a part of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line. However, in support of this position, Respondent introduced testimony and statements during the hearing indicating that its decision that the subject line is a development of regional inpact is based on five factors as follows: The Beker-Manatee transmission line is a 240 KV line, That the Beker-Manatee Line connects to the Keentown-Whidden transmission line, One of the functions of the Keentown-Whidden transmission line is to transfer bulk power, That the subject line is "the" source of power to energize the Keentown-Whidden transmission line and The Beker-Manatee and Keentown-Whidden lines are inseparable because without the Beker-Manatee transmission line the Keentown-Whidden transmission come not be energized. An examination of these factors revealed that the first three factors are applicable to all 240 KV lines of Petitioner as well as all other power companies. Specifically, testimony was introduced without rebuttal that all other 240 KV transmission lines connect with the subject line as well as the Keentown-Whidden line and form a statewide transmission system in what is commonly referred to as the "Grid". And of course, a primary function of all 240 KV transmission lines is to transmit bulk power. The remaining two factors, when examined, indicate that the Respondent relied on erroneous factors and/or conclusions in reaching its determination that the subject line is a development of regional impact. In this regard, testimony was introduced to the effect that the Beker-Manatee transmission line could be energized through any transmission line within the electrical grid provided the right switching devices were activated. It was also noted that the Keentown-Whidden transmission line could be energized without the Beker-Manatee transmission line provided again that the appropriate switching devices were activated. Throughout the engineering profession, transmission lines are customarily defined by the electric utility industry and by federal and state governmental agencies involved in the regulation of transmission lines, as a line extending from an electric generating power plant to the nearest substation or from a substation to the nearest substation. For example, the Federal Power Commission and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' Standard Dictionary of Electrical Terms (1971) define transmission lines in this manner. With this in mind, it was noted that the Beker-Manatee transmission line is a line which extends from a substation to the nearest substation and it does not cross a county line. Respondent failed to demonstrate why the subject transmission line should not be reviewed as similar lines have been throughout the electric utility industry. Consideration was given to Respondent's argument that the subject line must be viewed as an integral electrical transmission line which when completed will connect and cross portions of DeSoto, Hardee and Manatee counties. However, evidence was introduced that when the subject line is completed, it like all other 240 KV lines form a contiguous segment of the entire electrical grid throughout the United States, and in that respect, such a consideration is not a distinguishing factor for this or any other 240 KV transmission line.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Division of State Planning issue a binding letter of interpretation to Florida Power and Light Company holding that the proposed Beker-Manatee line does not meet the criteria of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and Section 22F-2.03, Florida Administrative Code and therefore is not a development of regional impact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of February, 1978. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are: whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the application of Progress Energy Florida (PEF) to certify and license the construction and operation of a 2200 megawatt (MW) (nominal) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines; and, if so, what conditions of certification should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), provides electricity and related services to approximately 1.7 million customers in the state of Florida. PEF's retail service area spans 35 counties over about 20,000 square miles in central and west Florida. In Florida, PEF operates and maintains more than 43,600 miles of distribution and transmission lines that serve a population of more than 5 million people. PEF owns and operates a diverse mix of electrical generating units in Florida, including approximately 47 combustion turbines, 5 combined cycle units, 12 fossil units, and one nuclear unit at PEF's Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). The CREC is located in northwest Citrus County approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 19 on the Gulf of Mexico. There are five generating facilities within the CREC; four units are coal-fired and one is a nuclear unit. PEF considered locating new nuclear generating capacity at the CREC, but determined that would concentrate too much electrical generation at one site. PEF proposes to build and operate a two-unit nuclear- powered electrical generating facility in Levy County (LNP). Directly associated facilities include a heavy haul road used for construction (Levy County), two site access roads (Levy County), and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines (Levy and Citrus Counties). PEF also seeks certification of nine transmission corridors associated with eleven electrical transmission lines: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed LNP to proposed Citrus Substation, two 500-kV Transmission Lines (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LPC" Lines; Crystal River Transmission Line — proposed LND to existing CREC Switchyard, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy and Citrus Counties), also referred to as the "LCR" Line; Sumter Transmission Line — proposed LNP to proposed Central Florida South Substation, one 500-kV Transmission Line (Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter and Lake Counties and Municipalities of Wildwood and Leesburg), also referred to as the "LCFS" Line; Levy North Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-High Springs Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County), also referred to as the "IS" Line; Levy South Transmission Line — proposed LNP to existing 69-kV Inglis-Ocala Transmission Line, one 69-kV Transmission Line for LNP construction/administration (Levy County and Town of Inglis), also referred to as the "IO" Line; Brookridge Transmission Line — existing CREC Switchyard to existing Brookridge Substation, one 230 kV Transmission Line (Citrus and Hernando Counties), also referred to as the "CB" Line; Brooksville West Transmission Line — existing Brookridge Substation to existing Brooksville West Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Hernando County), also referred to as the "BBW" Line; Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines — proposed Citrus Substation to existing Crystal River East Substation, two 230-kV Transmission Lines (Citrus County), also referred to as the "CCRE" Lines; and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line — existing Kathleen Substation to existing Lake Tarpon Substation, one 230-kV Transmission Line (Polk, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and municipalities of Tampa, Plant City and Oldsmar), also referred to as the "Kathleen" Line. Need for the Project The PSC issued its Final Order determining the need for the Project on August 12, 2008. The PSC found: "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for fuel diversity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for base-load generating capacity"; "a need for Levy Units 1 and 2, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost"; "[t]here are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to PEF which might mitigate the need for Levy Units 1 and 2"; and "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide the most cost-effective source of power." The PSC also found a need for the associated transmission lines. New transmission lines are required to interconnect and integrate the proposed plant into PEF's existing transmission grid and to reliably deliver bulk power to PEF's load centers. Load flow studies were conducted by PEF system planners to identify the appropriate transmission end- points and voltages. The proposed transmission lines in PEF's proposed corridors satisfy the need for transmission lines as determined by the PSC. Public Notice and Outreach PEF has engaged in extensive public outreach for the selection of the LNP site and for the transmission line corridors. With regard to the plant portion of the Project, PEF's outreach efforts have included communications with local community leaders, press releases, communications with state and federal legislators, dissemination of information to the general public and property owners in the vicinity of the plant via mailings and open houses, and participation in community and advisory groups. With regard to the electrical transmission line portion of the Project, public involvement has been key to the corridor selection process. PEF developed a Community Partnership for Energy Planning (CPEP) process to gain feedback from members of the community in a manner that would most effectively involve the community in the transmission line corridor selection process. Through the CPEP process, PEF established leadership teams in three geographic regions: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Polk Counties; Citrus, Hernando, and Levy Counties; and Lake, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The leadership teams identified and selected more than 100 community representatives to participate in regional Utility Search Conferences. The Utility Search Conferences involved intensive two-day discussions of local issues and the future of electricity supply in the region. The purpose of the conferences was to inform the participants about the Project, to gain public input, and to allow participants to nominate community members to become part of the Community Working Groups for the remainder of the Project. PEF formed the Community Working Groups to further study and refine the recommendations of the conferences as well as to provide ongoing input to PEF throughout the Project. PEF also held open houses in February and March 2008 to involve the public in the transmission line corridor selection process. PEF used newspaper advertisements, press releases, and direct mail letters to facilitate public awareness of the open houses. Over 2,900 people attended the open houses, and PEF received completed written questionnaires from 2,071 attendees. The goal of PEF's public outreach program (with regard to both the plant and transmission lines) was to provide information in a transparent manner to the public and to provide ample opportunity and many avenues for the public to provide input during all phases of the Project. In total, PEF has conducted over 40 public presentations and sent communications to more than 125,000 property owners and stakeholders regarding the Project. Many of PEF's outreach efforts have been beyond the efforts required by law. Pursuant to Section 403.5115(6), Florida Statutes, PEF provided direct notice by mail of the filing of the SCA to all landowners whose property and residences are located within: three miles of the proposed main site boundaries of the LNP; one-quarter mile of a transmission line corridor that only includes a transmission line as defined by Section 403.522(22), Florida Statutes; and (3) one-quarter mile for all other linear associated facilities extending away from the main site boundary. PEF timely submitted a list of the landowners and residences notified to DEP's Siting Coordination Office (SCO), as required by Section 403.5115(6)(b), Florida Statutes. PEF made copies of the SCA available at two of its offices and ten public libraries. In addition, PEF provided copies to all local governments and agencies within whose jurisdiction portions of the Project will be located. DEP made an electronic version of the document available on its website. On June 19, 2008, PEF published notice of the filing of the SCA in the Ocala Star-Banner, the Hernando Today, the Tampa Tribune, The Lakeland Ledger, The Villages Daily Sun, the Levy County Journal, the Orlando Sentinel, the Gainesville Sun, the Citrus County Chronicle, the Sumter County Times, the Hernando Times, and the North Pinellas Times, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(3). On December 18, 2008, PEF published notice of the certification hearing in the same newspapers, satisfying the requirements of Section 403.5115(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-17.281(7). PEF published amended notices of the site certification hearing in the same newspapers on February 17, 2009. DEP also published notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. All notices required by law were timely published and/or provided in accordance with Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes. Agency Reports and Stipulations Agency reports and proposed conditions of certification on the plant-related facilities of the Project were submitted to DEP by: (1) the PSC; (2) DCA; (3) SWFWMD; (4) Levy County; (5) FWC; (6) the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council; and (7) DOT. All of these agencies either recommended approval of the Project or otherwise did not object to certification. Although Citrus County did not file an agency report, it recommended approval of the LNP in the prehearing stipulation of the parties. Affected state, regional, and local agencies reviewed the SCA and submitted to DEP reports concerning the impact of the transmission lines on matters within their respective jurisdictions and proposed conditions of certification, as required by Section 403.507(2), Florida Statutes. None of the agencies involved in the review process have recommended that the proposed electrical transmission line corridors be denied or modified. On September 25, 2008, DEP issued its written analysis on the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing a compiled set of conditions of certification. The conditions of certification were subsequently revised to reflect agreed-upon language. DEP recommended that the PEF proposed transmission line corridors be certified subject to the conditions of certification. On January 12, 2009, DEP prepared a Staff Analysis Report (SAR) compiling all of the agency reports on the power plant, proposing conditions of certification, and making an overall recommendation. DEP recommended certification of the Project subject to conditions of certification. The conditions of certification attached to the SAR have been superseded by the Fourth Amended Conditions of Certification filed by DEP as DEP Exhibit 1 on March 23, 2009. PEF is committed to constructing the LNP in accord with these conditions. Plant and Associated Facilities2 Project Overview PEF's proposed nuclear-powered electric generating facility (the LNP) will be located in Levy County. The LNP site is east of U.S. Highway 19 and approximately four miles north of the Town of Inglis and the Levy-Citrus County border. The LNP site contains approximately 3,105 acres, with the two reactors and ancillary power production support facilities located near the center of the site. The majority of the LNP site is currently active silviculture and is unimproved. The proposed heavy haul road and pipelines will be located in corridors south of the LNP site. Two site access roads will tie into U.S. Highway 19 west of the site and proceed east to the main plant area. PEF also owns a second 2,000-acre tract contiguous with the southern boundary of the LNP site, which provides access to a water supply in the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as well as containing the heavy haul road and electrical transmission line corridors that exit the LNP site. Project Description The LNP will include two 1,100 megawatt (MW) (nominal) generating units (LNP 1 and LNP 2) designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The reactor design has received an official design certification from the NRC and is referred to as the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (AP1000). The AP1000 is a standardized, advanced passive pressurized-water nuclear reactor. PEF proposes to place LNP 1 in commercial service by 2016 and LNP 2 in commercial service by 2017. In the AP1000, the reactor core heats water which flows through the reactor cooling system in the primary loop. The reactor coolant pump circulates water through the reactor core. A pressurizer is used to maintain a constant pressure in the primary loop. The heated water flows to the steam generator and through a combination of U-shaped tubes, transferring heat to a separate, independent closed-loop water system, or the secondary loop. Inside the steam generator, the water in the secondary loop boils and is separated in dryers which produce high quality steam. The reactor, the four coolant pumps, and the two steam generators are contained in the containment shield building for each unit. Within the shield building, a steel containment structure surrounds the reactor and steam generators. A passive cooling water tank, which will provide emergency cooling, sits in the top of the containment shield building. The steam in the secondary loop is routed to the adjacent turbine building where it goes into a high-pressure turbine and then three low pressure turbines. The steam produces the force to turn the turbines, which then turn the electrical generator. Electricity is then sent to the on-site switchyard for transmission. The steam exhausting from the turbines moves into the condenser where it comes into contact with the cold surfaces of the tubes in the condenser, which contain water circulating from the cooling tower. The steam condenses back to water. The condensed water is collected in the bottom of the condenser and pumped back into the steam generator. The cycle then repeats. Other components of the AP1000 design include an annex building which contains the main control room; a fuel handling area where new fuel is received and spent fuel is stored; and a diesel generator building. Two cooling towers, three stormwater runoff ponds, and one electrical transmission 500 kV switchyard serving both units are also to be located near the generating units. Each LNP unit will be equipped with a recirculating cooling water system, including a cooling tower, that supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers. The cooling tower makeup water system supplies water to the cooling tower to replace water consumed as a result of evaporation, drift, and blowdown. The LNP's cooling water intake will be located on the CFBC. Cooling water will be conveyed to the LNP site via pipelines. The proposed corridor for the cooling water intake and wastewater discharge pipelines is approximately 13 miles long and 0.25 miles wide. The intake pipeline corridor extends south from the LNP site to the CFBC. The wastewater discharge corridor then turns westerly along the CFBC for six miles before turning south along the western side of an existing PEF transmission line and enters the CREC. As part of its pending application for an NPDES permit, PEF has proposed that LNP wastewater be released into the existing CREC discharge canal. Materials needed to construct the LNP will be delivered via: (1) U.S. Highway 19; and (2) a barge slip on the CFBC in conjunction with the heavy haul road for large components. The heavy haul road, to be used primarily during construction, will be co-located with the makeup and blowdown pipeline corridor south of the LNP site. Federally-Required Approvals The LNP is also subject to the construction and operation approval of the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, PEF has submitted a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) to the NRC. PEF submitted the COLA for the LNP on July 30, 2008. The NRC's review is in progress, and a decision on the application is expected in late 2011. PEF has also requested a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) from the NRC. The LWA request covers the installation of a perimeter diaphragm wall and preliminary foundation work for the two units, and related buildings that are not nuclear safety-related items. An NRC-certified design for the AP1000 allows an applicant for NRC COL approval to avoid readdressing matters that the NRC has already considered when reviewing an individual COLA that uses that standard design. This approach is expected to provide more predictability and reduce the NRC's licensing review process. For PEF, the advantages of a standard design include the ability to apply lessons learned from other projects being constructed ahead of the LNP, as well as improved performance in cost and scheduling. PEF is seeking certification under the PPSA prior to completion of the NRC approval because state site certification will allow PEF to begin early site preparation (such as access roads) and will allow PEF to proceed to acquire property rights within the electrical transmission corridors. The NRC regulates radiological effluents and monitoring at nuclear power plants. The state of Florida does not have regulations specifically applicable to regulation of spent nuclear fuel. Under NRC regulations, nuclear power plants are required to have radiological environmental monitoring programs (REMPs). Part of the REMP is an offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Bureau of Radiation Monitoring, performs much of the monitoring in the ODCM at nuclear power plants under an agreement with the NRC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b); Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-5. The FDOH also monitors groundwater wells in the vicinity of a nuclear plant for numerous parameters, including radiological releases. In addition to the separate NRC approvals, PEF has filed applications with DEP for [a federally-required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit under the federal Clean Air Act, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)] permit under the federal Clean Water Act, and (in accordance with 403.506(3), Florida Statutes) a state-required environmental resource permit (ERP) from DEP for construction of a new barge slip on the CFBC. DEP issued the final PSD air construction permit on February 20, 2009. DEP has not taken final agency action on the pending NPDES permit application. Federally-required permits issued by the DEP under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not subject to the PPSA. The PPSA provides that federal permits are reviewed and issued separately by the DEP, but in parallel with the PPSA process to the extent possible. Upon issuance, these federal permits will be incorporated into the conditions of certification. The separate DEP-issued ERP will also be incorporated by reference into the final site certification. Water Use The LNP has two primary needs for water: (1) saltwater to cool the steam condensers (circulating water); and (2) freshwater for power generation and component cooling (service water). Freshwater will be drawn from the upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater will be supplied from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC. A circulating water system can be designed to use either freshwater or saltwater. Common design practice is to use the most abundant source; so saltwater was selected for the LNP. The service water system components for the LNP are established by Westinghouse for the AP1000 standard design and require freshwater. The service water system for the AP1000 reactor has been designed to provide an efficient means of cooling plant components with a relatively small demand for freshwater. Most of the water to be used at the LNP site will be needed for steam condenser cooling which will take place in two cooling towers; one for each unit. The source for cooling tower makeup water will be surface saline water withdrawn from the CFBC. Approximately 122 million gallons per day (mgd) will be withdrawn from the CFBC for cooling water needs. A new intake structure would be constructed on the canal bank at a site south of the LNP site and west of the Inglis Lock on the CFBC, approximately 6.5 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Saltwater will be pumped from the CFBC and directed into the cooling tower basin. The circulating water system is a closed-cycle cooling system and is the primary heat sink for the plant during normal operation. Circulating water pumps direct water to the steam condenser to cool the steam after it passes through the main turbines. The heated saltwater is then returned to the cooling towers where it is cooled by air flow and returned to the cooling tower basin. The LNP recirculating cooling water will be cooled by induced draft, counter-flow, mechanical cooling towers. For each unit's cooling tower, there are 44 cooling tower cells, grouped into two banks of 22 cells each. Each of the cooling tower cells will be approximately 75-feet tall. The total length of each 22-cell cooling tower is approximately 1,200 feet. The LNP will have a continuous need to utilize cooling water. Most of the water loss in the cooling towers is a result of evaporation of the water being cooled in the cooling towers. A small amount of circulating water is lost from the cooling towers as liquid droplets entrained in the exhaust air steam. This is known as "drift." When water evaporates from the cooling tower, minerals and solids are left behind. As more water evaporates, the concentration of these materials increases. This concentration is controlled by continuously releasing and replenishing some water from the tower. Accordingly, both saltwater and freshwater are continuously discharged from the plant to help maintain proper water chemistry. This continuous release of water is called "blowdown" and, as proposed in PEF's pending NPDES application, it will be discharged to the discharge canal for the CREC and then into the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III marine water. The LNP will require up to 1.58 mgd, annual average, of freshwater. This freshwater will be used for plant operations, fire suppression, potable water needs, and demineralized water needs. Groundwater will be withdrawn from four supply wells at the south end of the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. The AP1000 service water system requires freshwater for use in component cooling. The service water system provides cooling water for the nonsafety-related component cooling water heat exchangers. Demineralized water is processed to remove ionic impurities and dissolved oxygen and is used for plant operations that require pure water, primarily the feed water and condensate systems used in power production. When operational, the LNP site must be capable of supplying potable water to approximately 800 employees and visitors daily. Potable water will also be needed for onsite construction. The fire protection system will be capable of providing water to points throughout the plant where wet system fire suppression could be required. The fire suppression system is designed to supply water at a flow rate and pressure sufficient to satisfy the demand of automatic sprinkler systems and fire hoses for a minimum of 2 hours. Cooling Water Intake Structure The LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) will be located on the berm that forms the north side of the CFBC approximately 3 miles south of the LNP, downstream of the Inglis Lock. The CWIS will withdraw surface water into four intake pipelines (two for each nuclear unit) that will convey water to the cooling tower basins for use in the cooling towers. These 54-inch diameter pipelines will generally be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipelines will cross over the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel located north of the CFBC on an approximately 33-foot-wide utility bridge. For each of the LNP units, the CWIS will contain three 50 percent capacity makeup pumps, each with a design flow rate of 23,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Two pumps will provide normal cooling tower makeup flow requirements for each unit. The third spare pump will be in standby mode and automatically start if one of the operating pumps shuts down for any reason. A dual-flow traveling screen upstream of each makeup pump will screen floating and suspended materials in the CFBC water. The screen opening will be 3/8-inch. The screens will be sized to ensure that the through-screen water velocity is no more than 0.5 feet per second (fps) to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic life that could enter the pump bay. The velocity of the water in the intake bay upstream of the traveling screens (the approach velocity) will be about 0.25 fps. Upstream of the traveling screens will be trash racks (also referred to as bar racks). These are a series of steel bars (4 inches apart) to prevent large objects from entering the CWIS. Potential Impacts of Surface Water Intake Cooling water will be withdrawn via the CWIS from a section of the CFBC that extends approximately 7 miles from the Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. Operation of the Inglis Lock was discontinued in 1999; the lock separates Lake Rousseau (to the east) from this section of the CFBC. This section of the CFBC has a continuous opening to the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC bisects the Withlacoochee River, severing the original hydraulic connection between Lake Rousseau and the Lower Withlacoochee River. To maintain flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River which is north of the CFBC, the Inglis Lock Bypass Channel and associated Inglis Lock Spillway were built adjacent to the Inglis Lock (north of the CFBC). Flows in the CFBC are primarily a result of tides coming in and out from the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, rainfall. Periodically, freshwater is released from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC via the Inglis Dam. Also, there is some groundwater seepage into the CFBC as well as minor leakage from the Inglis Lock. Residence time for water in the CFBC near the proposed CWIS is currently over 200 days; there is very little outflow. Waters in the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock vary in salinity seasonally, with tidal influences, and depending on freshwater releases from the Inglis Dam. On average, the salinity in the area of the CFBC where the intake structure is proposed to be located is approximately 10 parts per thousand (ppt). As the CFBC approaches the Gulf of Mexico, salinity increases, averaging over 20 ppt and as high as 30 ppt. The CFBC ranges from approximately 200-to-260 feet wide. There is vegetation along the banks, as well as riprap, the latter consisting of huge rocks to limit erosion. The upper end of this section of the CFBC has algal blooms during the summer and muddy, silty bottom conditions that limit biological activity. The CFBC does not have seagrass beds that serve as aquatic habitat, except downstream where it joins with the Gulf of Mexico. The CFBC does not serve as significant habitat for endangered fish species, such as the Gulf Sturgeon or Smalltooth Sawfish. Although freshwater and saltwater species may use the CFBC occasionally, it does not serve as significant spawning habitat for any migratory, sport, or commercial fish species. Pursuant to the proposed conditions of certification, pre- operational monitoring and sampling in the CFBC will be used to identify any changes in the use of that canal by such fish species. With regard to the remnant section of the Withlacoochee River between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC (Old Withlacoochee River, or OWR), the biota in the middle and lower reaches of that waterbody currently show the effects of variable salinity levels; these areas are characterized by organisms typically found in marine conditions. The upper reach of the OWR has species normally found in freshwater systems. Aquatic species in the OWR are affected by periodic releases from the Inglis Dam. The LNP CWIS hydraulic zone of influence on the CFBC extends about 5 miles to the west down the approximately 7-mile long CFBC. The hydraulic zone of influence defines the point at which the flow of the CFBC would be affected by the CWIS, under static conditions. In its biological analysis, PEF assumed that potential intake impacts would extend beyond this hydraulic zone of influence. After installation and operation of the LNP CWIS, the dominant forces affecting flow conditions in the CFBC will continue to be primarily tidal activity and releases from Lake Rousseau. The CFBC will become more saline. However, installation and operation of the LNP CWIS will improve flow conditions in the CFBC by adding consistent and very slow upstream movement of about 122 mgd. The LNP CWIS will cause the saline-freshwater transition zone to move up the remnant channel of the OWR, south of the CFBC. The increased salinity is not expected to affect the small enclave of freshwater organisms living in that upper segment of the OWR. Potential adverse impacts from a CWIS include entrainment (when organisms smaller than the screen openings enter the cooling water) and impingement (when organisms larger than the screen openings become trapped on the screen). Potential impacts of entrainment and impingement will be minimized because the LNP CWIS will utilize a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system which will reduce the amount of cooling water required by approximately 90 percent; the through-screen velocity will be 0.5 fps or less; and the LNP will not disrupt thermal stratification in the CFBC. Under federal law, DEP will make the final determination of compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requirements in the NPDES permit. The LNP CWIS is not expected to pose a threat to threatened or endangered species or migratory, sport, or other fish species. Monitoring for fish species in the CFBC will be undertaken under the FWC's proposed conditions of certification to identify any actual impacts to such species and the need for any mitigation for such impacts. Locating the CWIS near the Inglis Lock on the CFBC will result in less entrainment and impingement impacts compared to potential locations closer to the mouth of the CFBC or in nearby off-shore waters. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a post-certification survey and monitoring plan for the CFBC and Withlacoochee River to assess actual impacts of the withdrawals for the LNP on these water bodies. If, after review of the annual reports required by these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a CFBC and/or Withlacoochee River mitigation plan to mitigate those impacts. As part of its pending NPDES permit application, PEF submitted a "316(b) Demonstration Study" to address compliance with intake standards applicable to the LNP CWIS. Final agency action on the NPDES permit application, including a determination of compliance with Section 316(b) regulations, has not been taken by DEP. Under 40 C.F.R., Subpart I, Sections 125.80-125.89, if pre- and post-operational monitoring demonstrates unacceptable adverse impacts associated with the CWIS, operational and technological improvements to the CWIS may be required. Under the proposed conditions of certification, the final NPDES permit for the LNP will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Operation of the CWIS is expected to have a negligible impact on saltwater intrusion in the area bounded to the south by the CFBC and to the north by the Lower Withlacoochee River. The waters of the CFBC are marine waters. There currently is stratification in the CFBC, with higher salinity along the bottom of the water column. The change in density of water in the CFBC as a result of the increased salinity due to the LNP's proposed water use in the CFBC is not expected to affect freshwater resources. The tide in the CFBC currently fluctuates 2-3 feet twice per day. The construction of the CFBC and the bisection of the Withlacoochee River have resulted in reduced freshwater flows in the lower portion of the Withlacoochee River north of the CFBC. There is no direct connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River (north of the CFBC). The flow in the By- pass Channel provides less freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River than historically flowed into the lower portion of the River. This has caused saltwater to move up the Lower Withlacoochee River, particularly during periods of low flow. SWFWMD has evaluated restoration of the River to its original condition, but has not advocated reconnection. Reconnection of the Withlacoochee River or downstream impoundment of the CFBC probably would not prevent the impacts of increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River during periods of low freshwater flow. Although no agency is currently pursuing a project of this type, DEP has proposed a condition of certification to address future public projects for the maintenance, preservation, or enhancement of surface waters requiring modifications to the CFBC. Potential Impacts to Manatees Manatees use the Withlacoochee River and the CFBC year round, but primarily during the warmer months. The CFBC, including the area of the LNP intake, is not listed as critical habitat for manatees under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction activities in the CFBC can take place in a manner reasonably likely to avoid adverse impacts to manatees. The FWC has proposed conditions of certification designed to protect manatees from adverse impacts of in-water construction through monitoring and mitigative measures. Compliance with these conditions will minimize impacts to manatees. The operation of the LNP cooling water intake structure (CWIS) is not likely to adversely impact manatees. The potential impacts of the LNP CWIS on manatees will be minimized by the system design and location. Additionally, DEP and FWC have proposed conditions of certification requiring PEF to submit a final CWIS plan for review by FWC prior to construction of the CWIS with regard to manatee safety issues. Potential impacts to manatees from barge traffic on the CFBC related to delivery of Project components and materials for the construction of the LNP is not expected to adversely impact manatees. FWC has proposed conditions of certification to protect manatees during in-water construction. Compliance with the proposed conditions of certification will minimize potential impacts to manatees. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals The LNP's proposed groundwater use meets all of the SWFWMD's water use criteria. To demonstrate that the proposed groundwater withdrawals associated with LNP operations will comply with the SWFWMD water use criteria, including not causing unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, PEF performed a groundwater modeling analysis using the SWFWMD's District-Wide Regulation Model 2 (DWRM2) groundwater flow model. The DWRM2 is an acceptable groundwater flow model for evaluating the effects of groundwater withdrawals. The DWRM2 modeling demonstrated that the proposed groundwater withdrawals would not lower surficial aquifer levels to the point of causing unacceptable adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, or interfere with existing legal users. Groundwater pumping for the LNP is not expected to adversely impact Lake Rousseau, the Withlacoochee River, or other streams or springs in the Project area. Groundwater withdrawals for the LNP are likewise not expected to induce saline water intrusion, cause the spread of pollutants in the aquifer, adversely impact any offsite land uses, cause adverse impacts to wetland systems, or adversely impact any other nearby uses of the aquifer system. To confirm the values used in the groundwater flow model supporting the application, proposed certification conditions require that an aquifer performance testing plan be submitted by PEF, approved by the SWFWMD, and implemented. If leakance and transmissivity values derived from actual onsite well tests differ more than 20 percent from values determined through earlier modeling, PEF is required to revise its groundwater model to incorporate the aquifer test results and undertake further modeling. Updated groundwater modeling results will be used to determine whether alternative water supplies or additional mitigation will need to be implemented. To help ensure that the proposed groundwater use does not cause unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, SWFWMD and DEP recommended that conditions be included in the site certification requiring an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the condition of surface waters and wetlands in areas that could potentially be affected by groundwater withdrawals. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after groundwater withdrawals reach a quantity of 1.25 mgd on an annual average basis. Annual monitoring summaries will be submitted. If, after five years, this monitoring demonstrates that no adverse impacts of groundwater withdrawals are occurring or predicted, PEF may request that monitoring be discontinued. Groundwater withdrawals will be metered and reported to DEP and SWFWMD on a monthly basis. Proposed conditions of certification require periodic water quality sampling be performed on the withdrawn groundwater to ensure no adverse impacts to water quality. Proposed conditions also address ongoing monitoring and compliance by requiring a full compliance report every five years throughout the life of the LNP, to demonstrate continued reasonable assurance that the groundwater use is meeting all of the applicable substantive water use requirements set forth in SWFWMD rules. The SWFWMD has not established water reservations or minimum flows or levels for any waterbody in the vicinity of the LNP. Therefore, the use of water from the CFBC and from the ground will not violate any currently established water reservation or minimum flow or level. Fracture sets (also called solution channels) are small openings through which groundwater moves. Fracture sets are only an issue in groundwater flow if preferential flow paths develop near one of the solution channels. Preferential flow paths tend to develop near existing springs. There are no springs on the LNP site, and subsurface investigations did not reveal any evidence of solution channels under the site. PEF also proposes to withdraw groundwater as part of the dewatering needed for plant construction. PEF proposes to install an impervious diaphragm wall around and below the foundation excavations for each nuclear unit to minimize water flow into the construction site. It is anticipated that dewatering at each unit could last as much as two years. Additional construction dewatering will also be necessary in some locations for installation of the pipelines and other linear facilities. Naturally-occurring groundwater collected during dewatering and excavation activities will be directed into stormwater runoff ponds and allowed to filter back into the ground to recharge the surficial aquifer. Dewatering is expected to cause only a modest amount of drawdown of the surficial aquifer. Construction-related dewatering activities will be approved by DEP and SWFWMD on a post-certification basis after final construction designs are submitted. Potential Surface Water Discharge Impacts The LNP will have a combined wastewater discharge comprised of several wastewater streams. Blowdown from the cooling towers will comprise about 98 percent of the LNP wastewater. The blowdown will be combined with significantly smaller quantities of plant wastewaters, treated plant sanitary wastewater, and occasionally stormwater. LNP wastewaters consist of effluents from process equipment, floor drains, laboratory sample sinks, demineralized water treatment system effluent, and treated steam generator blowdown. Wastewaters will be processed before discharge. The treatment systems include oil separators (to separate oily wastes from the rest of the waste stream) and a wastewater retention basin (to settle out suspended particles). The combined LNP wastewater, as proposed by PEF in its pending NPDES permit application, will be piped to the CREC and released into the existing CREC discharge canal which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The cooling tower blowdown discharges from the LNP will include saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system and freshwater blowdown from the service water cooling system; the vast majority of this will be saltwater blowdown from the plant recirculating cooling water system. The normal 2-unit recirculating water blowdown rate is expected to be 57,400 gallons per minute (gpm) or 81.4 mgd, and the maximum blowdown rate is expected to be about 59,000 gpm or 84.9 mgd. The 2-unit service water blowdown rate is expected to vary from about 130 gpm during normal operation, to a maximum of about 400 gpm. The CREC currently has two NPDES permits authorizing discharges to surface waters of the State. CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 are cooled with once-through cooling water from the CREC intake canal that is then discharged into the Gulf of Mexico via the existing CREC discharge canal. Once-through cooling water is cooling water that is released after condensing the steam, without being recycled in a cooling tower system. CREC Units 4 and 5 have cooling towers that receive make-up water from the CREC discharge canal and release blowdown into the discharge canal. The discharges for all five CREC units are released to the Gulf of Mexico through a single discharge canal at the CREC site. PEF has proposed to utilize the CREC discharge canal for the LNP discharge; however, the final location will be subject to approval as part of DEP's final agency action on PEF's pending application for an NPDES permit. The wastewater flow at the CREC is limited under the existing CREC NPDES permits to 1,898 mgd during the summer and 1,613 mgd during the winter. The expected day-to-day total wastewater flow from the LNP will be 83.4 mgd, with a conservative maximum total flow rate of 87.9 mgd. The proposed LNP discharge would be equivalent to 4-5 percent of the permitted discharge from the CREC. The design temperature of the LNP wastewater discharge is 89.1ºF, which is expected to be met more than 99.5 percent of the time. This LNP design temperature is cooler than the existing permitted temperature of the existing combined CREC discharge (96.5ºF). Even the expected worst case temperature of the LNP discharge (96.4ºF), will be cooler than the existing temperature limit applicable to CREC. With the addition of the LNP discharge, the CREC is expected to continue to meet its existing thermal permit limit. The addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to significantly change the existing area of thermal impact associated with existing CREC discharges. Evaluation of the Project wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to flora and fauna, including seagrasses and shellfish beds, will be minimized. PEF has committed to a condition of certification requiring the post-certification submittal of a surface water monitoring plan to DEP to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to seagrasses. The finding related to shellfish beds is supported by a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to the DEP stating that "[r]eclassification of the shellfish harvesting areas will not be necessary if the Project is built as proposed." The LNP wastewater is projected to meet the limits defined under 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater discharge in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to surface water quality will be minimized. Adding the LNP discharge to the CREC discharge canal is not expected to have an adverse impact on manatees. The LNP discharge structure at the CREC is likewise not expected to cause adverse impacts to manatees that may be present in the CREC discharge canal. Evaluation of the LNP wastewater in this certification proceeding indicates that impacts to benthic invertebrates, fish, and other organisms in the Gulf of Mexico will be minimized. The discharge is not expected to have adverse impacts on endangered fish species. Proposed conditions of certification require PEF to submit a discharge monitoring plan to ensure that the addition of the LNP wastewater to the CREC discharge does not cause adverse impacts. If, after review of the annual reports required under these conditions by FWC, DEP, and SWFWMD, there is an indication of adverse impacts, PEF must submit a mitigation plan to address those impacts. DEP's final agency action on PEF's application for an NPDES permit for the LNP, if issued, will include final action on compliance with water quality standards and will be incorporated by reference into the conditions of certification. Surface Water Management System The LNP surface water management system consists of pipes and ditches that collect and convey stormwater from the plant area into onsite wet treatment ponds before discharge. Stormwater along the heavy haul road will be collected in roadside swales. The plant area will be raised approximately eight feet. Stormwater will drain from this area into three stormwater ponds. Any cross-flows from the plant site toward the raised areas will pass around the site through culverts or ditches. The stormwater ponds and swales are sized to treat stormwater releases to meet SWFWMD rules. In addition, all construction-related surface water management facilities will comply with SWFWMD's surface water management criteria. The design and proper construction and operation of the surface water management system will satisfy SWFWMD's water quantity and water quality criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D- 4.302. PEF has committed to a post-certification submittal of detailed stormwater design information to address floodplain impacts as required by section 4.7 ("Historic basin storage") of the SWFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (adopted in Rule 40D-4.091, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 62-330.200(3)(e)). Solid Waste Disposal There will be no onsite disposal of hazardous waste during construction of the LNP. All hazardous waste will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Contractors will be responsible for having detailed procedures in place to handle hazardous waste. During operation, hazardous waste will be managed and disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. PEF has procedures in place for management and control of hazardous materials; such materials will be disposed of offsite through permitted facilities. All solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at a permitted offsite landfill. There will be no onsite disposal of solid waste. Non-nuclear solid waste generated during operation of the LNP will be disposed of offsite at a permitted landfill. A proposed condition of certification precludes processing or disposal of solid waste onsite. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts The LNP is a nuclear-fueled power generating facility that will use uranium dioxide pellets in fuel rods. The LNP will also use a relatively small amount of diesel fuel in its emergency diesel generators, ancillary generators, and fire pump engines. Therefore, the LNP will not emit the typical types and quantities of air pollutants from fossil-fueled power generation such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates or carbon dioxide (CO2). The sources of air emissions at the LNP will include the two banks of mechanical draft cooling towers and diesel- fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines. Air pollutants that will be emitted during normal facility operation will be limited to particulate matter (PM), both more than and less than 10 microns in diameter, which will be emitted from the low profile cooling towers. There will be a small amount of air emissions from the diesel-fueled emergency power generators and fire pump engines; however, these emissions are only expected to occur during the few hours per month when the engines are run for maintenance and testing purposes. There will be no other significant sources of air emissions from operation of the LNP. PM emissions from the draft cooling towers will occur as a result of the entrainment of a small amount of water, as small-diameter droplets, in the exhaust stream from the towers. Particulate matter, consisting of the naturally occurring dissolved solids that will be present in the cooling water, will be contained in these entrained droplets. The droplets and the associated suspended solid particulate matter are known as cooling tower "drift." The amount of cooling tower "drift" is controlled through the use of very high efficiency mist eliminators that will be in the cooling tower. The use of high efficiency mist eliminators on the LNP cooling towers is consistent with state and federal regulations that require the use of Best Available Control Technology to limit such air emissions. The LNP will be located in Levy County which is currently attaining all ambient air quality standards for all pollutants. The LNP will not have an adverse or discernible impact on ambient air quality at the LNP site, or at any location, for any regulated air pollutant. The LNP will not generate power by combusting any fuel. Therefore, there will be no measurable greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, during normal plant operation. The estimated CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility capable of generating the same amount of electricity as the LNP is approximately 6.4 million tons per year. For comparison, the estimated CO2 emissions from the LNP, which result from periodic testing of the facility's diesel-powered emergency equipment, is only 618 tons/year. Visible plumes from the cooling towers will remain very close to the cooling towers (within approximately 300 feet) under most meteorological conditions. The occurrence of visible vapor plumes at offsite locations is expected to be infrequent. The operation of the cooling towers is expected to have no significant or adverse impacts due to ground level fogging on any roadway or at offsite locations during plant operation. The maximum predicted offsite solids deposition rate from operation of the LNP cooling towers is six pounds per acre per month immediately adjacent to the nearest LNP property boundary. This is below the de minimis adverse impact threshold of nine pounds per acre per month published by the NRC. The rate of deposition is predicted to decrease rapidly and significantly with increasing distance from the plant. Operation of the LNP cooling towers is not expected to cause discernible impacts on any natural resources, including surface waters or wetlands. Noise Impacts of Construction and Operation The noise limits applicable to the LNP site are set by the Levy County Code of Ordinances. The noise limits defined by the County ordinance for the area surrounding the LNP site are 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There are no other local, state, or federal noise regulations that apply to the plant. PEF conducted noise impact evaluations for construction and operation of the LNP. Ambient noise levels were measured at six locations around the LNP site. Noise levels were conservatively estimated by adding the composite average noise levels that would be generated by construction equipment during the loudest phases of construction. Equipment sound propagation factors were obtained from industry references. The noise model known as CADNA/A was used to predict noise levels at onsite and offsite locations, including the nearest residences for both construction and operation. The noise levels during construction activities and during normal maximum operation of the LNP plant site are projected to be below the Levy County noise limits for all hours at all offsite locations, including the locations of the nearest residences. Due to the large buffer surrounding the developed area of the site, and the relatively low noise levels associated with the LNP, there are not expected to be any significant or adverse noise impacts during construction or operation of the LNP. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology (Plant and Transmission Line Corridors) The proposed LNP site has been used for many decades for the production of pine. The clearing of native vegetation, furrowing, bedding, planting, and harvesting (primarily for pine) has altered the site from a natural Florida landscape into a monotypical landscape in both upland and wetland areas with reduced functional attributes. There are no open water bodies or streams on the LNP site. There are some flow-way connections between some of the wetlands, but they are not of the kind that will support long- term fish habitat or aquatic insect communities. Due to the silvicultural nature of the site and recent clearing, the ideal complement of biodiversity on the LNP site is no longer present. The predominant wildlife species are those that tolerate a mono-specific pine tree habitat, such as deer, turkey, and wild hogs. While pre-application surveys indicate that protected species occur at and in the vicinity of the LNP site, several of Florida's listed species are not likely to extensively use the LNP site. Impacts to State-listed and important wildlife species that have been documented or may occur on the LNP site and adjacent uplands will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results and needed measures to avoid and mitigate such impacts. Historically, the 3,105-acre LNP site was dominated by forested cypress wetland systems. However, over the last century or more, those have been harvested and allowed to re- grow, so that many of the wetlands are no longer dominated by cypress trees. Today, most of the forested wetland systems in the footprint of development have been cleared of trees. The anticipated maximum wetland impacts for the entire Project, including the impacts from associated facilities and electrical transmission lines, are estimated to be 765 acres. These impacts are estimated to be: 13.3 acres of open water; 638.4 acres of forested wetlands; and 113.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands. Approximately one-half of the wetland impacts are expected to occur on the LNP site and one-half are expected to occur offsite. The Project's 765-acre wetland impact is a conservative estimate, including long-term and short-term impacts that are the result of direct dredging and filling as well as temporary disturbance. It is likely that the actual impact will decrease as the routing of facilities is refined within the electrical transmission and other corridors and on the LNP site. Based on these anticipated wetland impacts and the functions being provided by these wetlands, PEF calculated the proposed maximum wetland functional loss for the LNP to be 410.9 functional units, as determined under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) contained in Rule Chapter 62-345. The UMAM scoring indicates that, on average, the wetlands being impacted have approximately one-half of the functional ecological value of an ideal wetland system. To comply with the applicable SWFWMD ERP rules under the PPSA process, PEF must offset the wetland impacts caused by the construction and operation of the LNP, associated transmission lines, roads, and pipelines. PEF submitted to DEP a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for the Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines (WMP). A primary value of the WMP is an overall increase in ecological function provided across several thousand acres in a regionally-significant location. This regional landscape-level ecosystem benefit substantially augments the value of local-scale mitigation activities. The proposed mitigation for the LNP will potentially achieve greater offset of wetland impacts from a regional perspective and is expected to provide significant long-term ecosystem benefit. The WMP identifies a series of possible scenarios from which the appropriate and ultimate mitigation can be derived. Because impacts are still being refined as corridors are narrowed into actual routes, the information in the WMP is designed to demonstrate that there is available and desirable mitigation to affect the final degree of wetlands impacts, once calculated. The comprehensive mitigation plan, as described in the WMP, is an acceptable alternative to traditional "in-basin" mitigation. DEP conceptually approved this WMP with the understanding that more detailed information will be submitted when final routes are established and actual wetland impacts are known. The amount of mitigation PEF will undertake will be based on the amount of wetlands actually impacted. A condition of certification has been included to require submittal of refinements to the mitigation plan for DEP's approval following final certification. PEF looked at ways to reduce and eliminate wetland impacts at several levels, including site selection, routing of roadways, and commitments through discussions with agencies to further reduce impacts as transmission line routes are selected within the transmission corridors. The Project is designed to comply with SWFWMD ERP criteria in Rules 40D-4.301 and 4.302. There are not expected to be unacceptable secondary wetlands impacts due to the construction of the Project. Under SWFWMD rules, as long as a disturbance is at least 25 feet from a wetland, secondary impacts are deemed avoided. For the LNP site, unimpacted wetlands are dozens to thousands of feet away from Project development. Further, the rural and remote location of the facility, along with the high level of security associated with a nuclear facility (i.e., fencing, buffering, and reduced public access) makes causally-connected offsite development unlikely (with regard to the LNP site). The LNP will comply with the cumulative impact requirements of Section 373.414(8), Florida Statutes. The conceptual WMP is designed to be regionally significant and provides ecological benefits beyond the calculated UMAM functional value increase. For example, the WMP has the potential to connect the Goethe State Forest to the historic floodplain of the Withlacoochee River, which will maintain and enhance a large natural wildlife corridor. The LNP is not anticipated to adversely affect the value or functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species, including any aquatic and wetland species, or other related-water resources. There are no documented listed aquatic or wetland-dependent species that might be adversely affected by construction at the plant site. Impacts to wetland dependent species will be further minimized under the proposed conditions of certification, including pre-construction wildlife surveys and consultation with FWC on the results. PEF has addressed all of the wildlife issues subject to the site certification process. The FWC has recommended certification, subject to conditions related to surveying of development areas and appropriate buffers for species prior to clearing, construction, and development to ensure appropriate relocation or mitigation opportunities and implementation of management activities to ensure the long-term well-being of the species. Project wetlands impacts are not expected to adversely affect the quality of receiving waters with respect to the applicable water quality criteria for those receiving waters, or adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. Through implementation of the WMP, construction of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by wetlands. Transportation The primary roadways in the vicinity of the LNP are U.S. Highway 19 (U.S. 19) and County Road 40 (C.R. 40). U.S. Highway 19 is a Florida DOT-maintained, four-lane arterial roadway west of the Project site. C.R. 40 is a Levy County- maintained, two-lane roadway approximately five miles to the south of the plant site. The Levy County Comprehensive Plan has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roadways within Levy County. While LOS standards do not apply to temporary construction traffic, PEF evaluated the impacts of both LNP construction and operation traffic on adjacent roadways. This evaluation shows that future traffic levels with the addition of the Project construction and operation traffic are projected to be less than one-half the adopted LOS standards for U.S. 19 and C.R. 40. Roadway links during construction and operation of the LNP are projected to operate within adopted LOS standards. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits There is an approximate population of 4,700 persons within a five-mile radius of the LNP site. This equates to a population density of approximately 60 people per square mile. The closest towns to the LNP site are Inglis and Yankeetown, which are located approximately 4.1 miles and 8.0 miles southwest of the LNP site, respectively. The total cost of the LNP, including the proposed electrical transmission lines, is approximately $17 billion. The LNP construction workforce is expected to peak at approximately 3,300 workers in 2014. The operation workforce will consist of approximately 800 employees, with an additional 800 workers needed every 18 months for between 20 and 30 days to refuel the facility. PEF sees retention rate benefits when hiring locally and would like to employ the local workforce for construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has programs in place to train local residents to become part of the future workforce for the LNP. These programs focus on both construction and operation personnel and include programs or potential programs at Bronson High School, Chiefland High School, Dixie County High School, the Withlacoochee Technical Institute, and Santa Fe Community College. PEF is also working in partnership with Dunnellon High School (which draws students from Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties) on a Power Academy to prepare students for the construction and operation of the LNP. PEF has a successful nuclear engineering program partnership with the University of Florida to train both nuclear engineers and plant operators, including the use of a first-of-its-kind digital training simulator. PEF has provided grants to modernize the nuclear facilities at the University of Florida. In 2005, there were approximately 395,000 workers in the region (defined as a 50-mile radius around the LNP, including Levy, Citrus, Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Sumter Counties). Specific to construction of a nuclear power plant, there were 4,900 heavy construction workers in the region in 2006. It is probable that more of these 4,900 workers will be available due to rising unemployment rates across the region. Unemployment rates for the three counties immediately surrounding the LNP site have risen from around four percent in 2005 to eight percent in late 2008. There is sufficient housing available in the region to accommodate both LNP construction and operation employees. Construction of the LNP is not expected to significantly increase the number of pupils in the surrounding school systems. The school systems in the region of the LNP will be able to accommodate the increased number of pupils as a result of LNP operations workers and their families. Public services and facilities in the region of the LNP are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. Construction of the LNP will have little, if any, impact on recreational facilities and uses in the area around the LNP site in Levy and Citrus Counties. During LNP operation, recreational facilities and uses will not be impacted. There are no officially-designated landmarks within five miles of the LNP site. The peak construction workforce in 2014 will result in approximately $152 million in annual earnings. Construction earnings in other years will also be substantial. In addition to jobs and earnings, the construction of the LNP will contribute an estimated $263 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. The direct social and economic impacts of the LNP operation are expected to include approximately 800 direct jobs; 1,100 indirect or induced jobs; and associated increases in sales, property tax, and output revenues. These operations workers are expected to generate over $53 million in annual payroll. The LNP overall is expected to contribute nearly $521 million annually to the regional economy via direct, indirect, and induced goods and services. Local property tax collections will begin when Unit 1 is brought on-line, resulting in approximately $63 million in tax revenue to Levy County in the first year of operation. Annual property tax collections in Levy County of approximately $18 million are projected to increase by $104 million once both LNP units are operational. Archaeological and Historic Sites Construction and operation of the LNP will not adversely impact archaeologically significant sites or historic standing structures. The Project complies with all federal and state standards for identification and protection of archaeological sites. Field surveys of the plant site, the corridor extending south to the CFBC, and the pipeline corridor to the CREC did not reveal any archaeological sites or historic standing structures eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with PEF's survey methodology and the determination that no sites are NRHP- eligible. PEF has guidelines designed to protect historic sites, landmarks, artifacts, and archaeological sites in the event of an inadvertent discovery. The Florida SHPO has concurred with PEF's approach to protect inadvertent discoveries during land-disturbing activities. Land Use PEF filed applications with Levy County for a comprehensive plan amendment and special exception zoning approval for the LNP. Those applications were approved and are now final. The majority of the existing land use on the LNP site is silviculture, and the property is unimproved. The primary existing land use of the property to the south of the LNP, where the heavy haul road, water pipelines, and other facilities will be located, is likewise silviculture and otherwise unimproved. The properties along the blowdown pipeline corridor to the CREC are primarily vacant and largely unimproved. The nearest residence to the LNP is approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the power block generating facilities, measured from the edge of the nearest power block to the residence. The electrical generating facilities are designed with a minimum 1,000-foot setback from the property line of any property not under the control of PEF. A natural 100-foot vegetative buffer is required to be maintained around the LNP's perimeter where the adjacent property is not under PEF's control. Given the setbacks, the perimeter vegetation, and the 250-foot maximum height limitation under Levy County's special exception for the LNP, the physical structures at the LNP site will not be visible from surrounding properties at ground level. The location of the LNP is consistent with the existing and future land uses surrounding the site. The cooling water blowdown pipelines are located to have the least impact on the existing land uses in the area. The LNP will have little impact on land uses in the vicinity. The LNP is consistent with the Levy County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations (LDRs), the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, and the State Comprehensive Plan contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Electrical Transmission Lines Project Description Generally, the purpose of electrical transmission lines is to transmit large amounts of electricity from a generating facility to one or more substations. Transmission lines operate at voltages above 69 kilovolts (kV). Bulk power, generally operating at 230-kV or 500-kV, is transferred from the generating plant to the substation. At the substation, the voltage of the electricity is changed through transformers and other electrical equipment for further transportation or distribution directly to customers. PEF is seeking certification of nine proposed corridors for transmission lines associated with the LNP. A proposed corridor is associated with each of the proposed transmission lines identified in Findings of Fact 182-189. All of the proposed transmission lines will directly support the construction and operation of the LNP. Corridor Selection Methodology PEF established a multi-disciplinary team to identify a corridor for each of the proposed transmission lines. The role of this team was to select a proposed corridor for certification for each line based on an evaluation of environmental, land use, socioeconomic, engineering, and cost considerations. The multi-disciplinary team was composed of experts in transmission line design, land use planning, system planning, real estate acquisition, corporate communications, and environmental disciplines as they relate to transmission lines. The multi-disciplinary team engaged in four major steps in this process. The first was to establish and define a project study area for each transmission line. The second step was to conduct regional screening and mapping. The third step was to select and evaluate candidate corridors using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The fourth step was to select the proposed corridors and identify the boundaries of those corridors. Data collection was performed in connection with this effort from the databases of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and organizations, as well as from the public in a series of conferences and open houses described in Findings of Fact 8-11. A number of field studies, internal meetings, and individual and small group meetings were held with members of the public as a part of the process. In defining the project study area for each transmission line, the multi-disciplinary team considered the starting and ending points for the lines and other linear facilities in these areas. Within each study area, the multi-disciplinary team gathered regional screening data from a variety of sources to identify the different types of opportunities and potential constraints for siting a transmission line in the project study areas, such as various environmental and land use features, existing infrastructure, archeological and historical sites, roads, railroads, rivers, waterbodies, and similar features. The multi-disciplinary team evaluated each corridor using quantitative environmental, land use, and engineering criteria. Relative weights for each quantitative criterion were developed and validated with input from agency representatives and the public during the public outreach portion of the corridor selection process. The weights were applied to the quantitative values for the criteria for each candidate corridor segment and the scores were tabulated for all candidate corridors. The candidate corridors were then ranked in order from best to worst based on quantitative weighted scores. The high-ranking candidate corridors were then evaluated using predetermined qualitative criteria which do not lend themselves easily to quantification, such as the types of wetlands and vegetation present, safety, constructability considerations, and other similar considerations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the high-ranking candidate corridors, the multi-disciplinary team ultimately chose the nine proposed corridors. Once the proposed corridors were selected, the multi-disciplinary team refined the boundaries of each of the PEF proposed corridors. The team developed corridor boundaries of varying widths by narrowing the corridor to avoid siting constraints where practicable or widening the corridor to take advantage of siting opportunities. Transmission Line Design A transmission line generally consists of a steel or concrete structure, the conductor, which is attached to the structure by an insulator, and overhead groundwires used for lightning protection and communications for the protection and control systems located in the substation. Access roads and structure pads are also associated with transmission lines. The Project’s 230-kV and 69-kV transmission lines will be constructed using single-shaft tubular steel or spun concrete structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with braced line post or V-string insulators. The braced line post arrangement is a compressed construction design which minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed. The V-string insulator design allows longer span lengths due to the increased strength of this assembly. Typical heights will range from 80 to 145 feet for the 230-kV structures and 60 to 90 feet for the 69-kV structures. The 500-kV transmission lines will be constructed using tubular steel H-frame or monopole structures. The conductors will be attached to the structures with V-string insulators which provide the necessary strength and minimize the amount of right-of-way needed. Structure heights will range from 110 to 195 feet. The span length between structures and the pole height will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, waterbodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. The typical spans between structures supporting 230- kV transmission lines will range from approximately 500 to 700 feet for the braced line post structures and 700 to 1,400 feet for the V-string structures. The typical spans between structures supporting 69-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 250 to 600 feet. The typical spans between structures supporting 500-kV transmission lines will range from approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Access roads and structure pads will be constructed only where necessary. When new roads are required, they will typically be 18 feet wide and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. Generally, the existing ground will be leveled, a geotextile fabric will be installed, and compacted sand and gravel will be added to arrive at the desired road elevation. Culverts will be installed as required to maintain preconstruction waterflows. Structure pads will typically be 70 feet wide and 100 feet long and unpaved, with the top elevation, two feet above the expected seasonal high water line. The size of the structure pads will vary depending upon the heights of the structures supported and other site-specific factors. The designs for these access roads and structure pads have been used by PEF in the past and have been previously approved in Florida. Design Standards The transmission lines will be designed in compliance with all applicable design codes and standards. These include the National Electrical Safety Code, the standards of the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, DEP's regulations on electric and magnetic fields, applicable local government requirements such as noise ordinances, and the DOT Utility Accommodation Manual. PEF's own internal design standards incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Transmission Line Construction PEF will work with the regulatory agencies and landowners to determine where the rights-of-way, transmission structures, access roads, and structure pads should be located. As rights-of-way are being selected, they will be surveyed to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests. After the right-of-way is established within the certified corridor, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the right-of-way. Where the proposed right-of-way is in uplands, the right-of-way clearing for the project will consist of vegetation and tree removal as necessary. Where the proposed right-of-way is in wetlands, vegetation will be cleared utilizing restrictive clearing techniques as necessary for specific sites. Restrictive wetlands clearing will be done by hand, with chainsaws or low ground-pressure shear or rotary machines, to reduce soil compaction and damage to vegetation. The cut material will be removed from the right-of-way utilizing either low ground-pressure equipment or temporary construction mats. Care will be taken to minimize rutting and disturbance of root mat. After the right-of-way is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. Existing access roads and structure pads will be used whenever practicable. Where a transmission line will be constructed adjacent to an existing transmission right-of-way, improvements to the associated access roads and paths may be made. Where adequate access roads or structure pads do not exist, new roads and pads will be constructed. The next phase of construction will involve the erection of the structures. All structures will be supported with engineered foundations. Tangent structure foundations will normally consist of either direct buried structures with concrete backfill or reinforced-concrete drilled piers. Structures may also utilize guys and anchors at angle and deadend structures to help support the load. Transmission structures are generally delivered to the site using semi-trucks with open trailers and are assembled onsite as close as possible to the foundation. Typically, the structures are framed with the structure arms and insulator assemblies while lying on the ground. During the assembly process, poles are maneuvered into place using cranes and other lifting equipment to facilitate connections. Once assembled, a crane is used to lift the structures for final placement on the foundation. After the structures are erected, conductor installation will commence. The process of installing conductors involves stringing a pilot line into each structure stringing block to form a continuous connection between stringing end points. This pilot line is then used to pull the conductor into position. The conductor is then tensioned to design specifications, transferred to the support clamp, and clipped into position. The operation is performed on all overhead ground wires and conductors. Typical equipment used in the conductor installation operation includes bucket trucks, wire pulling equipment, guard structures, wire reels, trailers, tensioners, and support vehicles. The final stage of construction will be right-of-way restoration which includes removal of all construction equipment and supplies, grading the right-of-way if needed, and planting or seeding of the disturbed area if needed. During all stages of construction, PEF will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state, or federal roadways in compliance with DOT regulations. Sedimentation management techniques, including turbidity screens, temporary culverts, silt fences or staked hay bales, and the seeding or mulching of side slopes, will be utilized to minimize potential impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Corridor Descriptions The LNP will add approximately 185 miles of new 69- kV, 230-kV, and 500-kV transmission lines to be placed within nine proposed corridors. The proposed corridors provide significant opportunities for collocation with other linear facilities such as roads and transmission lines which provides the opportunity to reduce costs, the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. The width of the proposed corridors varies along the routes to provide flexibility within the corridors to avoid impacts to existing developments, large wetland areas, and other features. After certification, and following the selection of rights-of- way, the boundaries of the corridors will be reduced to those of rights-of-way. The first proposed corridor is associated with the Citrus 1 and 2 lines. The Citrus lines are also referred to as the "LPC" transmission lines and the proposed corridor is referred to as the LPC corridor. The Citrus lines are two 500- kV transmission lines that will connect the LNP to the proposed Citrus Substation, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Citrus 1 and 2 lines will be located in Levy and Citrus Counties. This proposed corridor is approximately seven miles long and one mile wide. The LPC Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LPC Corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Crystal River 500-kV lines, the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the LPC Corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Crystal River lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line at some locations. The LPC corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island (which is wedged between the LWR and the CFBC), and will terminate at the proposed Citrus Substation located just north of PEF's existing Crystal River Central Florida transmission line in Citrus County. The second proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River line, which is also referred to as the "LCR" transmission line and the corridor is referred to as the LCR Corridor. The Crystal River line is a 500-kV transmission line that connects the LNP to the existing CREC switchyard in Citrus County. The Crystal River line will be located within Levy and Citrus Counties. The LCR Corridor is approximately 14 miles long and one mile wide. It begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. Through the southern property, the LCR corridor is collocated with the proposed Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 500-kV lines, and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line, and is adjacent to the proposed LNP heavy haul road and water pipeline corridors. Continuing south, the corridor remains collocated with the Sumter and Citrus 1 & 2 lines as well as PEF's existing IO 69-kV line in some locations. The LCR Corridor will cross C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and will enter the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At this point, the LCR Corridor turns west and follows the general alignment of the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida Transmission right-of-way into the CREC where it terminates at the CREC 500-kV switchyard. The third proposed corridor is associated with the Sumter line, which is also referred to as the "LCFS" transmission line. This corridor is referred to as the LCFS Corridor. The Sumter line is a 500-kV transmission line that will connect the LNP to the proposed Central Florida South Substation in Lake and Sumter Counties, which is not a facility for which PEF is seeking certification. The Sumter line will be located in Levy, Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties. The LCFS Corridor is approximately 59 miles long and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile wide. For most of its length, the 500-kV LCFS Corridor is collocated with the existing PEF transmission lines, except in the vicinity of the Central Florida South Substation, where it is collocated with the Florida Turnpike. The LCFS Corridor begins at the LNP site boundary and proceeds south on the PEF-owned property south of the LNP site. It will be collocated with the proposed Citrus 1 & 2 and Crystal River 500-kV lines and the Levy South Administration 69-kV line. The LCFS Corridor crosses C.R. 40, the CFBC and Inglis Island, and continues south until reaching the existing PEF Crystal River to Central Florida transmission line right-of-way. At that point, the LCFS Corridor turns east and follows the existing transmission line right-of-way through Citrus and Marion Counties for approximately 45 miles. The corridor turns southeast crossing into Sumter County and crosses S.R. 44 and I-75. The remaining five miles of the LCFS Corridor follows the general alignment of the Florida Turnpike to the southeast and terminates in the area of the proposed Central Florida Substation near Wildwood. The fourth proposed corridor is associated with the Crystal River East 1 & 2 lines, which are also called the "CCRE" transmission lines. This is the CCRE Corridor. The Crystal River East lines are two 230-kV transmission lines that will connect the proposed Citrus Substation to the existing Crystal River East Substation in Citrus County. The lines will be located entirely within Citrus County. The CCRE Corridor is approximately 2.7 miles in length and one mile wide. The west end of the north boundary of the corridor is approximately one- half mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east approximately one-half mile north of West Dunnellon Road (CR-488). The west end of the south boundary of the corridor starts approximately 1 mile west of U.S. 19 and runs east along the northern boundary of the existing PEF transmission right-of-way. At a point approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. 19, the corridor shifts south approximately one-half mile and continues east for another mile. The corridor also includes five existing 115-kV, 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines and the Crystal River East Substation. The fifth and sixth proposed corridors are associated with the Levy North and South lines, which are also referred to as the "IS" and "IO" transmission lines. The Levy North and South lines are 69-kV transmission lines required to supply power for the construction and administration of the LNP. These lines will be located entirely within Levy County, and are mostly located on property owned by PEF in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP. The IS Corridor is approximately 373 feet in length and 400 feet wide. The IO Corridor is approximately 4.5 miles in length and one mile wide. The IO Corridor will begin at the south boundary of the LNP site and extend south to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line located south of C.R. 40 in Levy County. The IS Corridor will begin at the west boundary of the LNP site and extend west to encompass the existing 69-kV transmission line that is located parallel to and east of U.S. 19 in Levy County. The seventh proposed corridor is associated with the Brookridge line, which is also referred to as the "CB" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the CB Corridor. The Brookridge line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing CREC to the existing Brookridge Substation in Hernando County. The Brookridge line will be located in Citrus and Hernando Counties. The overall length of the CB corridor is approximately 38 miles and ranges in width from approximately 1,000 feet to one mile. The corridor begins at the CREC switchyard and proceeds east towards the existing Crystal River East Substation then southeast to S.R. 44. The corridor collocates with existing transmission line rights-of- way. At S.R. 44, the corridor turns south, following the existing PEF 115-kV transmission right-of-way. Approximately one mile south of Centralia Road, the corridor turns east and ends at the existing Brookridge Substation. The eighth proposed corridor is associated with the Brooksville West line, which is also called the "BBW" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the BBW Corridor. The Brooksville west line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Brookridge Substation to the existing Brooksville West Substation in Hernando County. This line will be located entirely within Hernando County. The overall length of the BBW Corridor is approximately three miles and one-half mile wide. The BBW Corridor exits the Brookridge Substation, collocated with PEF's existing 500/230/115-kV transmission line right-of-way, and travels along Sunshine Grove Road to the south. It terminates at the Brooksville West Substation. The ninth and final proposed corridor is associated with the Kathleen line, which is also called the "PHP" transmission line. The corridor is referred to as the PHP Corridor. The Kathleen line is a 230-kV transmission line that will connect the existing Kathleen Substation in Polk County to the existing Lake Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. The Kathleen line will be located in Polk, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The overall length of the PHP Corridor is approximately 50 miles, and it ranges in width from approximately 300 feet to 1000 feet. The corridor begins at the Kathleen Substation and travels west. It crosses U.S. 98 and turns south along the existing transmission line right-of-way to the Griffin Substation. At the Griffin Substation, the corridor turns west paralleling C.R. 582. The corridor crosses U.S. 301 and turns north and then west and crosses I-75, continuing northwest and following the existing transmission right-of-way, and then crosses I-275 and the Veteran's Expressway to the Lake Tarpon Substation. No alternate corridors were proposed for any of the nine proposed transmission line corridors. For each PEF- proposed transmission line corridor, the proposed corridor is the only corridor for the respective line that is proper for certification in this proceeding. For each of the proposed corridors, engineering features of interest, natural resource features, and land use features have been identified and depicted on maps, aerial images, and photographs, which have been utilized in the analysis of the corridors. Operational Safeguards The operational safeguards for each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Each transmission line will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including: the National Electric Safety Code; the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; the American National Standards Institute; applicable local government requirements; the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide; and PEF's internal design standards, which incorporate appropriate provisions or guidance from design codes and standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and the American Concrete Institute. Each of the transmission lines proposed by PEF will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the applicable standards which regulate the electric and magnetic fields associated with new transmission lines. Compliance with the electric and magnetic field requirements has been calculated for each of the configurations that may be utilized for the Project. The results were then compared to the requirements contained in DEP's Rule 62- 814.450(3). The maximum expected values from all configurations for the electric fields and for the magnetic fields are within the values set forth in the rule. The calculations were performed in accordance with the rule requirements, using the maximum voltage and current for each configuration. Operation of any of these transmission lines at maximum voltage and current is not a likely condition. At normal operating levels of voltage and current, the electric fields produced by the transmission lines will be less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions, and the magnetic fields produced will be about 50 percent less than calculated at the maximum operating conditions. The levels of electric and magnetic fields at the edge of the rights-of-way associated with the transmission lines are similar to levels that are experienced by exposure to common household appliances. Transmission lines can generate audible noise as a result of build-up of particles on the conductor. This is known as corona. During periods of fair weather, particulate matter can collect on the conductor causing low levels of audible noise. During rain events, the particles are washed off and replaced with water droplets on the conductor that create a condition that can result in slightly higher levels of audible noise. The noise levels experienced during rainfall events are temporary and masked by the sound of rain falling on vegetation and other surfaces, and the noise is reduced as soon as the water droplets evaporate from the conductor. The expected levels of noise have been calculated using an industry standard software program known as the Bonneville Power Administration Corona Field Effects Program. The calculations performed for each of the transmission lines demonstrate that the maximum audible noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way will be less than the noise levels from most rainfall events or conversational speech at a distance of five feet. The calculated noise levels are expected to comply with all applicable noise ordinances. The operation of the proposed transmission lines is expected to cause minimal interference with radio and television reception in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Radio and television interference can be produced by corona on transmission line conductors or as a result of faulty equipment. Based upon the studies that have been performed, it is not expected that significant interference will occur. Beginning on July 12, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission has directed all television station operators to convert their transmissions to digital format. Digital signals are unaffected by electric fields or weather disturbances. In the event any homeowner or business experiences abnormal interference as a result of the transmission lines, PEF will investigate the complaints and mitigate impacts appropriately. Part of the BBW Corridor has an existing natural gas pipeline and a proposed additional natural gas pipeline that will be operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. Safety concerns will be addressed in a licensing agreement allowing the pipeline company to utilize the right-of-way. Such collocation is common throughout Florida. The licensing agreement will require that the pipeline company comply with all applicable safety requirements for pipeline operation and will require that the pipeline design be reviewed by an independent engineering company to ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated given the constraints of the design and the proximity of transmission lines. This will ensure that the pipeline can be safely operated near the transmission lines and the electric current. Compliance with Nonprocedural Standards of Agencies The construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed corridors is expected to comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The parties have agreed that the conditions of certification found in DEP Exhibit 1 are the applicable nonprocedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the transmission lines. PEF has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission lines in the proposed corridors in compliance with the conditions of certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of these transmission lines. Consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Land Development Regulations There are a number of different land uses within the nine proposed corridors ranging from open lands, recreational lands, mining and agricultural lands, public and conservation lands, commercial uses, and residential. The construction of the transmission lines in the respective proposed corridors is not expected to impact the existing land uses or change those land uses. The location of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors is appropriate from a land use perspective. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the respective corridors are compatible with all types of existing land uses occurring in the vicinity of those corridors. Each of the proposed transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridors consistent with applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. After certification of the LNP, each proposed transmission line will be located and constructed established rights-of-way, including easements acquired after certification of the respective corridors. Construction of transmission lines on such established rights-of-way is excepted from the definition of "development" contained in Section 163.3164(6), Florida Statutes. To the extent that comprehensive plans or land development regulations of the local governments crossed by the transmission lines include provisions that are applicable to non-development activities, the transmission lines in each of the designated corridors will be consistent and in compliance with those requirements. Meet Electrical Energy Needs of the State In an Orderly, Timely and Reliable Fashion Each proposed transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor to meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The anticipated schedule for the transmission line portion of the Project calls for the permitting, licensing and engineering activities, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to be carried out such that the transmission lines are constructed and operating in 2015 in advance of certain construction and start-up activities for LNP Unit 1. The proposed corridors maximize collocation opportunities for the transmission lines, enabling the collocated transmission lines to be constructed in a more timely and efficient manner. PEF will make all practicable efforts to minimize the impacts to traffic from the proposed transmission lines. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to facilitate the orderly construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors. Reasonable Balance Between the Need and the Impacts Each of the transmission lines is essential to meet the need identified by the PSC. PEF has a long history of reliably constructing, operating, and maintaining similar transmission lines throughout Florida. Each of the transmission lines is designed to comply with stringent reliability standards such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will meet the need identified by the PSC. The PSC determined that there is a reliability need for additional base-load capacity by 2016. Levy Units 1 and 2 will add 2200 MW of capacity, and new transmission lines are necessary to accommodate this capacity on the electrical power system. The required transmission facilities include those necessary to connect the LNP to PEF's existing grid and to reliably integrate the additional capacity into the existing transmission system. PEF cannot meet the need identified by the PSC without these proposed transmission lines. PEF's proposed corridors were chosen using a multidisciplinary team of experts to minimize impacts on the environment. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the designated corridor with minimal adverse environmental impacts. The corridor selection process involved regional screening to minimize inclusion of areas of ecological constraints. Each corridor maximizes utilization of previously disturbed areas, where possible. The corridor width has been selected for each corridor to provide flexibility for selection of the final right-of-way to provide the ability to avoid ecological resources within the corridor to the extent practicable. No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the transmission lines. Each of the transmission lines will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal, if any, adverse impact to water quality. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to fish and wildlife, including protected animal species. The presence of protected animal species was an important consideration during the corridor selection process, and each corridor avoids areas with known concentrations of protected species occurrences to the extent practicable. The agreed-upon conditions of certification require that preconstruction surveys be conducted, and the results will be submitted to the FWC for analysis. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be required. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impact to water resources, including wetlands. Water resources, including wetlands, were an important consideration during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Structures will not be constructed in major water bodies. The spans between structures will be varied to avoid wetland areas and other sensitive areas, where practicable. Herbaceous wetland communities, including marsh and wet prairie wetlands, can continue to grow underneath the proposed transmission lines. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to ensure that impacts to water bodies and other water resources are minimized. Each transmission line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in the proposed corridor with minimal adverse impacts to other natural resources, including protected plant species and wildlife habitat. The presence of protected plant species and wildlife habitat were important considerations during the corridor selection process and were avoided to the extent practicable. Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of each of the corridors with collocation opportunities has been altered from its natural state for construction and maintenance of the linear facility already there. This will minimize potential impacts. Minimize Adverse Effects Using Reasonable and Available Methods PEF will use reasonable and available methods during construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors to minimize adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the designated corridors will comply with the limits for electric and magnetic fields established by DEP in Rule Chapter 62-814 and by the National Electric Safety Code and related standards. In the corridor selection process, collocation opportunities were considered to be a significant criterion, and the corridors were chosen in a way that maximizes collocation with existing linear facilities. This is advantageous because existing linear facilities often provide existing access, and collocation can minimize the need for new access roads and structure pads and the need for new clearing, generally minimizing impacts. PEF will avoid wetlands and water bodies to the extent practicable by varying the length of the spans between structures. PEF will use restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands, removing vegetation selectively. In cases in which fill is required, PEF will install culverts to maintain water movement. PEF will allow certain vegetation to re-grow, or re- vegetate, in the rights-of-way of the transmission lines following construction, which will maintain suitable habitat for certain listed species. Wetland impacts that cannot be avoided will be appropriately mitigated. Prior to final rights-of-way determination and the beginning clearing in the rights-of-way for the transmission lines, surveys for protected plant and animal species will be conducted to verify their presence or absence in the proposed transmission line right-of-way for each of the lines. In the event that protected plants or animals cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to relocate the individuals in consultation with the FWC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or to provide appropriate mitigation in accordance with the conditions of certification. PEF has agreed to comply with the conditions of certification in the construction, operation, and maintenance of each of the transmission lines. The conditions require measures to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including impacts to the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and Protect the Broad Interest of the Public The construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the proposed corridors will serve and protect the broad interests of the public. The public's interest is served through the provision of safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric service. The transmission lines are essential for providing that service. The public outreach program carried out by PEF provided the public with an avenue to voice their concerns. Concerns expressed were considered in the selection process. The corridor selection process maximized collocation opportunities for the selection of each of the corridors, where practicable. By following existing linear features where possible, the corridors and the ultimate rights-of-way can conform to existing development patterns and minimize intrusions into surrounding areas. Collocation reduces costs and impacts. The existing land uses found within the corridors are compatible with each of the proposed transmission lines in part because the corridors are collocated with linear facilities to the extent feasible. The transmission lines that are proposed can coexist with the types of development that are found along each of the corridors. As a result of the process utilized by the multidisciplinary team, the corridors minimize the number of homes that may be affected and avoid public and conservation lands to the maximum degree practicable. The transmission lines will minimize the impacts on cultural and historical resources by avoiding those areas where practicable and by performing a preconstruction survey in consultation with DEP and the Division of Historical Resources to determine the appropriate action should such resources be found. Disruption to traffic during the construction of each of the transmission lines is expected to be minor. PEF will comply with conditions of certification proposed by DOT and local governments to ensure minimization of traffic impacts. Radio and television interference as a result of the operation of the transmission lines will be minimal, and any impacts will be addressed by PEF. The expected noise levels from the transmission lines will be similar to the noise levels resulting from rainfall events and conversation at five feet. The calculated noise levels will comply with all applicable noise ordinances and requirements. The electric and magnetic fields produced by the transmission lines will comply with the applicable standards established by the DEP. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Following the withdrawal of the other intervenors in this proceeding, SACE was the only remaining party opposing certification of the Project. In the prehearing stipulation of the parties, SACE appears to raise five basic issues: (a) there must be express conditions in the agency reports to address impacts to wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and necessary mitigation should the Project not be completed; (b) adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources; (c) business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment"; (d) risks to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation; and (e) agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. SACE did not offer the testimony of any witnesses or present any evidence in this proceeding on these or any other issues. With regard to SACE's first issue, SACE has failed to identify which of the reviewing agencies neglected to propose appropriate conditions or what additional conditions are necessary. In any event, the record shows that DEP, FWC, and SWFWMD all proposed extensive conditions in their agency reports related to protection of wetlands, fish, wildlife, water resources, and/or mitigation of Project-related impacts. With regard to wetlands mitigation, if the Project is not completed, PEF will perform mitigation necessary to compensate for wetlands actually impacted. See Finding of Fact 126. SACE's second contention is that the Project will cause adverse impacts to wetlands and water resources. As detailed in Findings of Fact 73, 115-131, 133-134, PEF has presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to wetlands or to water resources that are not fully offset by mitigation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Further, as indicated in Findings of Fact 124-126, 130, and 134, PEF has proposed a comprehensive wetlands mitigation plan that will offset any adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the construction of the LNP. SACE did not present any evidence that this mitigation plan, which has been conceptually approved by the DEP, is inadequate to protect wetlands or meet regulatory requirements. SACE's third contention is related to business risks of "significant delay, default or abandonment." These matters are not relevant under the PPSA criteria, Section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes, but are instead addressed by the PSC. A petition for a determination of need for a new nuclear plant must include a cost estimate, base revenue requirements, and information related to joint ownership discussions. See § 403.519(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The PSC has already determined that the Project is needed, specifically finding that "Levy Units 1 and 2 will provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost." Under Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes, the PSC is the "sole forum" for a determination of need. Reconsideration of factors already considered by the PSC in this proceeding is improper. Further, the record does not support SACE's contention regarding alleged business risks. PEF presented uncontroverted evidence that LNP Units 1 and 2 are on schedule to be in service in the 2016/2017 timeframe and that procurement activities have begun. See Finding of Fact 21. SACE's fourth issue relates to adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. As detailed in Findings of Fact 51, 56, 61, 62, 69–72, 88–92, and 131-133, PEF presented competent, substantial evidence that the LNP will not cause adverse impacts to fish, marine wildlife, or vegetation. SACE did not present any contrary evidence. Finally, SACE contends that the agency reports must address risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and vegetation. Again, SACE has failed to identify which agency reports failed to address these alleged risks. SACE likewise has not identified any specific regulatory requirement for such evaluations of environmental risks beyond the evaluations provided by the agencies. The record shows that DEP, FWC, SWFWMD, and Levy County all addressed risks to water resources, wetlands, fish, marine wildlife, and/or vegetation in their agency reports and proposed conditions of certification related thereto. Public Comment and Public Testimony Sworn oral public testimony was received from approximately 69 individuals and unsworn public comment was received from approximately 16 individuals during the portion of the final hearing devoted to that purpose. Many of the individuals who provided public testimony also submitted written comments. Three written comments were received from members of the public who did not attend one of the public comment sessions. Thirty hours were devoted to allowing members of the public to comment on the Project over six separate sessions. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. Several members of the public commented on the benefits of nuclear power in general and the economic benefits of the LNP specifically. Many others spoke in favor of the extensive public outreach conducted by PEF on the Project. Numerous members of the public spoke of PEF's history of being a good corporate neighbor. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of questions and concerns. Many of these concerns and questions are addressed by the evidence and are discussed by reference to the relevant Findings of Fact. However, several were outside the scope of the matters considered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed, is too costly, and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. But the PSC already considered those issues in certifying a need for the Project. The PSC's determinations are binding, and those issues were not reconsidered in this certification hearing. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety, storage of nuclear waste, and radioactive effluent contamination of groundwater via "fracture sets." Radiological issues raised by SACE were stricken because they were preempted by federal regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, radiological safety issues were not considered in the certification hearing. The LNP must be approved by the NRC which regulates radiological safety of nuclear power plants. However, there was evidence that the Florida Department of Health monitors groundwater and other media in the vicinity of nuclear plants, and PEF's subsurface investigation did not reveal any evidence of fracture sets below the LNP site. See Finding of Fact 79. Some members of the public expressed concerns regarding potential infrastructure and lifestyle changes to the Town of Inglis. Specifically, members of the public raised concerns related to strain on local public services; traffic impacts; limits on development due to the LNP; and concerns that financial benefits will go only to Levy County and, more specifically, not the Town of Inglis. First, it should be noted that, along with other affected local governments, the Town of Inglis was provided a copy of PEF's nine-volume SCA on June 2, 2008. The Town of Inglis did not file a notice of intent to be a party to this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes, and thus waived its right to be a party. In addition, the Town had the opportunity to submit an agency report or to propose conditions of certification pursuant to Section 403.507, Florida Statutes, but did not. As acknowledged in public testimony by one of the Town Council members, the Town of Inglis's Council is unanimously in favor of the LNP. Nonetheless, as detailed in Findings of Fact 143-146, PEF presented competent substantial evidence that public services and facilities in the region of the LNP (which includes the Town of Inglis) are sufficient to absorb any incremental population growth associated with construction and operation workers and their families. PEF also presented evidence that roadways in the vicinity will continue to operate at or above their adopted level of service capacities. See Findings of Fact 135-137. Further, there is no evidence that development will be restricted as a result of the LNP. Current limitations around the CREC related to increases in density are the result of Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, not the CREC or state regulatory requirements. Finally, while significant tax revenues will go to Levy County, PEF presented evidence that the LNP's operation will contribute $521 million annually to the regional economy, which includes the Town of Inglis. See Finding of Fact 148. By way of comparison, although PEF's CREC is in Citrus County (and outside the Crystal River city limits), the Crystal River City Manager testified that PEF has been good for the Citrus County school system, has provided jobs for residents, and has been very helpful to efforts in the community. Other members of the public expressed concerns that the new jobs created by the LNP will not go to local residents. As indicated in Finding of Fact 141, PEF has and will continue to make efforts to train and employ local residents at the LNP. Other members of the public expressed concern that increased salinity in the CFBC would cause saltwater intrusion in the Lower Withlacoochee River. There is no connection between the CFBC and the Lower Withlacoochee River. While the LNP's withdrawals from the CFBC will increase salinity in the CFBC somewhat, it will not cause increased salinity in the Lower Withlacoochee River. See Findings of Fact 66-67. A member of the public expressed concern that PEF's proposed location for the CWIS would prevent future reconnection of the Withlacoochee River in an effort to provide more freshwater to the Lower Withlacoochee River.3 As detailed in Finding of Fact 68, options for reconnection of the Withlacoochee River have been evaluated by SWFWMD, but would not provide adequate increased freshwater flow to the Lower Withlacoochee River. Another issue raised during the public testimony sessions was the impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation surrounding the LNP. As indicated in Findings of Fact 103-104 and 110-111, PEF presented uncontroverted expert testimony that cooling tower drift will not adversely impact natural resources, including wetlands and surface waters. Several residents of Hernando County expressed concern that a portion of the BBW transmission line as proposed along Sunshine Grove Road is incompatible from a public safety standpoint with existing and proposed natural gas pipelines in this same area. PEF presented evidence, however, that this type of collocation of transmission lines and gas pipelines is commonplace throughout Florida. Further, it was not demonstrated that such collocation is prohibited under or contrary to applicable law or agency regulation. Some of these residents focused their concern on whether locating the BBW transmission line in proximity to a natural gas pipeline would be inconsistent with PEF's internal collocation guidelines, which these residents believe prohibit such collocation because an unsafe operating condition will result. As noted by Hernando County’s attorney and DEP's Siting Administrator, there is no basis in statute, ordinance, or rule to require PEF to comply with its internal guidelines. In any event, PEF presented evidence that the purpose of its internal collocation guidelines is to ensure the safety of persons involved in the construction and installation of a pipeline in proximity to an existing transmission line. Further, PEF is bound by the conditions of certification to comply with requirements of the National Electric Safety Code as they relate to induced currents that might affect a gas pipeline. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 76, Condition XLII(H). Other residents were concerned that construction of the BBW transmission line would be unsafe due to the presence of an existing natural gas pipeline. The conditions of certification require, however, that PEF comply with applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards during construction of each of the transmission lines. The conditions of certification also require PEF to contact the Sunshine State One Call service to locate underground utilities prior to construction activities. Finally, after PEF selects its ultimate location for the BBW transmission line, Hernando County and other agencies will have the opportunity to review the proposed location and notify the DEP Siting Coordination Office if it believes that the construction of the transmission line within the selected right-of-way cannot be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of certification. See DEP Ex. 1, p. 65-66, Condition XXXV(A).
Conclusions For Progress Energy Florida: Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Gigi Rollini, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 For the Department of Environmental Protection: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Levy County: Anne Bast Brown, Esquire Levy County Attorney 380 South Court Street Bronson, Florida 32621-6517 For Hillsborough County: Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 27th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 For City of Tampa: Janice McLean, Esquire Office of the City Attorney Old City Hall, 5th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 For the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: E. Leon Jacobs, Esquire Williams & Jacobs 1720 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5506
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order: Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain a two-unit nuclear powered electrical generating facility in Levy County, Florida, including a heavy haul road, site access roads, and cooling water intake and discharge pipelines, subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended; and Approving PEF's Application for Certification to build, operate, and maintain each of the following electrical transmission line corridors as associated facilities, as described above and subject to the conditions of certification set forth in DEP Exhibit 1, as amended: Citrus 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, Crystal River Transmission Line, Sumter Transmission Line, Levy North Transmission Line, Levy South Transmission Line, Brookridge Transmission Line, Brooksville West Transmission Line, Crystal River East 1 and 2 Transmission Lines, and Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas Transmission Line. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Procedural Matters After holding noticed public hearings on March 19 and June 12, 1984, the Florida Public Service Commission, by Order Number 13676 issued on September 13, 1984, determined that there was a need for the Florida Power Corporation Lake Tarpon-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line which is the subject of this certification proceeding. Specifically, the Public Service Commission concluded that the construction and operation of the line would enhance electric system reliability and integrity and would improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State. It was further concluded that the Lake Tarpon substation in Pinellas County and the Kathleen substation in Polk County were appropriate starting and ending points for the proposed 500 kV transmission line. The Commission found that the proposed line would complete a 500 kV loop or grid out of the Crystal River plant, maintain system continuity to all 500 kV Substations and avoid customer blackouts. Thereafter, on April 29, 1985, Florida Power Corporation filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation its application for site certification of either of two proposed corridors for the 500 kV transmission line to be located between the Lake Tarpon and Kathleen substations. The Department of Environmental Regulation properly provided notice of the application to the statutory parties including the appropriate State agencies, the local water management district, the regional planning councils and each local government within the proposed corridors. Newspaper notice of the Florida Power Corporation application was also published Notices and reminder notices of the certification hearing were published in newspapers of general circulation within counties to be crossed by the proposed transmission line corridors. While one notice of the certification hearing was published 76 days, rather than the Statutorily required 80 days prior to the hearing, no statutory party or other Substantially interested party was prejudiced thereby. With the exception of Anne L. Thomas and Florida Satellite Network, Inc., the statutory agencies, listed parties and substantially interested persons included within the Appearances portion herein timely filed their notices of intent to be a party or their petitions to intervene. Ms. Thomas and Florida Satellite Network, Inc. were granted leave to intervene on a limited basis during the course of the certification hearing. No party proposed an alternate transmission line corridor route for consideration on or before the 50th day prior to the certification hearing. Efforts to present evidence during the certification hearing relating to an alternate corridor and/or to continue the hearing for that purpose were denied. Proposed Corridors In its application for certification, Florida Power Corporation proposes a primary corridor and an alternative secondary corridor. Both corridors originate at the Lake Tarpon substation located in Pinellas County just west of the Hillsborough-Pinellas County line and terminate at the Kathleen substation, located north of U.S. Highway 98 in Polk County. The primary corridor is approximately 44 miles in length and the secondary corridor is approximately 47 miles in length. The most westerly 5.5. miles and the most easterly 25 miles of both corridors are identical. The divergent primary segment is 13.5 miles in length while the divergent secondary segment is 16.5 miles in length. The westerly combined segments of both the primary and secondary corridors run east for a distance of 5.5 miles from the Lake Tarpon Substation to a point just east of the intersection of Gunn Highway and Mobley Road in Hillsborough County. This 5.5. mile stretch encompasses an existing Florida Power Corporation double-circuit 115 kV transmission line corridor, known as the Higgins-Fort Meade Line, and its associated 100 foot existing right-of-way. From the point where the proposed primary and secondary corridors diverge, the primary corridor continues to run east, northeast for a 13.5 mile long stretch in northern Hillsborough County until it meets up again with the easterly combined segments of both corridors. The initial 9.7 miles of this divergent primary segment is 190 feet wide and follows the continuation of the existing cleared and improved Higgins-Fort Meade line and its associated 100 foot right-of-way until it reaches Interstate 275. At I-275, the primary corridor angles northerly, widens to about 1500 feet and parallels the I-275 right-of-way for a distance of approximately 3.8 miles through Cypress Creek until it reaches the I-275/75 interchange at the Pasco Hillsborough County line. There the 13.5 mile divergent primary corridor merges with the 16.5 mile divergent secondary corridor and continues east to form the easterly combined segment. The divergent secondary corridor, leaving the primary after the first 5.5 miles, turns north and makes some thirteen subsequent turns, heading generally north and then east. Its many turns are the result of an attempt to avoid existing developments and homesites. The divergent segment of the proposed 16.5 mile long secondary corridor is located in both northern Hillsborough and Southern Pasco Counties. It varies in width, going up to 5,000 feet, and the exact location of the right-of-way has not yet been determined. The easterly combined Segment of both proposed corridors is generally 1,500 feet wide. This segment, 25 miles long, begins at the I-275/75 intersection and runs east along the Pasco Hillsborough County line to just east of the Hillsborough River where it jogs to the south to avoid homes in Crystal Springs, and it then proceeds northeasterly to the Pasco-Polk County line. The corridor then angles northeasterly through Polk County, crosses a cypress Swamp known as Fox Branch, and ultimately terminates at the Kathleen Substation. Proposed Design, Construction and Maintenance Florida Power Corporation proposes to utilize a 190-foot wide right-of-way in all areas except for that portion of the divergent primary corridor which will be located within the existing 100-foot wide right-of-way associated with the Higgins- Fort Meade transmission line. Florida Power Corporation intends to replace the Higgins-Fort Meade line with the new Lake Tarpon- Kathleen line in this area, and use of only the 100-foot wide right-of-way is necessitated by residential development which has occurred on both sides of the right-of-way if a wider right-of-way were utilized in this area of the proposed primary corridor, numerous homes would have to be displaced. The 100-foot wide existing Higgins-Fort Meade rights-of- way will remain cleared in its entirety. Except for danger trees and trees exceeding 25 feet in height which could fall on the lines, the 190-foot wide right-of-way will be cleared to a width of 150 feet, with 20 feet being left in a natural state on each side of the right-of-way to act as a buffer. At creek and river crossings, the 190-foot wide right-of-way will only be cleared for 100 feet. In this area, only vegetation that exceeds 25 feet in height will be removed. Tree stumps and root mats will be left intact to retain the integrity of wetland areas. Access roads and tower pads will be constructed within the right-of-way in wetland areas. The typical access road will be about 20 feet wide, with side slopes of two feet horizontal for every one foot vertical. Tower pads within wetland areas will be constructed to the same elevation as the access road leading to it and, depending upon the tower structure utilized, will be 130 feet wide by 113 to 155 feet long. Tower pads within the 100-foot wide rights-of-way will not exceed 100 feet so as not to extend beyond the right-of-way. The proposed tower designs for the transmission line in the 100-foot wide right-of-way will be one of two types. The first type is a single tubular steel pole with a delta-shaped conductor configuration extending from it and will be 120 to 135 feet high and about 60 feet wide. The second type consists of twin tubular steel poles with a vertical conductor configuration between them and will be 155 to 175 feet high and 32 feet wide. The maximum span between two single-pole structures is 900 feet and the maximum span between two twin-pole structures is 1,200 feet. The towers in the 190-foot wide right-of-way will be one of three types. The first type consists of a guyed vee lattice steel tangent structure, 100 to 125 feet high and approximately 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has very little depth, but is supported by guy wires that extend 60 to 75 feet to each side. The second type consists of a self-supported lattice steel tangent structure 100 to 125 feet high and approximately 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has a depth of 23 to 31 feet and requires no guy wires. The-third type is an H-frame tubular steel tangent structure 100 to 125 feet high and about 64 feet wide at its widest point. It has very little depth and requires no guy wires. The normal maximum span between all these types of towers is 1,200 feet, although it may be up to 1,500 feet in Special situations, such as river or road crossings. Once a tower type is Selected for each width of right-of-way, it will be used throughout the right-of-way of that width. The types of foundations utilized for the transmission line towers is dependent upon the type of tower design to be installed. For tubular steel structures, either a drilled pier foundation or a vibratory steel casing foundation will be used. For the self-Supporting lattice tower, a drilled pier concrete foundation will be used. For the guyed lattice tower, either a precast foundation or a drilled pier foundation will be used for the tower, and a drilled pier foundation called an auger cast pile will be used for the guys. The foundations will typically penetrate to a depth of up to 50 feet depending on the type of foundation used and the soil conditions at the tower locations. The conductors for the transmission line consist of three wires, Separated by spacers and attached to the towers by insulators. The conductor wires for the delta towers will be 34 to 100 feet high, depending upon the point in the span, and will be 1.89 inches in diameter. The conductor wires for the vertical towers will be 34 to 130 feet high, again depending on the point in the span, and will be 1.5 inches in diameter. The conductor wires for the guyed vee lattice, lattice, and H-Frame towers will be 34 to 80 feet high, again depending on the point in the span, and will be 1.3 to 1.4 inches in diameter. The minimum conductor- to-ground clearance at mid-span for all of the proposed towers will be 34 feet at maximum conductor temperature Ground wires will be used to intercept and ground lightning and will run along the tops of the towers and, for all tower types, will be .28 inches in diameter. The proposed transmission line will be designed to comply with good engineering practices, and the design codes, standards and industry guidelines contained in the National Electrical Safety Code; the American Welding Society Structural Welding Code for Steel; the American Institute of Steel Construction Code of Standard Practice; the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete; the Southern Building Code; the American Institute of Steel Construction Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel or Buildings; the American Society of Civil Engineering Guides entitled, "Guide for Design of Steel Transmission Towers," "Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures," "Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural Loading"; and the American National Standards Institute Standard A58.1 entitled, "Loads for Buildings and Other Structures." The Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line will be designed for five loading conditions: an extreme wind loading condition, maintenance loads, loads during construction, contingency loads, and code loads. The line is designed to withstand a reference wind speed of 100 miles per hour in flat, open country with no obstructions, and a reference wind speed of 130 miles per hour in forested and residential areas where obstructions on the ground baffle, or diminish, the wind speed. The highest reference wind speed recorded by an accepted weather station in Tampa during the past 30 years is 67 miles per hour, and the highest ever recorded is 84 miles per hour. A reference wind speed is a one-minute sustained wind speed that corresponds to the fastest mile of wind passing an anemometer ten meters above ground. Structures designed to withstand a given reference wind speed can withstand gusts of greater wind speed. While hurricane force winds along the Gulf Coast may exceed 130 miles per hour, the proposed corridors are located from 9 to 56 miles inland from the coast. The construction loading condition allows for the possible malfunction of equipment during the process of pulling the conductors through the blocks on the transmission line towers. In the unlikely event the conductors become hung up in the blocks, the construction loading condition allows the towers to withstand the induced longitudinal load. The maintenance load criterion ensures that the transmission line towers can withstand the weight of men with equipment climbing out on the structural components during maintenance operations The contingency load criterion allows for the shifting of vertical load in the unlikely event of breakage of a piece of conductor supporting hardware for an insulator. The code load criterion ensures that the transmission line will withstand the wind load set forth in the National Electrical Safety Code. Since the code load is less severe than the extreme wind loading condition for which this line has been designed, the code load was not controlling. In addition, standing water will not cause hydrostatic loads on the transmission line towers because they are free- draining. The towers will also withstand a very severe hydrodynamic force, in excess of 25-foot deep water moving two to three times the speed of the Mississippi River, and the towers will also withstand the uplift effects of buoyancy. Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct the transmission line in Seven stages, with the total construction process taking between 12 to 18 months. At any given location along the right-of-way, construction crews will be present at intermittent intervals for a total of two to three weeks. During the first surveying stage, survey crews of three to five individuals will establish tower locations and take soil borings at depths of 50 to 60 feet for foundation design purposes, survey and stake the right-of-way and survey and stake the requirement for clearing and access roads. This surveying stage will take approximately three months. In the second stage of construction, the right-of-way will be cleared and the necessary access roads will be constructed. In those portions of the corridor where the Higgins-Fort Meade line will be replaced with the new 500 kV line, this stage will include the removal of existing towers, conductors and foundations to approximately 1 to 2 feet below grade. Vegetation in the upland areas, where not already cleared, will be removed with heavy tracked machinery and the right-of-way will be dressed for future mowing. In wetland areas, vegetation will be removed either by hand or by the use of light tracked shearing machines, leaving the stumps and root mats except where they would interfere with tower locations. Wetland areas will not be demucked and cuttings will be either buried or burned in non- residential upland areas. Access roads in wetland areas will be constructed by hauling in fill and spreading it with heavy tracked machinery. Culverts under the roads will be installed to avoid interrupting surface water flow. The fill will be compacted as soon as it is hauled in to encourage revegetation and any other measures that may be necessary to prevent erosion will be undertaken. Fill will be obtained from adjacent upland areas, other upland areas or commercial fill suppliers, but not from wetlands or areas connected to wetlands. The actual locations and sizes of culverts to be used will be determined during post- certification design of the facility and will be reviewed by the agencies having jurisdiction over the access roads. Foundations for the transmission line towers will be installed during the third stage of construction and then, during the fourth stage, the materials needed to assemble the towers will be hauled to the appropriate site, and the towers will be assembled on the ground. The tower components will be bolted together and a locking device will be used on each bolt to prevent the nut from backing off. Each tower assembly takes approximately one day or less. In the fifth stage of construction, a large crane is brought to the tower site and the assembled towers are hoisted into position and installed upon their foundations. Florida Power Corporation can erect about one tower per hour or seven to eight towers per day. In the sixth stage of construction, the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed on the transmission line towers. Temporary wooden pole structures, called guard Structures, are installed at road and utility crossings to insure that conductors do not come in contact with those facilities during installation. Three to four miles of conductor and overhead ground wire are installed at a time. Machines are located at both ends of the Section where the conductors are being pulled, one set to pull the conductors and the other set to maintain tension on the conductors. The contractor will pull the conductors to a predetermined stage which is calculated by the design engineers. Also during this stage, spacers are installed between the three wires which make up each conductor to keep them from coming in contact with one another during high wind conditions. After a section of the conductors is installed, the pulling machines advance in a leapfrog fashion to pull in the next section of conductors. The Seventh and final stage of construction, cleanup of the right-of-way, actually occurs after each contractor completes a portion of the construction process. Cleanup of the right-of way includes removal of any orating materials used to haul materials to the site, grading of the right-of-way to remove any ruts resulting from construction, and reseeding or replanting disturbed areas of the These construction techniques are commonly used in the electric power industry. The construction process will be conducted entirely within the right-of-way unless special and prior arrangements are made with the adjoining property owners. After construction is completed, the right-of-way will be maintained by mowing with bushhog equipment in the upland areas and with light tracked shearing machines or by hand in wetland areas. This owing and/or clearing will occur about once every three to four years. Of course, owners of property along the right-of-way may mow and maintain the right-of-way if they desire to do so. Herbicides will not be used on the proposed transmission line right-of-way in wetlands, on public well fields or near residential areas. A study on the use of the herbicide Rodeo (trademark) on the Central Florida-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line right-of-way is currently being conducted. After the satisfactory completion of this study, Florida Power Corporation may seek a modification of the certification for the proposed transmission line to gain approval to use Rodeo (trademark) herbicide in wetlands. Twice a year, once by ground patrol and once by air, the transmission lines and towers, including hardware, will be inspected by maintenance crews. They will look for damaged insulators (particularly after the hunting season and the lightning storm season) frayed conductors, corroded metal and non- functioning culverts under access roads. Also, a climbing inspection is performed every eight years. Maintenance procedures can and will be conducted entirely within the right- of-way. Surrounding Areas-Primary Corridor The westerly segment of the primary corridor, identical to that of the secondary corridor, encompasses the existing Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line, a business park, areas of pine flatwoods, pasture lands, palmetto prairie, cypress swamp and citrus groves, a plant nursery, a lake and several ponds. The entire western combined segment crosses 7 lakes and 2 watercourses. The initial 9.7 miles of the divergent portion of the primary corridor follows the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line and abuts a number of suburban residential subdivisions, as well as occasional cypress swamps, ponds and citrus groves. The residential subdivisions include the densely populated Northdale, Country Place, Northlakes, Crenshaw Lakes, St. Charles, Crenshaw Acres, Live Oak, Hounds Run and Maple Hill developments. There are approximately 146 homes within 100 feet of the existing 100- foot right-of-way and 381 homes within 300 feet of that right-of- way. These homes and subdivisions were built subsequent to the early 1950's construction of the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line. The portion of the divergent primary corridor which leaves the Higgins-Fort Meade line (for a distance of approximately 3.8 miles) and parallels I-275 encompasses an extensive area of Cypress Creek. The divergent section of the primary corridor crosses 14 lakes and 5 watercourses. The eastern segment of the primary corridor, identical to the eastern segment of the secondary corridor, traverses primarily rural areas, characterized by open pasture land, pine flatwoods and fresh water marsh, cypress and swamp. As the corridor moves into Polk County, it traverses an extensive wetland system known as Fox Branch. The Fox Branch system is the first tributary to the Hillsborough River, which provides drinking water to the Tampa Bay area. The eastern combined segment of both corridors contains 9 water courses, including the Hillsborough River, and 12 lakes. Surrounding Areas-Secondary Corridor The western and eastern portions of the secondary corridor are identical to that of the primary corridor and the Surrounding areas have previously been described in paragraphs 22 and 24. The 16.5 mile long segment of the secondary corridor which diverges from the primary corridor initially passes through areas of pasture land, citrus groves, cypress swamps and several single family residences, and is adjacent to scattered lakes. After the secondary corridor crosses Van Dyke Road, it is Surrounded by four major planned Single-family and multifamily residential developments, a single family residential compound and farm and a 1.5 million gallon per day waste water treatment plant, which are all currently at various stages of development and will be described in more detail below. The divergent secondary corridor continues to cross areas of cypress swamp, open pasture land and several single family residences and abuts numerous lakes, ponds and single family subdivisions, including Whisper Run, Lake Como Club, Country Close, Foxwood, Turtle Lakes and others, as well as a cemetery and a commercial nursery. Approximately 500 feet north of the secondary corridor along Dale Mabry highway is the Florida Satellite Network, Inc. cable system head end installation consisting of a 90 foot television antenna for local channel reception and two satellite dish antennas. This facility processes and retransmits signals via cable to some 1,500 cable customers in Land O' Lakes. The divergent segment of the secondary corridor contains some 33 lakes and two water courses. Due to the opening of the I-275 corridor, the extension of County Line Road and State Road 54, and the reduction in the amount of land devoted to citrus groves, the area encompassing the divergent secondary corridor is experiencing a boom of activity and rapidly increasing property values. The divergent secondary corridor traverses at least a portion of the newly planned subdivisions of Cypress Bend, Lake Carlton Arms, Villages of Ramblewood and Cheval, as well as the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant planned and designed to serve these new subdivisions. At the time Florida Power Corporation selected the proposed secondary corridor, it was unaware that these developments would occur or, at least, that they would progress so rapidly. This portion of the secondary corridor also encompasses the Maloney/Zambito family residential compound and farm, and traverses a 16-acre dedicated school site. The corridor includes the northern 750 feet of property owned by Live Oak Realty, which property is presently utilized as an operating cattle ranch. A siteplan has been developed for this property which includes dwelling units and a regional shopping center within the proposed corridor. The Cypress Bend development has recently commenced construction and includes 173 single family home sites, a club house, tennis courts, racquet ball courts, a pool, 77- acres of man-made lakes, and 424 acres of cypress wetlands, for a total of 965 acres. Most of the residential lots will have either a woodland view or a view of a lake. The main entrance is currently under construction and will connect to Van Dyke Road and Lutz Lake Fern Road. About 26 lots, the main entrance and portions of the cypress wetlands are located within the divergent secondary corridor. These cannot be relocated because of developmental, economic and environmental constraints. Expenditures to date by the developers of Cypress Bend include not only the cost of land, but $300,000 for road construction, $52,000 for a 12 inch water main, $118,000 for underground electric facilities and $250,000 for engineering and planning. The Lake Carlton Arms development is a residential rental apartment complex located on 477 acres and is currently under construction. It will have 1,912 units in 155 buildings, 4 clubhouses, and includes a 16 acre school site, a fire station, a 9 acre commercial site, open spaces, a number of man-made lakes, and 203 acres of wetlands and conservation areas. Construction of the lakes and site work is complete and construction of Phase I, consisting of 956 units on the south side of the development, is nearing completion. Construction of future phases will take place along the man-made lakes in the northern portion of the development. Expenditures to date total more than $24,000,000, over and above the cost of the land. The school, which will serve all of the Surrounding developments, 84 units in 7 buildings, and open spaces, as well as access for another 24 units in 2 buildings, will be located within the proposed secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated because of developmental constraints. If the right-of-way is ultimately located so as to avoid the Lake Carlton Arms development, it will then traverse the Villages of Ramblewood development. The Villages of Ramblewood is a single family residential subdivision located on 658 acres immediately to the north of the Lake Carlton Arms development and the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is proposed for 908 single family lots with 230 acres of cypress wetlands and conservation areas. Construction of the roads and utilities is currently underway, and expenditures to date total more than $2,000,000 over and above the cost of the land. Two of the villages consisting of a number of lots are located within the divergent secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated due to environmental and developmental constraints. If the right-of-way is located so as to avoid them, it will necessarily be required to traverse the Lake Carlton Arms development and the Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Cheval development is located on 855 acres just northeast of the Lake Carlton Arms Development and to the east of the Villages of Ramblewood. It is a multi-use development, currently under construction, and will have 193 large single family home sites, 537 multi-family units, including patio and town homes, 88-acres of man-made lakes, tennis and equestrian villages, an 18-hole golf course, and a club house with tennis courts and a pool. It will also have a 57 acre equestrian center which will include stables, a grand prix jumping area, 2 polo fields, grandstands and parking facilities, and will be the focal point of the development. Phase 1 of the development is near completion, and expenditures to date total more than $16,000,000. Three large single family lots, the stables and about half of one polo field are located within the divergent secondary corridor. They cannot be relocated in a manner that will maintain the integrity of the overall development plan. The Van Dyke Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on 22 acres adjacent to the northwest corner of the Lake Carlton Arms development, is now nearing completion after a 3- year permitting and construction process. It is a 1.5 million gallon per day oxidation ditch-type wastewater treatment plant that can be expanded to a 2 million gallon per day capacity. It includes an operations building, 2 large oxidation ditches with 18 feet high concrete walls, other utility buildings, paving, roadways and storage ponds. Expenditures to date total bore than $3,000,000 and its total cost will be $4.5 million. Its operation is a condition precedent to the viability of surrounding developments. The entire plant is located within the divergent secondary corridor and it cannot be relocated. The right-of-way cannot traverse the plant site for safety reasons since the use of large cranes will be required to maintain and expand the plant. While the right-of-way could perhaps be located so as to avoid the plant site, it could not be done without traversing a portion of the Villages of Ramblewood development. The Maloney-Zambito family complex, located on 194 acres between the Cypress Bend and Lake Carlton Arms developments, is a family complex that includes a dairy, a thoroughbred horse farm, and several residences. A portion of the property has been divided into 3-acre lots which will be used as homesites for several family members. In addition to the residences that now exist on the property, the Maloney family is currently constructing a new home on one of the 3-acre lots. All of the property is located within the proposed secondary corridor. If the right-of-way is located so as to avoid the Cypress Bend development, it will likely result in the displacement of one or more residences on the Maloney Zambito property and will disrupt the family complex. Impacts of Proposed Corridors upon the Public-Land Use, Land Value and Other Considerations. Land Area Preempted. The primary corridor is 44 miles long and the secondary corridor is 47 miles long. Because Florida Power Corporation intends to utilize its existing 100- foot right- of-way along the Higgins-Fort Meade line if the primary corridor is certified, it will only need to acquire 28.8 miles of additional right-of-way to complete the primary corridor. The secondary corridor will require the preemption of sufficient land to locate a 190-foot right-of-way across some 41.5 miles. Joint Use of Land. The primary corridor will follow the existing Higgins-Fort Meade facility for a distance of 15.2 miles. Other linear facilities, including a draining ditch and an electrical distribution line, currently share this existing right- of-way. The primary corridor will also follow the I-275 right-of- way for approximately 3.8 miles and the County- Line right-of-way for about 2.5 miles. Thus, existing linear facilities are followed for 21.5 miles of the primary corridor's total 44 mile length. Joint uses of existing linear facilities are encouraged by state, regional and local comprehensive plans. The secondary corridor will only align itself with approximately 6.5 miles of existing linear facilities. Displacement of Residences. A greater number of occupied residential homesites presently exist adjacent to the proposed divergent segment of the primary corridor. Because the 100-foot right-of-way for the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line was in existence prior to the construction and development of nearby homes, and because future development has been and is now precluded within that right-of-way, no displacement of homes will be required in the primary corridor. However, if a right-of-way wider than 100 feet is utilized in the dense residential areas along the existing line, numerous homes would have to be displaced. Location of the corridor in the divergent secondary segment could well result in the displacement of both existing residences and those currently under construction or development, as well as a wastewater treatment plant and commercial businesses. When the secondary corridor was initially chosen by Florida Power Corporation, the area contained relatively low density development and the potential of locating most of the right-of-way outside the boundaries of existing and known planned developments. However, that scenario has now changed and is continuing to change on a rapid basis. Since there is no existing right-of-way within the divergent secondary segment, it is reasonably probable that new homes will be placed within the secondary right-of-way, and thus require displacement if the secondary corridor is certified. Population projections indicate that the numbers of residents within the two corridors will be nearly equal in the future. Impacts on Existing and Future Developments. The area along the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line, at least within the divergent primary segment, is basically already fully developed, and future development will not be disrupted any more by the location of the primary corridor there than it is by the existing right-of-way for the Higgins-Fort Meade line. Almost all of the developments along the divergent primary segment were placed there after and were planned with reference to the Higgins-Fort Meade line and its 100-foot right-of-way. The area along I-275 is primarily a wetland area unsuitable for future development. While there is now no existing development along the easterly combined segments of both corridors, it is conceivable that there could be future development in that area. Because of the rapidly developing nature of the divergent secondary segment, the fact that there is no existing protected right-of-way and the large numbers of lakes and wetlands located within that area, it will be very difficult to locate a right-of- way within that secondary segment so as to avoid dividing properties, displacing homes or leaving properties with limited developable uplands. Future development could be severely disrupted by the placement of the secondary corridor in the 16.5 mile area which diverges from the primary corridor. Land Values. Testimony was offered concerning several studies on the impact of transmission lines upon property values. None of the studies were Site-specific to the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line and the literature on the subject is inconclusive as to the effect of transmission lines on adjacent property values. A study conducted in Hernando County concluded that, depending upon the type of property involved, there is a 24 percent to 44 percent loss in value of property located adjacent to a transmission line. The study from which such conclusions were drawn contains deficiencies in that, in some instances, only one sale was recorded, sales were not verified to assure they were the result of arm's length transactions, median values were used when there was only one or a small number of sales and the study was Site-specific to Hernando County. Land use impacts, and their effect upon land use values, have already occurred in the divergent primary section as a result of the existing Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line and I-275. The values of residential properties along the existing transmission line already reflect the location of such a line. Florida Power Corporation has no intention of removing that line or abandoning that right-of-way even if the proposed primary corridor were not certified. The potential adverse impact upon land values if property cannot be developed for residential use within the divergent secondary segment could be great. Planned developments would need to be reduced in size or scope, thus making the property less desirable and less valuable for purchase or development. Visual impacts. Along the 15.5 miles where the Higgins- Fort Meade line presently exists, there should be no significant new visual intrusion. Though the towers for the proposed line will be higher than those within the existing corridor, they will also be sleeker and less intrusive. The visual intrusion of lattice towers and other transmission facilities already exists in the immediate area of the westerly and divergent segments of the primary corridor. The visual intrusion in other areas will be mitigated by alignment of the line with the I-275 right-of-way and by the sparsely populated rural nature of the lands in the combined easterly segment of both corridors. Placement of the transmission line in the proposed divergent segment of the secondary corridor will result in a new visual intrusion for residents of existing and nearly completed subdivisions located therein. Because of the meandering design of the secondary corridor, the transmission lies could form a virtual semi-circle around some lakes and developments, thus creating a greater visual intrusion than a single set of lines or towers located in only one direction from the adjacent property. Noise. The transmission line, no matter where it is located, will generate some noise as a result of a process called corona, and also, to a lesser extent, as a result of wind and insulator scintillations. Corona occurs when a foreign substance like water gets on the conductor wires and causes the level of the electrical field to exceed the electrical strength of air. This causes a burst of energy that heats and applies force to the air and moves air molecules around as sound waves. Under normal fair weather conditions, which occur in this area 90 percent of the time, the noise levels produced by corona will be less than ambient and unmeasurable. During rainy weather, which occurs about 10 percent of the time, the median noise level will be 40.7 to 42.3 dBa at the edge of the right-of-way, with diminishing levels thereafter. Under certain unique conditions, the noise level could rise an additional 3 or 4 dBa, but never as much as an additional 7.5 dBa. To put this in perspective, under normal conditions, the noise level will be more quiet than a rural nighttime ambience, but during rainy weather, the noise level will be roughly equal to a quiet urban nighttime level. Direct comparison is difficult because different noises have different annoyance levels. Some studies have indicated that noise produced by the corona process is more annoying than other types of noises because of its crackling and popping and conclude that a penalty of somewhere around 5 dB should be added to corona noise for comparison purposes. If the penalty were added, the noise level would be roughly 44 to 48 dBa on median, which is much like a quiet urban daytime noise level. The noise levels expected will be Substantially below the maximum level permitted under Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas Counties' noise ordinances, with or without the penalty. Studies of other transmission lines indicate that noise levels of less than 52.5 dB receive little or no complaints. Radio and Television Interference. The bursts of energy that occur during the corona process can, under certain circumstances, cause interference with radio and television reception. Because F.M. radio transmission uses a frequency modulation which is immune to amplitude noise, the proposed transmission line will have no effect on F.M. radio reception. A.M. radio does use an amplitude modulation which can be susceptible to transmission line noises. However, during fair weather conditions the proposed transmission line will not interfere with A.M. stations which meet FCC Type A signal service, which include those stations providing strong enough signals that they would be free of naturally occurring atmospheric interference 90 percent of the time. During foul weather, there may be some interference with some Type A stations at the edge of the right- of-way. However, such interference during stormy weather could occur even in the absence of the transmission line and the interfering effect of the line will not be substantially different than other atmospheric interferences. Television transmission uses frequency modulation for sound and amplitude modulation for the video or picture. Thus, the picture can receive interference from transmission lines in the form of a band of snow or ghosting on the screen. However, under fair weather conditions, the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line will cause no interference with television stations servicing the area. During foul weather, there could be some minimal interference with only Channel 3, and only in the worst case situation where the transmission line is operating at its maximum voltage and the receiving antenna is located immediately adjacent to the edge of the right-of-way or is oriented in a direction such that it receives the maximum amount of transmission line noise. Such worst case conditions are unlikely to occur and, if they do, Florida Power Corporation has agreed to correct interference problems arising therefrom. Microwave receivers, such as satellite dishes, experience no interference from corona. If a receiving station is located near a transmission line and utilizes a high gain antenna with large amplifiers to pick up weak stations, there is some potential for interference. Florida Satellite Network, Inc. does operate a standard television reception antenna atop a 90 foot high radio tower in order receive 9 local television signals. The tower is located approximately 500 feet north of the northern boundary of the secondary corridor. The evidence was insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed transmission line, if placed in the secondary corridor, would create interference during foul weather conditions. As noted above, Florida Power Corporation agrees to investigate and correct all valid complaints of radio and television interference caused by its transmission lines. Human Health and Safety Lightning Strikes. Lightning, an electrical discharge that begins in the clouds and progresses to the ground, is generally attracted and diverted to the tallest object. Transmission line towers are often the tallest structure in an area and they are often struck by lightning. Since the large surges in voltage in current caused by lightning can damage transmission line equipment, power companies attempt to protect their investments by placing static wires, or overhead ground wires, above the conductors to interrupt the lightning and route it through the tower structure to an extensive grounding system at the base of the structure. This process creates no significant risk to people or residents adjacent to the right-of-way and, in fact, may attract and ground lightning strikes that would otherwise strike elsewhere in the area. Electric Shock. Electric shock is the sensation a person feels when current passes through the body. It can range from a very low perception to a startled reaction and, at high levels, it can be fatal. Electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines can cause electric currents to be induced in objects. If one touches a conductive object within or adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way, a small amount of current could flow from the object through his body to the ground. Whether this produces an electric shock depends on the magnitude of the current. Common thresholds are one milliamp for steady state preception, two milliamps for startled reaction, and 4.5 Quo 9 milliamps for safe let-go levels, the threshold being dependent on body limb size and weight. Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct and operate this transmission line to comply with and exceed the National Electrical Safety Code, 1984 Edition (NESC). The NESC requires that induced currents be less than 5 milliamps. This line will produce maximum induced current in the largest objects found within pedestrian access areas of about 2.87 milliamps during normal load conditions; and of about 3.49 milliamps during emergency load conditions. Emergency load conditions occur very infrequently (once a year) and last no more than 3 to 4 hours. The line will produce maximum induced currents in the largest objects found in residential and secondary streets of about 4.10 during either normal or emergency load conditions and will produce maximum induced currents in the largest objects found on major highways of about 4.29 during either normal or emergency load conditions. It will produce progressively lower induced currents the further the distance from the line. There could conceivably be some higher induced currents in fences within the right-of-way or large metal buildings located adjacent to the right-of-way, but Florida Power Corporation routinely grounds such objects. Surveys of utilities operating 500 to 765 kV lines demonstrate that there have been no reports of injury from and very few complaints concerning electric shocks. While perceptible shocks could occur, they will be brief and result in no physiological harm. It is estimated that Florida Power Corporation will receive one complaint based on perceptible, but not harmful, electrical shock for every 35 years of operation of this line. Shock problems can arise for honey bee hives located in or near the right-of-way due to the electrical characteristics present in the bee hive and the bees when they are located within an electrical field. The problem can be eliminated by placing over the hive a grounded screening device, such as chicken wire or a metal plate. Florida Power Corporation has agreed to inform affected beekeepers of this problem and the solution thereto Spark Discharge. When induced current becomes trapped and builds up in objects that are well insulted from the ground, a grounded object coming in contact with it can create a spark, such as that which occurs when a person walks on carpet and then touches a door knob. While these sparks may create a nuisance, they do not cause physiological harm. There is some concern that a spark discharge could contain sufficient energy to ignite gasoline vapors when there exists an optimum mixture of vapor and air. Scientists have produced such a result under contrived conditions, but there is no evidence that this has occurred in practice. There is little likelihood of such an incident occurring because of the number of things which would have to occur simultaneously in order to create the necessary conditions. Falling Conductors. In the unlikely event that a subconductor breaks and falls to the ground, it will establish a spark, known as a fault. The increase in current will be detected by relays at both ends of the line and circuit breakers will immediately de-energize the line and disconnect that line from the rest of the substation. The total time between a conductor approaching the ground and establishing a fault condition to the time that the system is turned off will be about 60 thousandths of a second. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. When energized with electricity, transmission lines produce both electric and magnetic fields. On an electromagnetic spectrum, telephone and power lines would be at the bottom with respect to intensity, followed by television and radio waves, microwaves, infra red, ultra violent, x-rays and gamma rays. Whether or not low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with transmission lines and other sources of electrical energy may interact with humans, animals and plants to cause harmful biological effects has been the subject of inquiry debate within the scientific community for a number of years. The record of this proceeding contains the testimony of experts and documentary evidence concerning the biological effects of EMF, as well as the statements from members of the public expressing apprehension and fear about the health hazards associated with transmission line EMFs. For the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line, the maximum (which occurs for only a few hours a day) electric fields within the right-of-way during normal load periods will be between 6.79 and 7.37 kilovolts per meter depending upon the tower configuration utilized and the width of the right-of-way. During emergency load conditions (which occur only once a year for three or four hours) the electric fields will range between 8.07 and 8.84 kilovolts per meter. At the edge of the rights-of- way, the maximum electric field strengths are 1.90 (190-foot right-of-way), 3.43 (100-foot right-of-way, delta configuration) and 1.56 (100- foot right-of-way, vertical configuration) for normal loads and 1.85, 3.52 and 1.41, respectively, for emergency loads. The maximum magnetic fields within the right-of-way during normal loads will range between 96.0 milligaus (190-foot right-of-way) and 67.0 milligaus (100-foot right-of-way). During emergency loads, these same figures range between 709 and 470 milligaus. At the edge of the rights-of-way, the range of maximum magnetic fields during normal loads are 24.0 (190-foot right-of-way) and 37.0 (100-foot right-of-way), and during emergency loads 154 and 242 milligaus. While electric fields can be shielded by physical objects, such as trees and houses, magnetic fields cannot be shielded unless the physical objects have strong magnetic properties. The field values listed above are maximum theoretical values and would be affected by variations in current flows and shielding by other objects. Also, the fields could be slightly higher along portions of the divergent secondary corridor because the numerous angles and turns could result in a convergence of fields from more than one direction. Dr. Andrew Marino, a bio-physicist, is of the opinion that electric fields are stressors of biological organism's which contribute to the incidence of all types of diseases. He concludes that the electric field at the edge of a right-of-way should be no greater than 50 volts per meter, thus necessitating a right of way width in this case of 400 feet on each side of the centerline or a total width of 800 feet. Dr. John Norgard, an electrical engineer, felt that the electric field at the edge of the right-of-way should be no greater than 434 volts per meter, thus necessitating a minimum right of way width for this line of 330 feet. Though not qualified as an expert in the health effects of EMF, Karen Anthony, DER's transmission line siting coordinator, had no real concerns regarding the health effects of electric fields associated with transmission lines. However, she perceives a need for caution with respect to magnetic fields and adverse health effects and would prefer a right-of-way width of 190 feet so as to reduce the edge of right-of-way magnetic field strength by 13 milligaus during normal load conditions and by from 75 to 88 milligaus during emergency loads. This preference for a 190-foot right-of-way is not contained in a DER existing or proposed rule and no standard for magnetic fields or other evidence of known adverse health effects from magnetic fields was offered during the course of this proceeding. Dr. Morton Miller, a research biologist, concludes from his own experiments and a review of the Scientific research that, in spite of numerous attempts to do so, no deleterious biological effects have been found from the interaction of EMFs and biological organisms. Dr. Jerry C. Griffin, a medical doctor, does not believe that there are any demonstrated or accessible adverse health effects from EMF exposure to the fields expected from this transmission line. While there is a potential risk to wearers of one type of cardiac pacemaker, this same risk exists from exposure to the EMF's associated with common household appliances. Dr. H. B. Graves, a research biologist, does not believe that exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with this transmission line will cause adverse health effects in plants, animals or persons. Dr. Graves was also chairman of the Florida Electric and Magnetic Fields Science Advisory Commission which authored a report published in March of 1985, entitled "Biological Effects of 60-Hz Power Transmission Lines." The study had the participation of DER and the United States Department of Energy and was funded by the Florida Power Coordinating Group. It was the conclusion of this report that it is unlikely that human exposure to 60Hz EMFs from high voltage transmission lines presents a public health problem. Other reputable scientific groups have reached the same conclusion. The Florida Commission did concede that ambiguities in currently available scientific knowledge do exist and thus it can not be concluded with absolute certainty that there is no chance that a public health problem exists. New scientific developments should continue to be monitored. An analysis of the totality of the evidence presented in this proceeding on the EMF issue results in the finding that this transmission line will not cause or lead to adverse biological effects. Impacts of Proposed Corridors upon the Environment Water Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife. Water Resources. The primary and secondary corridors traverse or contain a variety of surface water resources. These water resources are characteristic of the central Florida area and include natural and manmade ponds and lakes, flowing streams, rivers, cypress swamps, mixed hardwood swamps, freshwater marshes and other kinds of wetlands, including areas which are only seasonally inundated. The largest wetland areas crossed are those associated with Cypress Creek near I-275 and with Fox Branch, a tributary to the Hillsborough River. The major receiving waters for these lakes and watercourses are (from west to east) Double Branch, Rocky Creek, Hillsborough River, Cypress Creek and South Branch. All lakes and watercourses crossed by the proposed corridors are designated as Class III waters by Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. There are no Outstanding Florida Waters within the proposed corridors. There are three public drinking water supply well fields located near the divergent secondary corridor. There are no springs in either corridor. The proposed primary corridor contains a fewer number of waterbodies than the proposed secondary corridor, and many of the water bodies within the primary corridor are already within the existing Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way. Florida Power Corporation has committed to utilize a number of construction, operation and maintenance techniques in wetlands to avoid any potential adverse hydrologic and water quality effects. For example, in wetlands clean fill will be used, no stump removal or demucking will occur, felled timbers will be placed beneath roads to bear traffic and minimize soil compaction, roads will be constructed to a height of only one foot above water level to allow for surface flow and culverts will be installed to maintain sheet flow. Roadways will be rapidly revegetated to provide stability. Because of the low flow velocities in affected wetland areas, the effects of increased turbidity during construction should be minimal and temporary. The construction and maintenance of the transmission line will have no measurable effect upon groundwater. Since all borings and drill holes will be grouted, there will be no disturbance of the separation between the surficial and the Floridan aquifers and groundwater flow will not be impeded by soil removal. Because it is impractical to delineate site-specific designs for activities within wetlands during the corridor certification process, Florida Power Corporation has agreed to a post-certification review process for approval of site-specific dredge and fill activities. Compliance with the stipulated conditions of certification as set forth in Appendix A will provide DER and SWFID with reasonable assurances that water quality standards will be complied with. The Fox Branch System. As noted, Fox Branch is a tributary of the Hillsborough River and is comprised of some 2,450 acres of forested wetland. It drains the northwest flow of the Lakeland Ridge, an urbanized area of relatively high elevation located north of the City of Lakeland. The proposed corridor crosses the Fox Branch system at its widest point and the right- of-way could not be located to avoid the wetlands. While the 1,500-foot wide corridor includes a total of about 135 acres of wetlands associated with Fox Branch, only about 15.86 acres would be included within the cleared 150-foot wide right-of-way. Only 0.65 percent of the total wetlands will be cleared and only about 2.2 acres or 0.09 percent of the total wetlands will be filled for access roads. The conditions of certification attached as Appendix A require post-certification review by the appropriate agencies of all jurisdictional dredge and fill activities. The proposed construction techniques, conditions of certification and post-certification review of construction across Fox Branch are adequate to protect the water resources of that area. Vegetation. In areas outside the existing Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way, the proposed 500 kV transmission line will result in some loss and disturbance of plant life. The vegetation communities which occur in both corridors are typical to those found in similar areas throughout central Florida. No unique or endangered species of plant life have been observed in either corridor. While canopy and tall wood vegetation will be cleared along the proposed rights-of-way, plant communities will not be totally destroyed. Rather, the clearing and maintenance will force a shift from the existing successional stages of vegetation to an earlier successional stage. The divergent secondary segment of the corridor contains a greater number of unaltered and undisturbed wetlands, but the divergent primary segment includes the more extensive, mature and diverse vegetation community associated with Cypress Creek, though this waterbody has been previously disturbed by I-275. If proper construction and maintenance techniques are followed, as proposed and as set forth in the conditions of certification, any adverse impacts upon vegetation communities should be minimized. Wildlife. Since both proposed corridors contain many areas of swamp, marsh, lakes, ponds, streams and forested wetlands, there are numerous species of wildlife which inhabit these areas. Both corridors contain similar habitat types and the value of any particular area for supporting wildlife habitat is primarily determined by the size of the area and the degree to which the area is developed or otherwise disturbed. There are no particularly unique habitats located within the divergent segment of the primary corridor and there are no known endangered or threatened wildlife species residing therein. Because the divergent secondary corridor is longer and more undeveloped at this point in time, it contains a larger amount and greater diversity of undisturbed wildlife habitat than does the divergent primary segment. Also there are two endangered or threatened species which actually reside within or adjacent to the divergent secondary corridor. These are the Southern Bald Eagle and the Florida Sandhill Crane. There are two apparently active bald eagle nests located south of the southern edge of the secondary corridor. One is approximately 1,000 to 1,100 feet south and the other is approximately 1,500 to 1,600 feet south of the edge of the corridor. While the corridor in this area does not cross any open water, there are lakes and ponds to the north of the corridor in which the eagles may feed, and the corridor lies between the nests and these lakes and ponds. The potential for injury to the eagles from collision with the transmission line is slight due to the visual acuity of an eagle and the fact that only about 0.07 percent of the bird population in general dies as a result of collision with power lines. There are no federal or state laws prohibiting a transmission line within a certain distance of an eagle's nest, though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does have a guideline indicating that activities within 1,500 feet of an eagle's nest should be reviewed to minimize effects. Florida Power Corporation has agreed to a condition of certification which calls for such a review and has agreed to consult with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission regarding the type and timing of construction activities should the right-of-way be located within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle's nest. Active eagles' nests do presently exist near other transmission lines in Florida. Though difficult to distinguish from the migratory, unthreatened Greater Sandhill Crane, the non-migratory, threatened Florida Sandhill Crane has been sighted within or near the divergent segment of the secondary corridor. While there is a potential for a disturbance of this threatened species from the construction and existence of a transmission line, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the secondary corridor contains critical habitat features or that the Florida Sandhill Crane actually nests within or near the proposed corridor. As noted above, collisions with transmission lines have had no significant effect upon other bird populations. Nonprocedural Requirements of Agencies. If the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A are imposed and met, the location, construction and maintenance of the transmission line will comply with the non- procedural requirements of state, regional and local governmental agencies. Variances or exceptions from local zoning ordinances may be required in some instances, and Florida Power Corporation provided notice in its application of those specific regulations from which variances, exceptions or exemptions may be required. However, insufficient evidence was adduced during the certification hearing to permit a factual finding as to the actual types of zoning variances or exceptions which may be required. The exact location of the rights-of-way and the placement of structures within-the rights-of-way will be determinative of the need for local zoning variances or exceptions. Comprehensive Plan Considerations. Transmission lines are generally compatible with the various types of land uses which will be traversed by both the primary and secondary corridors. However, the primary corridor is much more consistent with the various local comprehensive plans than is the proposed secondary corridor. This is primarily due to the fact that the primary corridor, both in its westerly segment and in its divergent segment, follows existing rights-of way, including the Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line and I-275, thereby coordinating linear facilities and minimizing conflicting land uses. Placement of the 500 kV line and towers within the right-of-way for the existing Higgins-Fort Meade line will present only incrementally greater land use impacts as opposed to completely new impacts, both aesthetic and environmental, were the line to be located within the divergent secondary segment. Both the Pasco County and the Hillsborough County comprehensive plans encourage harmonious surrounding land uses, the preservation of viable neighborhoods and the promotion of joint uses of land. Location of the line in the primary corridor, because of the prior existence of the Higgins-Fort Meade line, will be consistent with the objectives contained within the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, known as the Horizon 2000 Plan. The Hillsborough County plan does contain a policy of protecting residential areas from encroachment by undesireable and incompatible uses and the permission of only those activities which directly serve the residential area affected. The proposed 500 kV line will not service the residents in the primary corridor. However, since the residential areas existing along the Higgins-Fort Meade right-of-way developed subsequent and in spite of the existence of that right-of-way, it is found that the location of the new line within the proposed divergent primary corridor does not constitute the encroachment of an undesirable or incompatible use. Likewise, it is found that the proposed 500 kV line and associated facilities will not constitute a "blighting influence" within the prohibition of Hillsborough County's Policy 2.3.1.1.3. Construction and maintenance of the proposed transmission line as planned and in accordance with the conditions of certification will not be inconsistent with either the Polk County Comprehensive Plan or the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's growth policy. As noted above, proper construction and maintenance will not adversely affect the flow regime, the recharge capabilities or the filtering capabilities of the Fox Branch wetland system. Cost Considerations. Florida Power Corporation estimated the costs of the location and construction of the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen transmission line in both the proposed primary and secondary corridors. The estimated costs include costs for right-of-way acquisition, right- of-way preparation, road construction, tower construction, angles and other structures and conductors. The estimated costs include a 19 percent markup for indirect costs. The estimated costs do not include the acquisition of improvements that may be within the rights-of-way, severance damages to adjoining lands or the costs of acquiring the land through eminent domain proceedings. These latter costs were not included because they vary from parcel to parcel and are difficult to estimate. They will, however, clearly be incurred and will be substantial. Florida Power Corporation estimates that the cost of locating and constructing the line in the primary corridor will range between $24,386,000 and $32,994,000 if the delta towers are used, and between $24,071,000 and $32,568,000 if the vertical towers are used. The estimated costs for the secondary corridor are between $26,459,000 and $35,800,000. The prime difference in costs between the two corridors are the costs associated with the acquisition of the rights-of-way. The evidence establishes that the estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition within the divergent segment of the secondary corridor are greatly understated. This is due to the noninclusion of costs associated with eminent domain proceedings and costs for severance damages. Since some 12.7 miles more right-of-way must be acquired in the secondary corridor, the amount of these costs will greatly increase the overall secondary corridor costs estimated. Also, the trend toward more development in the secondary corridor will increase land values with the passage of time. In addition, the estimated cost for the primary corridor did not include a credit for the salvage value of the components of the Higgins-Fort Meade line which will be dismantled. In any event, the cost of the project will be at least $2 million to $3 million less if the primary corridor rather than the secondary corridor is utilized, and the differential in costs in favor of the primary corridor is most likely much greater. The issue of whether Florida Power Corporation has either abandoned or overburdened its existing Fort Meade-Higgins right-of-way in the 9.7 mile long divergent segment of the primary corridor has been fully briefed and the easement documents were received into evidence. Obviously, if the 100-foot right-of-way cannot be utilized without acquiring new easements or enlarging and enhancing existing easements, the cost of the primary corridor will be greatly in excess of that estimated by Florida Power Corporation. Florida Power Corporation did include some costs in its estimate for the acquisition of additional easement rights within the divergent primary segment. The Higgins-Fort Meade transmission line right-of-way was established in 1951. Florida Power Corporation acquired a number of express easements by grant, almost all of which allow Florida Power Corporation to improve, repair and rebuild the lines and increase the number of lines and voltage. The rights to the right-of-way continue as long as Florida Power Corporation uses them or until use is abandoned. In those few instances where there is no express easement, Florida Power Corporation has acquired prescriptive rights to the easement. In October or November of 1984, Florida Power Corporation de-energized the Higgins-Fort Meade double-circuit 115 kV transmission line. No lines or structures have been removed. At all times, it has been Florida Power Corporation's intent to either use the existing right-of-way easements for an upgraded transmission line or to sell the easements to another power company. Florida Power Corporation has never intended to abandon its 100-foot right-of-way within the primary corridor and did not do so by de-energizing the line in late 1984. There was insufficient evidence adduced to conclude that the replacement of the existing line with a 500 kV line would overburden existing easements to the extent that additional compensation would be required. Preference of Florida Power Corporation. Primarily because of the rapidly developing nature of the area surrounding the proposed secondary corridor, the consequences of that factor upon land use and cost considerations, and the prior existence of the Higgins-Fort Meade rights-of-way, Florida Power Corporation prefers that all segments of the proposed primary corridor be certified for the location of the Lake Tarpon-Kathleen 500 kV transmission line.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, grant certification for the location of the primary corridor and the construction and maintenance of the transmission line within that corridor as proposed in the application and in accordance with the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A. It is also RECOMMENDED that, as a further condition of certification, Florida Power Corporation be required to seek any necessary interest in state lands, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, from that Board prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting that land, pursuant to Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes, (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Graham Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Connor Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 H. A. Evertz, III, Esquire Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 John Bottcher, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph Artigliere, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, P.A. Post Office Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 J. Edward Curren, Esquire Ms. Patricia Dorris Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 33512 Frederick B. Karl, Esquire Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Elizabeth L. Eddy, Esquire Carolyn J. House, Esquire Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 David Smolker, Esquire Pasco County 4025 Moon Lake Road New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Dorothy Trogolo, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 7530 Little Road New Port Richey, Florida 33553 Mark F. Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830 Ronald E. Cotterill, Esquire Cotterill, Gonzalez & Fisher 126 Flagship Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 Alton B. Parker, Esquire Steve Reynolds, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Register, Jr., Esquire Register and Park 625 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Gerald Rabin 2708 East Stone Terrace Lakeland, Florida 33803 Ms. Debra A. Worley Big Lake Como Lake Association Post Office Box 488 Lutz, Florida 33549 Michelle Russell, Esquire Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire Martin & Figurski Post Office Box 786 New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Joseph A. McGlothlin, Esquire Enola R. Brown, Esquire Lawson, McWhirter, Grandoff & Reeves Post Office Box 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601 Mr. Donald W. Rairigh Paradise Lakes Condominium Homeowners Association Post Office Box 750 Land O' Lakes, Florida 33539 Timothy G. Hayes, Esquire Cotterill, Gonzalez & Fisher 126 Flagship Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 James V. Lau, Esquire Mary A. Lau, Esquire Lau, Lane, Piper & Asti, P.A. Post Office Box 838 Tampa, Florida 33601-0838 Margaret J. Bowles, Esquire Taub & Williams Post Office Box 3430 Tampa, Florida 33601 Robert S. Wise, Esquire 304 Northwood Drive Lutz, Florida 33549 John E. Lund, Esquire Cicero, Lund & Williams, P.A. 707 Franklin Street Mall Tampa, Florida 33602 John Radey, Esquire Aurell, Fons, Radey & Hinkle Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lynn H. Townsend, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 Ms. Anne Thomas 3416 Almeria Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 Charles R. McCoy, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 S. Meridian Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. MS 58, Room 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Roger Howe, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Van B. Cook, Esquire Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Bennett L. Rabin, Esquire Harold H. Goldman, P.A. 10020 South Federal Highway Port St. Lucie, Florida 33549 Mr. Will James Shephard 14037 N. Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33618 Ms. Nancie Poole 17 Eagle Lane Lutz, Florida 33549 Mr. John E. Greenslade 2901 Barcelona Street Tampa, Florida 33629 Lucius M. Dyal, Jr., Esquire Shackelford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 S. Cary Gaylord, Esquire Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Schuster & Sachs 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of locating two 500 kV transmission lines scheduled to be placed in service in 1985. These lines will be part of a transmission expansion plan to provide a 500 kV transmission network along the Florida east coast from Georgia to southeast Florida. This transmission network will allow the import of coal-generated electricity from the Southern Company in Georgia and transfers of coal-generated electricity from future generating facilities located in Duval County and Putnam County. This transmission corridor is referred to as the Duval-Poinsett Transmission Corridor. The northern terminus of the corridor is to be located in Duval County and the southern terminus of the corridor is to be located in Orange County. The length of the corridor is approximately 175 miles. Within the corridor there will be placed a 330 foot wide right-of-way for two 500 kV transmission lines constructed upon tubular steel H-frame structures with an approximate span between structures of 1,320 feet. Although the width of the right-of-way would normally not exceed 330 feet, that width could extend to 380 feet where angle structures in the line are required. Similarly, in some places the right-of-way may be narrower than 330 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1981), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated June 29, 1981, concluded that: The two proposed Duval-Poinsett 500 kV transmission lines will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The two proposed Duval-Poinsett 500 kV transmission lines will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The Duval Substation and the Poinsett Substation are appropriate starting and ending points for the proposed line. The Public Service Commission then determined that the proposed transmission line is needed. Notice of the final certification hearing as scheduled for November 23, 1981, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 7, No. 42, October 16, 1981; The Daytona Beach Morning Journal, on September 24, 1981; The Florida Times Union, on September 23, 1981; The Sentinel Star, on September 23, 1981; and The Palatka Daily News, on September 24, 1981. Pursuant to motion, the final hearing as scheduled for November 23, 1981, was subsequently continued to January 11, 1982. Pursuant to that continuance, notice of the final certification hearing as continued was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 7, No. 51, December 18, 1981; The Daytona Beach Sunday News Journal, on November 22, 1981; The Florida Times Union, on November 21, 1981; The Palatka Daily News, on November 20, 1981; and The Sentinel Star, on November 12, 1981. All parties to this proceeding had actual notice of the proceeding. For the purposes of this Recommended Order the corridor for which FP&L seeks certification will be broken into six segments as follows: the Duval-to- Rice Segment; the Palatka Area Segment (Rice Substation to Putnam-Flagler County line); the Flagler County Segment; the Volusia County Segment; the Seminole County Segment; and the Orange County Segment. In addition, a corridor segment from Interstate IV in Volusia County, south through Brevard County, and west to the Poinsett Substation in Orange County, was proposed by certain parties in this proceeding and will be referred to herein as the "Geneva Alternate Corridor." The corridor as proposed is approximately one mile wide except that, in some places, the applicant has proposed, in agreement with certain parties, that the width be less than one mile. During the progress of this proceeding, both prior to and during final hearing, in the process of litigating the disputes between the parties, certain changes to the location of the corridor as set forth in the application have been proposed by parties and accepted by the applicant. Thus, the alignment of the corridor now specifically sought by the applicant differs from that originally proposed in the application. The corridor as now proposed and recommended by the applicant is set forth in Composite Attachments II and III to this Recommended Order. The six segments listed above and depicted by Composite Attachments II and III are generally described as follows: Duval to Rice Segment - that part of the corridor as proposed from the Duval Substation through Duval, Clay and Putnam Counties to the Rice Substation. Palatka Area Segment - a corridor proceeding southwest from the Rice Substation, in a southerly direction to the west of the City of Palatka and in an easterly direction south of Palatka, to the Flagler County line. Flagler County Segment - that part of the proposed corridor alignment through the central portion of Flagler County. Volusia County Segment - that part of the proposed corridor through the central region of Volusia County crossing the Volusia-Seminole County line west of Lake Ashby. Seminole County Segment - that part of the proposed corridor through the eastern region of Seminole County. Orange County Segment - that part of the proposed corridor through the eastern region of Orange County to the termination at the Poinsett Substation. There are no unique physical features within the proposed corridor that would reasonably preclude from an engineering point of view the location of a transmission line right-of-way and the construction of two 500 kV transmission lines with associated access/maintenance roads. Placement of two 500 kV transmission lines within the corridor as proposed does not conflict with any local government comprehensive plan. A right of way can be located within the corridor as proposed without the displacement of any existing home. However, the possibility does exist that homes or other structures could be built after the final certification hearing in this cause in such a manner as to necessarily subject it to displacement in the location of a right of way. Similarly, it is possible that negotiations with property owners pertinent to the ultimate location of the right of way could result in the removal of a home for economic, environmental or other land use reasons. Taken as a whole, the impact of the proposed corridor on property values adjacent to or in the vicinity of the right-of-way will be minimal. Where the highest and best use of land is agriculture, there will be almost no impact on property values because almost none of the land will be withdrawn from its agricultural use. For land whose highest and best use is timber production, the right-of-way with its transmission lines will not Significantly interfere with such production and can serve as a firebreak and all-weather access. Thus, it is possible that the value of the entire timber tract which becomes subject to a transmission line right-of-way would not be significantly diminished. Semi-rural lands with development potential which have not been subdivided will be very slightly impacted with regard to land value because the development of property within an existing right-of-way can take into account such a right-of- way and significantly negate its impact on land value. There will be an impact on the land value of suburban homesites one to ten acres in size. This impact would typically be minimal except in a situation where the remaining property in a parcel after placement of the right-of-way is no longer suited for a homesite. It is reasonable to assume that in placing a transmission line right-of-way 175 miles in length, it would not be reasonably possible to avoid all such suburban homesites. The corridor as proposed in this proceeding successfully keeps such contact with suburban homesites to a minimum. The most significant diminution in property values from placement of a transmission line right-of-way occurs in high-valued urban areas. No such areas are included within the corridor as proposed. A 500 kV transmission line is an extra high voltage line. The highest electrical field strength on the right-of-way of the proposed 500 kV transmission lines measured one meter above the ground will be approximately ten kilovolts per meter and the field strength will diminish with distance from the line. The maximum magnetic field associated with the proposed transmission line under normal loading conditions will be approximately 0.4 gauss. Under emergency loading conditions, the maximum magnetic-field could be as high as 0.8 gauss. Testimony and evidence establishes that the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. The minimum clearance of the conductors will be 35 feet and in all cases will conform to the criteria contained in the applicable National Electric Safety Code. These criteria reasonably eliminate the possibility of harmful shocks resulting from electric field induction. If perceptible electric shocks are encountered, they can be eliminated by grounding the object offering the shocks. During fair weather, the audible noise at the edge of the right-of-way produced by the transmission lines will be at or less than ambient levels. The maximum foul weather ambient noise level in Florida is approximately 52dB(A), and the average level of foul weather ambient noise is approximately 42dB(A). Under foul weather conditions the maximum audible noise level produced by the proposed transmission lines at the edge of the right-of-way will be approximately 50.6dB(A) and the average audible noise will be approximately 47dB(A). This is a low noise level. This noise level will diminish with distance from the line. During worst foul weather conditions, the audible noise of the proposed transmission linens might be by someone within a home at the immediate edge of the right-of-way with the windows open. With the windows closed, the attenuation through the structure should be sufficient to reduce the audible noise level of the transmission lines below that of the ambient level within the home. In fair weather, inside a home at the immediate edge of the right-of-way the transmission lines will not be audible, even with the windows open. No electromagnetic interference from the proposed transmission lines will occur for FM radio and two-way communication facilities using frequency modulated inter-communication systems. Under fair weather conditions, there should be little or no interference with Type A stations (as defined by the Federal Communications Commission) at the edge of the right-of-way. Under foul weather conditions, a receiver more than 150 feet from the edge of the right-of- way receiving a Type A station will not experience interference from the proposed transmission lines. However, within 150 feet from the edge of the right-of-way, such a station could experience interference from the proposed transmission lines. Under fair weather conditions, there should be no interference of the Type B stations as defined by the Federal Communications Commission, at receivers more than fifty feet from the edge of the right-of-way. Under foul weather conditions, a Type B station could potentially receive interference from the proposed transmission lines up to 650 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. There should be no significant electromagnetic interference with the audio portion of television signals from the proposed transmission lines. No interference is expected beyond the edge of the right-of-way to the video portion of the signals for Grade A television stations as defined by the Federal Communications Commission. There is a potential for interference with minimum Grade B stations during the worst foul weather conditions out to distances of 200 to 400 feet from the edge of the right-of-way in Channels 2 through 6. Otherwise, it is not expected that any electromagnetic interference with the video portion of the signals for Grade B stations in Channels 7 through 53 would occur outside the right-of-way. The transmission lines will not create electromagnetic interference with radio communications or radio navigation systems required in the operation of the Daytona Beach Regional Airport. No harmful radio interference is expected from the proposed transmission lines at the Volusia County Civil Defense Communication Center. Physical shielding of the transmission lines could potentially shield out the radio signals from the station, but it is extremely unlikely that such interference would occur. With the exception of those stations located immediately adjacent to or underneath the transmission lines, there should be no impact on Citizen's Band radios. The range of the Southern Bald Eagle, which is on the Federal Endangered Species List and the State Threatened Species List, extends throughout the area of the proposed corridor. A reasonable guideline is that development should not occur within 1500 feet of an active eagle's nest after a site specific determination has been made that the proposed development will not impact the nesting eagle. Only one Southern Bald Eagle's nest has been identified within the proposed corridor. It is on the extreme northern boundary of the corridor south of Palatka. Considering the location of that nest, there is sufficient flexibility within the proposed corridor to place the actual transmission lines at least 1500 feet from the nest. There are two other endangered or threatened species to which special attention should be paid with regard to the construction of a transmission line and associated facilities. These are the Red Cockaded Woodpecker and the Scrub Jay. The range of the Red Cockaded Woodpecker extends throughout the proposed corridor. No known locations of Red Cockaded Woodpeckers occur within the proposed corridor. Such woodpeckers are likely to occur where there are mature pine trees over 45 years of age. Such trees may occur within the proposed corridor. Red Cockaded Woodpeckers excavate cavities within such trees wherein which they nest. A colony is a grouping of such cavity trees occupied by a single clan of of Red cockaded Woodpeckers. Colony areas typically range from 5 to 30 acres and are generally round or oval in configuration. To avoid any negative effects upon a Red Cockaded Woodpecker clan, the transmission line should go around the colony. A site-specific evaluation could indicate that less stringent mitigative measures would be satisfactory to avoid adverse impact on a particular woodpecker clan. The range of the Florida Scrub Jay encompasses several areas within the proposed corridor. The Scrub Jay is typically found in scrub oak, myrtle oak, and live oak less than 25 feet tall. Construction and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not significantly affect the Florida Scrub Jay nor the Scrub Jay habitat, because substantially less than all the scrub jay habitat located within the corridor will ultimately be cleared within the proposed right-of-way. Existing low-growing vegetational species will be allowed to remain on the right-of-way to a significant degree with the exception of the access/maintenance road area and a small working area around the structures. It is possible that the construction of the proposed transmission lines with their associated access/maintenance roads could result in violations of water quality standards. The evidence indicates that such violations do not normally occur however. In order to mitigate the possibility of such a violation, the applicant has proposed as a condition of certification to which condition the Department of Environmental Regulation has agreed, that prior to construction in any area over which DER has dredge and fill jurisdiction as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, the applicant will submit detailed site specific information to DER as required in the Dredge/Fill Joint Application, Department of Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for Activities in Waters of the State. The provision of this information is sufficient to allow the identification of potential water quality violations before such violations actually occur and to thus avoid any actual water quality violations. Because of the nature of the construction of transmission lines of the type proposed in this application and because of the mitigative measures proposed by the applicant, no significant adverse impact on wetlands crossed by the proposed transmission lines is expected. The removal of vegetative canopy over a wetland which can result in a possible increase in a solar impact on the organisms living within the wetland will be Substantially mitigated because all brush and vegetation less than fifteen feet tall will be allowed to remain except for fast-growing species which will be cut if over five feet tall. Root mats will be left intact in wetland areas thus avoiding possible damage to trees. The impoundment or draining of water in a wetland can occur if the access/maintenance roads are not properly constructed and culverted. As proposed in this application, the placement of access/maintenance roads in wetland areas will be constructed so as not to significantly affect the surface regime of the wetlands within the proposed corridor. There will be no significant adverse impact to aquifer recharge capabilities resulting from the construction of the proposed transmission lines. With the exception of the Palatka Area Segment, the Department of Environmental Regulation has stipulated and agreed that the corridor as presently proposed meets the requirements for certification set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1981). Residential development in the Duval-Rice Segment can be essentially avoided. That segment has no unique agricultural land nor any known archaeological sites. In the southern portion of the Duval-to-Rice Segment is the Etonia Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, a privately owned property designated a sanctuary by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. There is adequate land within the proposed corridor for the placement of a right-of-way outside the boundaries of the sanctuary. There are no major water bodies located within the Duval-to-Rice Segment. The Falling Branch Ravine area can be avoided in the placement of the right-of-way. The Palatka Area Segment is opposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation and the City of Palatka. Putnam County argues in favor of the Palatka Area Segment as proposed. That segment as proposed would place the right-of-way for the transmission lines through a stretch of the St. Johns River Swamp. This is a riverine hardwood swamp of environmental value. There has been no showing that this particular riverine hardwood swamp is of any more significant value than any other similar swamp or wetland area traversed by other segments of the proposed corridor. The Palatka Area Segment of the corridor as proposed by the applicant would require a river crossing of the St. Johns approximately one-half mile wide entailing two tower locations in the water. There are two known archaeological sites in this segment of the proposed corridor which are avoidable by the right-of way. Timbering activities are currently occurring in the riverine hardwood swamp south of the City of Palatka in the vicinity of the proposed corridor. A 330 foot right-of-way within the proposed corridor south of the City of Palatka would encompass approximately 120 to 125 acres of the riverine hardwood swamp. That is less than three percent of the total riverine hardwood swamp in that location. Actually less than 100 to 125 acres of the swamp will be directly impacted by the construction of a proposed transmission line because all of the right-of-way will not be cleared in the construction of a transmission line. No evidence was presented which would establish the significance of the impact on the St. Johns River or the St. Johns River Swamp of the construction of the proposed transmission lines and a right-of-way through the proposed corridor. The City of Palatka proposes to site a sewage treatment plant within the proposed corridor outside of the Palatka city limits. This plant would require approximately ten to twenty acres. Necessary federal and state approval has not been received by the City. No evidence was presented from which it could be concluded that the proposed transmission lines would interfere in any manner with the plans of the City of Palatka for the siting of its sewage treatment plant. The Palatka Area Segment as proposed would have little impact on existing residential areas and would not require the displacement of any homes. The Department of Environmental Regulation has argued in favor of an alternative to the Palatka Area Segment as proposed which would entail a river crossing of the St. Johns north of the City of Palatka rather than south of the City. This alternative segment proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation as an alternative would transit riverine hardwood swamp and parallel the drainage of Rice Creek. It would require a crossing of the St. Johns River one and one-half miles wide and potentially require as many as fourteen tower locations in the river proper. It would require the displacement of at least one home on the east bank of the St. Johns River and would result in the surrounding of several existing homes with transmission lines. The alternate segment as proposed by DER contains unique farmland to the east of the St. Johns River. There is one known archaeological site in the alternate segment proposed by DER. The alternate proposed by DER is approximately 6.15 miles shorter than the Palatka Area Segment proposed by the applicant and the cost of placing the proposed transmission lines within a right-of-way in the corridor proposed by DER is approximately 2.24 million dollars less than in the Palatka Area Segment proposed by the applicant. No party to this proceeding presented any evidence for the purpose of showing that the Flagler County Segment was not suitable for certification in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1981). One party to this proceeding, The Container Corporation, chose not to address the factual issues in this proceeding, but did object to the adequacy of notice as to the corridor segment that crossed its property in Flagler County. The Flagler County Segment crosses the Haw Creek drainage at the narrowest point possible. One of the large wetland areas traversed by the Flagler County Segment has already been subjected to significant drainage practices north of State Road 205 and the transmission lines would not be expected to significantly accelerate that impact. The Flagler County Segment contains two cemeteries which can be avoided in the placement of the right-of-way. There are three unavoidable water crossings in the Flagler County Segment and approximately ten miles of abandoned railroad-bed which, if paralleled, could provide access to the proposed transmission lines. The Flagler County Segment traverses a relatively small amount of planted land and contains fewer homes than any proposed alternative. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission have recommended certification of the Flagler County Segment as proposed by the applicant. The Volusia County Segment of the corridor is opposed by the Geneva Citizen's Association, the owners of Seminole County, Inc. and Seminole County, which parties support an alternate corridor proceeding from I-4 in Volusia County south through Brevard County and west to the Poinsett Substation in Orange County. The Volusia County Segment contains fewer wetland acres than any of the other possible corridors discussed herein. Further, those wetlands are dominated by cypress wetlands rather than hardwood swamp wetlands which would dominate in other possible corridors. The Volusia County Segment closely follows ridgelines thus facilitating a right-of-way with a minimum of wetland crossings. The segment contains more planted pines than the other possible alternatives discussed. Planted pines are not a particularly productive wildlife habitat. There is essentially no development in the Volusia County Segment of the proposed corridor. There is a field of unique agriculture land in the Volusia County Segment which would not be spanable by the transmission line. The Volusia County Segment intrudes upon the Volusia Water Recharge Area, which is an environmentally endangered land, by about one-third of a mile. No evidence was presented to show that the placement of a transmission line right- of-way and the construction of a transmission line as proposed would have any impact upon such a recharge area. There is one unavoidable stream crossing in the Volusia County Segment. The Seminole County Segment is opposed by Seminole County, Geneva Citizen's Association, and the Owners of Seminole County, Inc., in the same manner as they opposed the Volusia County Segment. There are no known archaeological sites within the Seminole County Segment of the proposed corridor, nor are there any unique agricultural lands within the Seminole County Segment. There is existing development in the Seminole County Segment in the area east of the community of Geneva in Seminole County. It is possible to place a 330 foot right-of-way through the Seminole County Segment of the proposed corridor without displacing any homes. Properties in the Geneva area of Seminole County which are suitable for sale as five-acre tracts are worth approximately $6,000 per acre. No evidence was presented from which it could be found as a matter of fact that any change in the value of those properties would occur from the construction of the proposed transmission lines. Geneva is a small rural community. In 1980 the census figures for the Geneva-Chuluota area exceeded 3,800. The Seminole County Segment of the proposed corridor encompasses only a small part of that area for which the 1980 population census exceeded 3,800. The population density for the area is very light. Although part of the area within the Seminole County Segment is a recharge area for the aquifer, no evidence has been presented from which it could be found that construction of a transmission line will negatively impact such a recharge area. The predominant zoning category of Seminole County within the Seminole County Segment of the proposed corridor is A-1 Agricultural. There are no unique agricultural lands within the Orange County Segment of the proposed corridor. The segment does contain wetland areas, but not in significantly greater or lesser amounts than in any other corridor that might be chosen. The Orange County Segment as proposed encompasses minimal development and has fewer stream crossings than any alternative considered in this proceeding. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the St. Johns River Water Management District and Orange County have stipulated and recommended that the Orange County Segment of the proposed corridor meets the requirements for certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1981). There was raised in this proceeding another alternate segment referred to as the Geneva Alternate Segment which begins in Volusia County south of Interstate 4 proceeding to the east of Lake Ashby, south through Brevard County, and then west to the Poinsett Substation in Orange County. Proponents of this alternate segment are the Geneva Citizen's Association, the Owners of Seminole County, Inc., and Seminole County. One of the primary purposes of this alternate was to avoid placing the corridor in the Geneva Area in Seminole County. The applicant has not adopted this alternate as part of its request for certification of a corridor. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and Brevard County oppose the Geneva Alternate Segment. The Geneva Alternate Segment does not have as much residential development as the Volusia County Segment, Seminole County Segment and Orange County Segment combined. The Geneva Alternate Segment traverses approximately one and one-half miles of the St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge and approximately one and one-half miles of the Tosohatchee State Preserve and approximately ten to twelve miles of the Farmton Wildlife Management Area. The construction of a transmission line is not consonant with the purposes of a national wildlife refuge or a state preserve. Construction of a transmission line is not necessarily inconsistent with the purposes of a wildlife management area. There are sixteen unavoidable water crossings in the Geneva Alternate Segment. There are eight unavoidable water crossings in the corridor as proposed by the applicant for which the Geneva Alternate Segment is a replacement. There are approximately seventeen miles of unavoidable wetlands in the Geneva Alternate with eleven to twelve miles of these being continuous. In the corridor proposed by the applicant south of Interstate 4, there are approximately one and one-half miles of unavoidable wetlands which are numerous and scattered. The corridor south of Interstate 4 as proposed by the applicant is approximately 2.96 miles shorter than the Geneva Alternate Segment. It will cost approximately 4.7 million dollars less to construct the proposed transmission lines within the corridor south of Interstate 4 as proposed by the applicant than it would cost to construct the same lines in the Geneva Alternate. The Geneva Alternate Segment parallels exfsting transmission lines for all but approximately eight miles of its length. The applicant notified all counties and municipalities through which the proposed corridor passes that a variance or special exception from local ordinances which would be applicable to location, construction and maintenance activities within the right-of-way would be sought in this proceeding pursuant to Rule 17-17.64(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant and the Department of Environmental Regulation jointly propose certain conditions of certification which are attached hereto as Attachment I. Except as otherwise noted in the Findings of Fact herein, the testimony and evidence in this cause establishes that the proposed transmission lines, if constructed along a right-of-way in the corridor as finally proposed by the applicant and depicted in Attachments II and III hereto, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification proposed jointly by the applicant and DER, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. In general, neither would the Geneva Alternate Segment, as proposed, have any significant adverse effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare with certain exceptions. By traversing the St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge and the Tosohatchee State Preserve, the Geneva Alternate Segment creates a conflict with environmental land use not found in the corridor as proposed by the applicant.
Recommendation Having considered all matters of fact and law presented in this proceeding and being otherwise fully apprised, and based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That certification, pursuant to the Transmission Line Siting Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1981), be GRANTED to the Florida Power and Light Company for the location of the transmission line corridor, the construction of the transmission lines, and the maintenance of the transmission lines and right- of-way as proposed in the application and specifically delineated in Attachment III hereto. That such certification be made subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto as Attachment I and that, pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes (1981), that Florida Power and Light Company shall be required to seek any necessary interests in State lands, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, from the Board, prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting such lands. ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, 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 31st day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez and Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquires 420 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald E. Clark, Esquire Putnam County Attorney Post Office Drawer V Palatka, Florida 32077 Tom Cloud and Kaye Collie, Esquires Orange County Legal Department 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 George Kenneth Gilleland, II Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission First Floor - Farris Bryant Bullding 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis Hubener and John C. Bottcher, Esquires Department of Environmental Regulation 638 Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dawson Alexander McQuaig, Sr., General Counsel City of Jacksonville, City Hall - 13th Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Paul Sexton, Esquire Public Service Commission Legal Department Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Warren O. Tiller and Daniel Vaughen, Esquires Volusia County Legal Department Post Office Box 429 DeLand, Florida 32720 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 531 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nikki Clayton, Esquire Seminole County Legal Department Seminole County Courthouse North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Toby P. Brigham, Esquire Brigham Reynolds Byrne Muir and Gaylord The Reinhold Corporation 203 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Frank Bird Gummey, III and Reginald E. Moore, Esquires City of Daytona Beach Post Office Box 551 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Veteran and Community Affairs 2nd Floor - Howard Building 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hubert D. Pellicer, Administrative Assistant to Flagler County Commissioners Post Office Box 936 Bunnell, Florida 32310 Eugene Frazier Shaw, Esquire Clay County Attorney Post Office Box 838 Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Ernest Lee Worsham, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32077 John W. Williams, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Room 1003C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Noah C. McKinnon, Jr., Esquire Flagler County Attorney Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 William A. Leffler, III, Esquire Cypress Isles Homeowners Post Office Box 2298 Sanford, Florida 32771 Abbot M. Herring and Thomas Speer, Esquires Geneva Citizens Associations and Owners of Seminole County, Inc. 201 West First Street Sanford, Florida 32771 Roger A. Kelly Fishback Davis Dominick and Bennet 170 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (Attorneys for Hogan and Thompson) Robert M. Rhodes, Terry E. Lewis and James C. Hauser, Esquires Messer Rhodes and Vickers 701 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Attorneys for Dimension Investment Corp) Frederick W. Leonhardt, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard-Suite 130 Post Office Box 2134 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 (Attorney for Sun Country, Rima Ridge, Lone Pine and George Anderson, et al.) Florence T. Robbins, Esquire Greenberg Traurig Askew Hoffman Lipoff Quentel and Wolff, P.A. Brickell Concourse 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 (Attorney for Mario Gluck, Trustee)
Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of locating a 500 kV transmission line to provide dispersion of the additional power generated at the Crystal River Electric Power Plant when Unit 5 becomes operational in the fourth quarter of 1984. The northern terminus of the corridor is in Sumter County at the Central Florida Substation, located immediately south of State Road 44 in Section 24, Township 19 South, Range 23 East. The southern terminus of the corridor is in Polk County at the proposed Kathleen Substation, to be located north of U.S. Highway 98 in either Section 8 or 17, Township 26 South, Range 23 East. The length of the corridor is approximately 43 miles. The purpose of the corridor is to provide a 190 foot wide right-of-way for a 500 kV transmission line constructed upon steel lattice guyed V structures and four-legged, self-supporting steel lattice tower structures, with an approximate span between the structures of 1,200 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated July 21, 1981, concluded that: The construction of the proposed transmission line will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The proposed transmission line will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The Central Florida Substation and the proposed Kathleen Substation are the appropriate starting and ending points of the transmission line. The Public Service Commission then determined that the proposed transmission line is needed. Notice of the final certification hearing was published on October 9, 1981, in the Leesburg Commercial, a daily newspaper published at Leesburg in Lake County, Florida, and on October 11, 1981, in The Ledger, a daily newspaper published at Lakeland in Polk County, Florida. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, the corridor for which FPC seeks certification will be broken down into three segments -- the North Corridor Segment, the Central Corridor Segment, and the South Corridor Segment. The entire corridor for which FPC seeks certification is depicted on Attachment 1 hereto. The segments are generally described as follows: The North Corridor Segment begins at the Central Florida Substation and continues to the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and is 2,600 feet wide; The Central Corridor Segment begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and goes to a point which is the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, which is generally 2 miles east of State Road 471 and south of the Withlacoochee River; and The South Corridor Segment begins at the termination of the Central Corridor Segment and continues to the proposed Kathleen Substation north of U.S. Highway 98. The three segments are described in detail in the application (Applicant's Exhibit No. 22). Parties to this proceeding agree that the North Corridor Segment and the South Corridor Segment, with certain Conditions of Certification about which the parties also agree, meet the requirements for site certification under the Transmission Line Site Certification Act. However, a dispute exists between the parties with regard to the certification of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Applicant, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Transportation and C. M. Overstreet, et ux., argue in favor of the Central Corridor Segment as proposed by FPC. The Department of Environmental Regulation has proposed an alternative alignment to the Central Corridor Segment for which FPC seeks site certification. For purposes of this Recommended Order, this proposal by DER shall be referred to as the "DER Proposed Corridor." The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs argue in favor of the DER Proposed Corridor. The DER Proposed Corridor begins at the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest and, proceeding in a westerly direction, the corridor parallels the northern boundary of the Withlacoochee State Forest and crosses North Grade Road. After approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers), the corridor crosses SR 471 and the Little Withlacoochee River, enters Hernando County, and turns due south, entering the Withlacoochee State Forest. Proceeding south on the west side of Route 471, the corridor crosses an unnamed dirt road in Section 1 (Hernando County), Richloam Clay Sink Road, and Center Grade Road, enters Pasco County 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) south of the Little Withlacoochee River crossing, and crosses unnamed roads in Section 25 (Pasco County), and exits the State Forest on the north side of Section 36, Township 23 South, Range 22 East. This alignment continues south along the west side of SR 471 to the west southern boundary of the State Forest and crosses SR 471 to the east side at the northwest corner of Section 7, Township 24 South, Range 23, East. It continues south along the east side of SR 471 to the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East, where it turns east southeasterly to go along the northeasterly side of a straight line connecting the southwest corner of Section 6, Township 25 South, Range 23 East and the northeast corner of Section 17, Township 25 South, Range 23 East where it joins the southern segment. This southeastern diagonal alignment crosses the Withlacoochee River in the vicinity of Trail Ford Bridge and enters Polk County. This corridor is 1,000 feet wide. The Department of Environmental Regulation has also proposed, as a second alternative to the Central Corridor Segment, deflections of that Central Corridor Segment in the area of Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp. For the purposes of this Recommended Order this proposal will be referred to as the "DER Preferred Alternate Corridor." The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor is the same as the Central Corridor Segment proposed by FPC except that the Central Corridor Segment is routed around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp as follows: The Bayroot Slough bypass begins at the northeastern corner of Section 12, Township 23 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the south of a line from that point to the southwest corner at the same section, hence it parallels on the east a line from that point to the northeast corner of Section 24. This bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The Cross Creek Swamp bypass begins at the northeast corner of the southeastern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 32, Township 24 South, Range 23 East and parallels on the northern side of a southwesterly line from that point to the northeast corner of the southwestern quarter of the southeastern quarter of Section 5, Township 25 South, Range 23 East; and then parallels on the west a due south line to the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 and then parallels on the southern side of a southeasterly line to the southeast corner of Section 5 and joins the FPC preferred corridor. The bypass corridor is 190 feet wide. The land uses in the North Corridor Segment consist primarily of agricultural uses, improved pasture, orange groves, row crops and some hardwood hammocks. The prevalent land uses in that part of the Central Florida Segment within the Withlacoochee State Forest are timber management and game management. The prevalent land uses within that part of the Central Florida Segment south of the Withlacoochee State Forest are private timber management and cattle operations. The DER Proposed Corridor and the Central Corridor Segment, south of the Withlacoochee State Forest, are composed of approximately the same types and amounts of wet land and forested areas. The proposed corridor in the Central Corridor Segment crosses two large wetland systems, Cross Creek Swamp and Bayroot Slough. The entire corridor proposed by the Applicant contains approximately 1,100 acres of cypress wetland. Altering the FPC corridor in the manner suggested by DER in the DER Proposed Corridor would increase the cypress wetland acreage encompassed by the corridor to 1,300 acres. A similar comparison of the two corridors with regard to fresh water marsh indicates that the DER Proposed Corridor would reduce the acreage of fresh water marsh encompassed by the corridor from 800 acres in the FPC corridor to 600 acres. Both corridors contain similar amounts of fresh water swamp. There are three large wetland systems in the FPC Proposed Corridor. They are Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp, and Cross Creek Swamp. Bayroot Slough is approximately 3,600 acres in area, Devils Creek Swamp is 8,800 acres in area and Cross Creek Swamp, 1,145 acres in area. The Applicant proposes to build an access/maintenance road completely through Devils Creek Swamp on the eastern most 20 feet of its right-of-way. This access/maintenance road would be used as a partial base for a levee proposed to be constructed in the area by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This access/maintenance road would require the filling of approximately 9 acres, or one-tenth of one percent, of Devils Creek Swamp. In Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, as well as all other major wetland areas, with the exception of Devils Creek Swamp, the Applicant proposes to use keyhold fills for the placement of its towers and to leave the span between towers open with no placement of fill. These construction techniques are designed to permit sheet flow to continue in a near natural state, thus minimizing adverse impact on those wetland areas. In Bayroot Slough, approximately six acres, or less than two-tenths of one percent, are proposed to be filled in connection with construction of the subject line. In Cross Creek Swamp, approximately four acres, or less than four-tenths of one percent of the total swamp area, will be filled for the construction of an access/maintenance road. The DER Proposed Corridor would require approximately four additional miles of transmission line than would the corridor proposed by FPC. That would increase the cost of construction of the transmission line from approximately $23,174,000.00 to $25,824,000.00 Thus, the DER Proposed Corridor would cost $2,650,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The DER Preferred Alternate Corridor, which contains deflections around Bayroot Slough and Cross Creek Swamp, would require approximately .87 miles more transmission line than would the FPC Proposed Corridor and because of that additional length and the number of turning angles necessary,, would cost approximately $1,344,000.00 more to construct than would the corridor as proposed by FPC. The wetland systems in the region which contain Bayroot Slough, Devils Creek Swamp and Cross Creek Swamp are interrelated with regard to wildlife. This region is approximately 25,000 acres in size. Approximately 96 acres would be cleared and 19 acres filled with the construction of a transmission line along the corridor proposed by the Applicant. The right-of-way required for the proposed 500 kV transmission line will measure 190 feet in width. The transmission line will consist of one single circuit 500 kV line. The basic structure type selected for the proposed transmission line is a steel lattice guyed V. This structure will be used to support the conductors on straight portions of the line. At angles in the transmission line, the conductors will be supported by a four-legged, self- supporting steel lattice tower. These angle structures are significantly more expensive than the steel lattice guyed V structures. The structures will be constructed of steel angle sections and will be galvanized. The guy wires for the guyed V structure will be either aluminum coated steel cable or an aluminum cable with an approximate diameter of 1.0 to 2.0 inches. A four-legged self- supporting steel lattice structure may be used on some straight portions of the transmission line where required, due to soil conditions, clearances, or other engineering or environmental considerations. The structures will support a single three-phase alternating current, 500,000 volt circuit. Three conductors will be included in each phase, resulting in a total of nine conductors for the circuit. The structure also supports two overhead ground wires which protect the circuit from lightning strikes. The conductor will be supported in the structure by insulator and hardware assemblies. A typical foundation for the guyed V structure will be a cast-in-place reinforced concrete foundation. Guy wires will be attached. The angle structure will be supported on cast-in-place reinforced concrete cylinder foundations. The structures will be electrically grounded. The minimum conductor to ground clearance will be 37 feet at 120 degrees Fahrenheit. A typical span between structures is 1,200 feet. The transmission line will be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code, 1973 and 1981 Editions. Construction of the transmission line will be done in three phases. The first phase will consist of clearing the right-of-way and access/maintenance road construction. The second phase will consist of construction of the towers, and the third phase will consist of the actual stringing of the conductors. Because of the very small amount of the total aquifer recharge area proposed to be filled by the Applicant, there will be no significant adverse impact to aquifer recharge capabilities because of the construction of the transmission line. If constructed with an adequate amount of culverting, the access/maintenance roads proposed to be constructed by the Applicant will not significantly affect the surface regime in the areas within the FPC Proposed Corridor. Outside of the 190 foot transmission line right-of-way there will be essentially no change in-existing vegetation. Within the 190 foot right-of-way, only the inside 150 feet will be cleared with the outer 20 feet on each side being cleared only of "danger" trees; that is, trees that might fall on to the line because they are diseased, dead or leaning toward the line. Benthic organisms (microscopic, microinvertebrates, which are aquatic organisms on the lower levels of the food chain) could be adversely impacted if the wetland they inhabit is relatively small compared to the amount of fill required in that wetland for the construction activities associated with the transmission line. If the wetland is relatively large, however, there will be no discernible impact on the standing crop of benthic organisms because they can migrate to other portions of the wetland which are not filled. The DER Proposed Corridor has a greater number of relatively small wetland areas than does the FPC Proposed Corridor. No evidence was presented to establish any adverse impact by construction of a transmission line to upland wildlife habitat or upland wildlife species with the exception of the American wood stork. Although the evidence did establish that construction of a transmission line through wetland wildlife habitat could adversely affect some wildlife species within that habitat, the evidence did not establish that the extent of such an impact on any species would be significant in either the FPC Proposed Corridor, the DER Proposed Corridor or the DER Preferred Alternate Corridor. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission expressed a concern that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor will allow increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor. The evidence considered overall, however, does not establish that placement of a transmission line in the FPC Proposed Corridor" will in fact result in any significant increased human access to the large wetland areas within that corridor or that such access per se would result in some significant adverse environmental impact. In order to attenuate potential flood damage along the Withlacoochee River, the Southwest Florida Water Management District proposes the construction of a levee to capture and hold 25-year and greater storm events in head-water areas of the Withlacoochee River. This is an ongoing project of SWFWMD which, at best, is several years from construction. In the area of Devils Creek Swamp, the Central Corridor Segment proposed by the Applicant would co-locate the transmission line with the SWFWMD proposed levee, thus minimizing the amount of fill to be placed in that area by the two projects and minimizing the adverse impact of the wetland system by the transmission line. Should such co-location occur, it would have the minimizing effect outlined above. However, because of the prospective nature of the SWFWMD project, the ultimate co-location of the transmission line and the SWFWMD levee is too speculative to assign much weight to its significance. Should a transmission line be placed adjacent to Highway 471 as proposed as an alternative by the Department of Environmental Regulation, some of that transmission line would cross property which is intended for residential development by its owners. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Division of Forestry, has indicated its hope that the alignment of the transmission corridor as proposed by the Applicant in the area of the Withlacoochee State Forest would provide a fire break beneficial to the Division for forest management purposes. There are three endangered species to which special attention should be paid with regard to the construction of a transmission line and associated faciliti es. These are the scrub jay, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and the wood stork. The scrub jay is found in vegetation typically less than 25 feet tall so that except for tower placement, scrub jay habitat will be essentially unaffected. The Applicant has agreed to a Condition of Certification to further protect the scrub jay and its habitat by avoiding colonies where found or by leaving the oak scrub in place under the wires. The red-cockaded woodpecker nests and roosts in mature and over-mature pines. Such trees may occur within the proposed corridor. To protect colonies that may exist, a survey needs to be performed prior to final right-of-way selection and if a colony is found, a right-of-way should be chosen to avoid that colony if at all possible. It could be very costly to divert the transmission line around such a colony by angles in the line. None of the proposed corridors cross a known wood stork rookery. However, a former rookery exists at Clay Sink wading bird site and will probably again become a rookery in the future when favorable conditions again exist. The FPC Proposed Corridor is more than a mile from any known wood stork rookery which should eliminate any significant adverse impact on such a site. A 500 kV transmission line is an extra high voltage line. The highest electrical field strength directly underneath the proposed Central Florida-to- Kathleen 500 kV transmission line at ground level will be less than 10,000 volts per meter, and the field strength will diminish with distance from the line. The magnetic field associated with the proposed transmission line will be less than 0.5 gauss. Testimony and evidence establishes that the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. Because of the size of the conductors to be used on the proposed transmission line, the ozone produced by that line will be negligible and will be well below the maximum ozone concentration level (0.12 ppm) recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. During fair weather, the line will be virtually silent. During wet weather, when the conductors are wet, the noise level will be approximately 38 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. This is a low noise level. At locations near the edge of the right-of-way, some interference with the reception of AM radio signals will experienced, particularly during wet conductor conditions. No interference to reception of FM radio broadcasts is expected from the proposed transmission line at any time. Television reception may be affected similarly-to that of AM radio signals. No hazardous induced currents are expected to occur in structures or vehicles beneath the line. Except as otherwise noticed in the Findings of Fact herein, the testimony and evidence in this cause establishes that the proposed transmission line, if constructed along a right-of-way in the corridor as proposed by the Applicant, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. Similarly, neither the DER Proposed Corridor nor the DER preferred Alternate Corridor would have any significant adverse effect on the environment, public health safety or welfare. The evidence does not establish that the two alternative corridors proposed by DER would have an appreciably reduced effect on the environment, public health, safety or welfare. The evidence does establish, as set forth in Paragraph 13 above, that the two DER alternatives would be significantly more expensive to construct than would the FPC proposed corridor. The corridor as proposed by FPC and depicted on Appendix 1 is 2,600 feet wide from its starting point at the existing Central Florida Substation to the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 23 South, Range 23 East, also the northeast corner of the Withlacoochee State Forest. At that point, the corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and continues to proceed southerly immediately west of the Sumter/Lake County line. At a point identified as the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor narrows to 500 feet and proceeds in a southwesterly direction with 250 feet-on either side of a line running from the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, to the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East. At a point identified as the southwest corner of Section 4, Township 24 South, Range 23 East, the corridor turns due south, expands to 1,020 feet with the eastern 20 feet inside the SWFWMD west property line, and proceeds directly south paralleling the SWFWMD proposed levee for approximately one and one-half miles through "Devils Creek Swamp" to a point where the transmission line corridor end the SF4D proposed levee diverge. The corridor narrows to 1,000 feet and proceeds directly south immediately west of the SWFWMD west property line to the proposed Kathleen Substation site.
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 12A-1.053(7), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and/or is unconstitutional?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Florida Cable Television Association (hereinafter referred to individually as the "Association"), is a voluntary association of franchised cable television operators in the State of Florida. The Association's membership is reflected on Joint Exhibit 7. Petitioner, Cablevision Industries of Central Florida, Inc. (hereinafter individually referred to as "Central"), and Petitioner, Cablevision Industries of Middle Florida, Inc. (hereinafter individually referred to as "Middle"), are franchised cable system operators in Orange County, Florida. Central and Middle are members of the Association. Central provides cable television services in the cities of Clermont, Edgewater, Groveland, Helen, Holly Hill of Lake County, Mascotte and Oak Hill, and the Town of Minneola. Central also provides services in the Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida, franchise area. Middle provides cable television services in the cities of Belle Glade, Live Oak, Pahokee, Palatka, South Bay and the Town of Interlachan. Middle also provides cable television services in the unincorporated areas of Bradford, Palm Beach and Putnam Counties. Middle also provides services in the MAGNA franchise area, an area of Orange County. The Respondent is the Florida Department of Revenue, an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for administering the State's revenue laws. See Section 213.05, Florida Statutes. The following facts concerning the Intervenor, BellSouth, were stipulated by the parties to be true: BellSouth is a corporation authorized to do business in Florida . . . . . . . . 5. . . . a) BellSouth is a utility service provider which owns utility or transmission poles and receives fees from others for the privilege of attaching wires and other equipment to those poles; and, b) BellSouth pays fees to others who own utility or transmission poles for the privilege of attaching wires and other equipment to those poles. . . . . Adoption of the Challenged Rule. On December 31, 1992, the Department caused to be published notice of its intent to amend Rule 12A-1.053, Florida Administrative Code. The notice was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 18, No. 53, December 31, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice"). See Joint Exhibit 1. On January 21, 1993, the Petitioners initiated a challenge to the proposed amendment of Rule 12A-1.053(7), Florida Administrative Code, by instituting a Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, proceeding. The Challenged Rule provides the following: The charge by the owner of a utility or transmission poles to anyone other than a utility service provider as the term "utility service" is defined in s. 203.012(9), Florida Statutes, for the privilege of attaching wires and other equipment thereto is taxable as provided in s. 212.031, Florida Statutes, as a license to use real property. Joint exhibit 1. The "specific authority" for the Challenged Rule cited by the Department in the Notice was Sections 212.17(6), 212.18(2), and 213.06(1), Florida Statutes. The "law implemented" by the Challenged Rule cited by the Department in the Notice was Sections 212.02(20), 212.05(1)(b)(e), 212.06(1)(a)(b) and (2)(a), 212.08(4) and (7)(j), and 212.18(2), Florida Statutes, and Sections 13 and 14 of Chapter 92-319, Laws of Florida. The Taxable Event; Effect on the Petitioners. Typically, members of the Association, including Central and Middle, deliver cable television services in the State of Florida through wires and equipment attached to utility poles. Typically the wires are utilized by cable television providers to transmit audio and video signals to subscribers of the providers' services. Although cable television providers may own some poles and, in some instances, may install their own poles, most cable television providers, including Central and Middle, enter into agreements with owners of utility poles, such as electric and telephone providers, for the use of existing poles (hereinafter referred to as "Attachment Agreements"). See Joint Exhibits 2(a)- 1, 2(a)-2, 2(b)-1, 2(b)-2, 2(c)-1 and 2(c)-2, which are examples of Attachment Agreements. Pursuant to the Attachment Agreements, cable television providers agree to pay a fee to the owner of utility poles for the right to attach cable television wires and equipment to the poles. The fee is typically calculated based on the number of poles used each year. Pursuant to the Challenged Rule, members of the Association, and Central and Middle, will be required to pay sales and use tax on the charges they pay pursuant to Attachment Agreements they enter into. Utility Pole Characteristics. Utility poles to which cable television provider wires and equipment is attached are usually owned by utility service providers and are installed on public and private streets or rights-of-way. The underlying land and right-of- way may or may not be owned by the utility provider. Utility poles remain the property of the utility provider and do not become the property of the owner of the land or the right-of-way upon which the pole is located. Electric service provider utility poles are generally considered to be components of the "overhead electric distribution system," which consists primarily of the poles wires and transformers. The components are suppose to be designed and installed in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code. Poles installed pursuant to the National Electric Safety Code are to be installed in the ground and are anchored to the ground to insure that the pole remains in a vertical position. Anchoring may be secured by cement anchors and bolts embedded in concrete which is placed in the ground. Poles are installed and anchored to withstand the forces of nature. Generally, poles are installed to withstand winds of up to 150 miles per hour. In general, poles are intended to be installed permanently and, on average, have a useful life of twenty-five to thirty years. In practice, utility poles are sometimes replaced or moved. Poles become rotten and have to be replaced. Poles are also replaced when damaged. Poles are also removed and relocated for various reasons. Central and Middle were aware of approximately 200 utility pole changes during one year. In order to replace or move a utility pole, heavy equipment is required. Exemption for Utilities. Most poles to which cable television wires are attached are already being used by utilities for utility services. Pursuant to the Challenged Rule fees paid by "utility service providers" for the use of utility poles to attach wires and other equipment to utility poles are exempt from sales and use tax. The Department's exemption of utility service providers is based upon the provisions of Section 212.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes: (1)(a) It is declared to be the legislative intent that every person is exercising a taxable privilege who engages in the business of renting, leasing, letting, or granting a license for the use of any real property unless such property is: . . . . 5. A public or private street or right-of-way occupied or used by a utility for utility purposes. Currently only utilities and cable television providers enter into Attachment Agreements. Local Government Franchise Agreements. Central and Middle operate in their respective areas of the State of Florida pursuant to agreements with local governments (hereinafter referred to as "Franchise Agreements"), authorizing them to provide cable television services within the jurisdiction of the city or county with which the agreement has been entered into. See Joint exhibit 3. Franchise Agreements entered into by Central and Middle generally give them a nonexclusive right to provide cable television services in the areas they serve. Central and Middle both operate within areas located in Orange County, Florida. Orange County has enacted Chapter 12 of the Orange County Code, Community Antenna Television Systems; Cable Television, Etc. Joint exhibit 5a. Section 12-48 of the Orange County Code, provides, in part, the following: Payment to the grantor of franchise consideration. A cable operator shall pay to the county a franchise fee of five (5) percent of its gross annual revenues for each year of the term of the franchise. The franchise fee shall be in addition to all other taxes, fees and assessments which are required to be paid to the county, and which do not constitute a franchise fee under the Act. . . . . . . . Time of Payment. . . . . (3) Nothing in this subsection (b) shall limit the cable operator's liability to pay other applicable local, state or federal taxes, fees, charges or assessments. A fee (hereinafter referred to as a "Franchise Fee"), similar to that charged pursuant to Section 12-48 of the Orange County Code is imposed by Palm Beach and Hillsborough Counties. See Joint exhibits 5(b) and 5(c). Franchise Fees are paid by cable television providers for the right to serve a given community. Not all cable television service providers are required to pay Franchise Fees of 5 percent. Central and Middle report their gross income on a quarterly basis to Orange County for purposes of paying the Orange County Franchise Fee imposed by Section 12-48 of the Orange County Code. Central and Middle calculate and pay to Orange County a Franchise Fee of 5 percent of their annual gross income. The Orange County Franchise Fee is paid quarterly. See Joint exhibits 4(a) and 4(b). The Orange County Franchise Fee is imposed on all gross revenues of Central and Middle, i.e., installation charges, leases of remote and converter boxes, sale of program guides and advertising. Central and Middle have entered into Attachment Agreements to utilize utility poles located in Orange County. A fee is paid for the use of those poles pursuant to the Attachment Agreements. The State of Florida does not impose a Franchise Fee on cable television service providers in Florida. In addition to paying Franchise Fees, some cable television service providers, including Central and Middle, also pay sales taxes in the State of Florida. 47 U.S.C. Sections 521-559 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cable Act"), provides Federal regulations governing cable television systems operated in the United States. Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (b) The charge by the owner of utility or transmission poles to others for the privilege of attaching wires or other equipment thereto is exempt as a service transaction. The provisions of Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, are in conflict with the Challenged Rule. Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, has not been amended or repealed by the Department. It is, therefore, a valid rule of the Department. The Department, after proposing to amend Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, to eliminate the inconsistency with the Challenged Rule, decided to await the outcome of this case. Although a final decision has not been made, it is reasonable to conclude that the discrepancy between the Challenged Rule and Rule 12A-1.046(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, will be eliminated if the validity of the Challenged Rule is ultimately upheld.
The Issue This proceeding was conducted under the Florida Electrical Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA), Sections 403.52 through 403.5365, Florida Statutes (2007)1, to determine whether any of the proposed transmission line corridors for the Bobwhite- Manatee 230-kV transmission line (BWM Line) comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and, if more than one corridor complies with the criteria, to determine which corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria, including costs. If any of the “corridors proper for certification,” as that term is defined in Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, is determined to have the least adverse impact, the Siting Board must determine whether the application for the corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. If the alternate corridor proposed by John Falkner (not a corridor proper for certification) is determined by the Siting Board to have the least adverse impact, certification shall be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FPL is the electric utility that is applying for certification of the Bobwhite-Manatee 230kV Transmission Line. DEP is the state agency with powers and duties to administer the TLSA, including the power and duty to process applications for certification and to act as a clearinghouse for agency comments on proposed corridors. Sarasota County and Manatee County are political subdivisions of the State and the local governments with jurisdiction over the areas in which the BWM Line will be located. Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. (SMR), is a Delaware corporation with its office in Bradenton, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee and Sarasota Counties, and is the developer of residential communities, including Lakewood Ranch. Lake Club Investors, LLC (LCI), is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Winter Park, Florida. It owns property in Manatee County. Gum Slough Preservation Foundation, Inc. (GSPF), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. GSPS was established with the primary objectives to protect and preserve the beauty and ecological values of Gum Slough. Manasota-88, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its office in Nokomis, Florida. Manasota-88 was formed to protect and preserve the water quality and wildlife of Manatee and Sarasota Counties. John Falkner is a resident of Myakka City, Florida, and the owner of real property in Manatee County. Taylor & Fulton, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It is the owner of real property in Manatee County. Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC, and FC, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with separate offices in Bradenton, Florida. They own real property in Sarasota County. The Concession Land Development, LLC, and The Concession Golf Club, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies with their office in Wichita, Kansas. They are the owners and managers, respectively, of The Concession residential development and The Concession Golf Club in Manatee County. Kittie L. Chapman is a resident of Sarasota, Florida, and the owner of real property in Sarasota County. John Cannon Homes-Eastmoor, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Schwartz Farms, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael D. and JoAnne Schwartz are residents and real property owners in Sarasota County. Sarasota One, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Bowie, Maryland. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Pacific Land, Ltd, is a Florida limited liability company with its office in Palmetto, Florida. It owns real property in Manatee County. East County Homeowners Organization, Inc., is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It was formed to protect the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents of eastern Sarasota County. Hi Hat Ranch, LLP, is a Florida liability limited partnership with its office in Sarasota, Florida. It owns real property in Sarasota County. Michael Hunsader, David Hunsader, and Donald Hunsader own real property in Manatee County. Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc. (BCHOA), is a Florida non-profit corporation with its office in Sarasota, Florida. BCHOA was formed to represent the owners of real property in the Bridle Creek residential community. Manatee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District filed timely notices of their intent to be parties. Sarasota County filed a Notice of Appearance and participated as a party without objection. The Need for the Bobwhite-Manatee Line FPL is seeking certification of a transmission line to transmit electricity from the Manatee Energy Center, a generating facility near Parrish in Manatee County, to the proposed Bobwhite transmission substation near Fruitville Road in Sarasota County. The service area for the proposed BWM Line is an area in Manatee County and Sarasota County that is south of the Manatee Energy Center, north of the planned Bobwhite substation, and east of I-75 and the existing 230kV transmission network. The PSC determined that FPL had demonstrated the need for the BWM Line by December 2011 to: provide additional transmission reinforcement to the existing 230kV transmission network between Manatee and Ringling Substations in a reliable manner consistent with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) and other applicable standards; (b) serve the increasing load and customer base in the projected service area; and (c) provide for another electrical feed via a separate right-of-way (“ROW”) path, thereby reducing the impact of a loss of the existing transmission facilities on a common ROW. The PSC recognized, however, that the “Siting Board will make the final determination concerning the exact length and route of the new line.” The Proposed Corridors (Depicted in FPL Exhibit 77B) 1. The FPL Original Corridor Selection Process FPL established a multi-disciplinary team to identify and evaluate routing alternatives. The team comprised a transmission line engineer, a land use planner, and an ecologist. Because FPL wanted geographic separation from the existing transmission lines that are located in a common ROW that is generally parallel to I-75, the western boundary of the team’s study area began a mile east of this existing ROW. The multi-disciplinary team gathered data on siting opportunities and constraints within the study area. The guidelines developed by the team to select route segments included maximizing collocation with existing or proposed roads, following property lines or section lines as much as possible, following disturbed paths through wetlands where practicable, and minimizing siting constraints such as airports, private airstrips, residential development, and the crossing of existing transmission lines. The team ultimately identified 62 route segments which could be assembled into 1,275 alternate routes for the BWM Line. FPL engaged in an extensive public outreach program to gather public input regarding the BWM Line. The public outreach program was integrated with the corridor selection process so that information was shared with the public and feedback from the public was used in evaluating alternate routes. FPL’s multi-disciplinary team evaluated the 1,275 routes quantitatively, using factors such as the number of homes and schools in proximity; the length of wetlands crossed; the length through existing parks, recreation areas or other designated conservation lands; the number of parcels or lots crossed; and estimated costs. The quantitative analysis was used as a screening tool to limit the number of routes that would receive more detailed analysis. The route that received the highest ranking from the quantitative analysis is the same as The Concession Corridor. The FPL Original Corridor follows the route that was ranked eleventh. The routes that correspond with the subsequently-filed Consensus Corridor and Falkner Corridor were not ranked in the initial screening process because they were not among the 1,275 evaluated routes. The Consensus Corridor passes through a conservation area that FPL’s multi-disciplinary team assumed had to be avoided. The Falkner Corridor was not included because it is in FPL’s existing transmission line ROW, which the team also assumed was not an option. The team then evaluated the highest ranked routes, using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The qualitative criteria included the functional value of wetlands; the orientation of landing strips to the route; plans for new roads, road extensions and road widenings; proposed developments; “buildability” issues; and the need for future distribution substations. From the more detailed analysis, a preferred route was selected by FPL. This corridor, described in FPL’s application for certification, will be referred to as the FPL Original Corridor. The multi-disciplinary team then determined the varying widths of the FPL Original Corridor along its route that were needed to provide flexibility in locating the ROW within the corridor. The Route of the FPL Original Corridor The FPL Original Corridor exits the Manatee Energy Center north of State Road 62 (SR 62) and turns east for approximately one mile. The corridor then turns south along a section line for approximately five miles, in which area the corridor is approximately 3,000 feet wide. The corridor includes a lateral spur along an existing 50-foot-wide farm road, which is included in the corridor for the sole purpose of providing access to the transmission line from County Road 675 (CR 675). The corridor then intersects CR 675 and follows CR 675 to its intersection with SR 64, in which area the corridor is 400 feet wide and centered on the road. At the intersection of SR 64, the corridor turns west and follows SR 64 for approximately three miles to its intersection with Dam Road. There, the corridor turns south and runs along section lines for approximately three miles, beginning with a width of 4,500 feet and narrowing to 3,000 feet, until it reaches University Parkway. At University Parkway, the corridor turns west and runs along the south side of the road to its intersection with Lorraine Road, in which area the corridor is at least 500 feet wide. At Lorraine Road, the corridor turns south along the road and is of varying width as it follows Lorraine Road to Dog Kennel Road and the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Consensus Corridor Selection Process In November 2007, after eight days of hearing, FPL, SMR, and several other parties jointly requested a continuance of the certification hearing because their informal discussions indicated the possibility for agreement on corridor modifications that would resolve a number of disputes. The continuance was granted and the certification hearing was continued until May 2008. In the interim, a number of parties reached agreement on a new corridor which they referred to as the Consensus Corridor. The areas of the Consensus Corridor that differed from the FPL Original Corridor were thoroughly studied and inspected by consultants and experts hired by FPL and SMR. FPL re-initiated its public outreach program to inform the public about the new Consensus Corridor. The Consensus Corridor is now the corridor preferred by FPL. The Route of the Consensus Corridor The Consensus Corridor is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. However, FPL and Pacific Land, Ltd, entered into an agreement wherein FPL agreed to locate the ROW “as close as reasonably practicable” to Pacific Land’s west property boundary line. The Consensus corridor follows SR 64 a shorter distance west than the FPL Original Corridor before it turns south, avoiding some of the frontage along Lake Manatee State Park. The Consensus Corridor is 500 feet wide as it turns south from SR 64 on property owned by Bradenton Motorsports, Inc., and continues south onto land owned by Taylor & Fulton, Inc. It then makes four 90-degree turns to form a “C” shape, or “notch,” to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary.3 When the Consensus corridor reaches Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, it turns west and rejoins the FPL Original Corridor. Along Taylor & Fulton’s southern boundary, the corridor is located north of a drainage canal, and about 350 feet north of the Bridle Creek subdivision. In addition to this setback from Bridle Creek, Taylor & Fulton has agreed to preserve the existing tree line between them. Turning south from Taylor & Fulton’s property, the Consensus Corridor generally follows the FPL Original Corridor, but the Consensus Corridor is narrower, providing about 200 feet more separation from the residential developments of Panther Ridge and The Concession.4 Along Bourneside Boulevard, the Consensus Corridor is shifted west to align with the eastern edge of the existing road pavement,5 which avoids some wetlands crossed by the FPL Original Corridor and provides a greater setback from The Concession residential development. South of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor departs substantially from the FPL Original Corridor to avoid the latter’s impacts to SMR’s residential developments. Rather than moving west all the way to Lorraine Road and following Lorraine Road south, the Consensus Corridor turns south almost immediately after reaching University Parkway, and meanders generally southward through the Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE). The HRCE is a 1,972-acre tract of land owned by SMR, which is subject to a conservation easement acquired by Sarasota County. The Consensus corridor is 1,000 feet wide as it moves through the HRCE along an irregular line that generally follows existing field roads or fire lanes. The corridor exits the HRCE going west onto SMR-owned land, rejoins the FPL Original Corridor along Lorraine Road, and then runs south to the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Concession Corridor 45. The Concession Corridor (formerly SMR #1) is identical to the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to SR 64. At the intersection of SR 64 and CR 675, The Concession Corridor continues to follow CR 675 to the intersection with SR 70. The corridor then extends southeast on SR 70 to Verna Road, which the corridor follows south to Verna Road’s intersection with Fruitville Road. The Concession Corridor then follows Fruitville Road west to Dog Kennel Road, then north on Dog Kennel to the proposed site of the Bobwhite substation. From SR 64 to the Bobwhite substation, the corridor is 500 feet wide. The Falkner Corridor The Falkner Corridor stays in existing FPL transmission line ROW all the way from the Manatee Energy Center to the proposed Bobwhite substation. From the Manatee Energy Center, the Falkner Corridor heads west on the FPL ROW for approximately five miles. It then turns south and follows the ROW for approximately twenty miles, where it turns eastward and then southeastward for about five miles, until it reaches the area of the proposed Bobwhite substation. The Falkner Corridor is 400-to-500 feet wide. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features 1. FPL Original Corridor Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 All three of the corridors proper for certification incorporate this segment from the Manatee Energy Center to SR The existing land uses in the area of the corridor are primarily agricultural. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are Major Public/Semi Public (P/SP-1), Agricultural/Rural (AG-R), and Major Recreation/Open Space (R-OS) The P/SP-1 land use category applies only to the Manatee Energy Center. The AG-R land use category designates areas with long-term agricultural or rural residential character. Potential uses in this category include farms, rural residential, small retail and office commercial, mining, low- intensity recreational facilities, and schools. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The R-OS land use category applies to Lake Manatee State Park, and recognizes these existing recreation and permanent open space land uses. The ecological communities between the Manatee Energy Center and CR 675 include pine flatwoods, mixed oak-pine uplands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, forested swamps, and small tributaries such as Gamble Creek, Tyre Creek, and Waterhole Creek. The vegetative habitats are dominated by agricultural crops. The tributaries are narrow and have existing road crossings. From CR 675 to SR 64, the FPL Original Corridor follows SR 675. The existing land uses on both sides of the road are primarily agricultural. The corridor crosses the Manatee River system, which includes Boggy Creek and Gilley Creek. There are scattered trees, including some large oak trees along portions of CR 675. SR 64 to University Parkway Lake Manatee State Park is on the north side of SR 64. On the south side are the DeSoto Speedway and Bradenton Motorsports Park, as well as a mix of other uses, including businesses, a nursery, a winery, and some residences. Between SR 64 and University Parkway, the existing land uses are primarily agricultural, except for the Panther Ridge and The Concession residential developments, which are just east of the FPL Original Corridor. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R, R-OS (described above), Urban Fringe (UF-3), and Estate Rural (ER). The UF-3 land use category applies to a half-mile strip on the south side of SR 64, west of Dam Road, is for low-density residential use, generally developed through the planned unit development concept, and residential support uses. The ER land use category is for clustered, low-density suburban, residential use with large tracts of open space for agricultural activities, low- intensity recreational use, environmental protection or other compatible open space uses. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The ecological communities in this area include mixed oak-pine uplands, pine flatwoods, shrub and brush land, freshwater marshes, and forested swamps along tributaries of the Manatee River. Along SR 64, the vegetative habitats and waterbodies include scattered shrub and pasture. Lake Manatee State Park contains pine flatwoods and xeric pine communities, except close to SR 64, where a fire break is maintained. The FPL Original Corridor crosses the Braden River which is a Class I water. As the corridor approaches University Parkway, there are scattered uplands, several small marshes, and pasture land. Near The Concession development, there are four herbaceous wetlands along the eastern boundary of the corridor. c. University Parkway to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation The land in this area is largely undeveloped. Within the corridor, the land use is primarily agricultural. However, just north of the FPL Original Corridor is an SMR residential development under construction known as The Lake Club and a large-lot residential community to the west known as The Polo Club. Closer to the Bobwhite substation site, there are large- lot residential developments east of the corridor. University Parkway divides Manatee County and Sarasota County in this area. The small piece of the FPL Original Corridor that is north of University Parkway and in Manatee County is subject to AG-R (described above) and RES-1 future land use categories. RES-1 designates areas of low-density suburban residential environment, clustered low-density urban residential environment, and compatible agricultural facilities. The maximum gross residential density is one dwelling unit per acre. The balance of future land uses in this segment of the FPL Original Corridor is subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, and its Rural land use category. The primary function of the Rural category is to preserve agricultural lands and rural character, and residential development is limited to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. However, if elected by the developers, these lands can be subject to the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area (RMA) Supplement to the Future Land Use Element. The Sarasota 2050 Plan creates several types of RMAs, which function as overlays that do not affect existing development rights of the underlying property owners. RMAs encourage the use of clustered development and the preservation of open space and rural character. The FPL Original Corridor crosses three types of RMAs: Greenway, Village/Open Space, and Rural Heritage/Estate. The Greenway RMA designates a network of riverine systems, floodplains, native habitats, storm surge areas and uplands as priority resources. Uses in Greenway RMAs are restricted to uses that are compatible with ecological functions and values. The Village/Open Space RMA provides for compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly villages and hamlets within a system of large areas of permanent open space, designed to prevent urban sprawl. Villages have a maximum density within developed areas of five-to-six dwelling units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate RMA is intended to recognize and preserve the existing pattern of very low-density, large-lot estate developments, agriculture, and equestrian activities outside the urban service boundary. The vegetative communities and habitats along University Parkway to Lorraine Road are dominated on the north side of the road by developing lands, and on the south side of the road by the HRCE and portions of Gum Slough. As the corridor proceeds westward, there are also scattered shrub and brush land, pine flatwoods, and scattered marshes and forested systems. Along Lorraine Road, the vegetative communities and habitats include primarily shrub and brush land, various upland forested systems, some wetland forested systems, small marshes, and active mining east of Lorraine Road. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Consensus Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of the Consensus Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. SR 64 to University Parkway The Consensus Corridor is east of the FPL Original Corridor in the north half of this segment. There are large- acre agricultural land uses in this area, but the corridor is closer to residential development to the east. The future land use is AG-R (Agriculture/Rural), described previously. c. University Parkway to the Bobwhite Substation The Consensus Corridor meanders through the HRCE for most of this segment. The existing uses are cattle grazing, sod farming, and recreational hunting. The HRCE has a future land use designation as Greenway. The HRCE contains a portion of the Gum Slough swamp system as well as uplands of open pine flatwoods and improved pasture which serve as a buffer for the swamp system. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Concession Corridor a. Manatee Energy Center to SR 64 This segment of The Concession Corridor is the same as the FPL Original Corridor and, therefore, has the same land uses and significant natural features as were previously described. b. State Road 64 to Fruitville Road The existing land uses in this area are a mix of large-lot residences and some agriculture. A large PUD, Panther Ridge, is just west of The Concession corridor. When The Concession Corridor turns south on Verna Road, it passes large wellfields owned by the City of Sarasota and through pastures and other agricultural uses on both sides of the road, with some residential development to the east. The future land uses in this area, as designated in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, are AG-R and R-OS, which were described above. The ecological communities in this area include pine flatwoods, shrub and brush lands, and freshwater marshes. Just south of SR 64, The Concession Corridor crosses Corbett Branch, which is a Class I tributary of the Manatee River. Along CR 675 and SR 70, are primarily developed lands or farmsteads. There are scattered trees and wetlands along SR 675. The corridor along SR 70 crosses a slough. Along Verna Road, there are no significant natural features. c. Fruitville Road to the Proposed Bobwhite Substation In this area of The Concession Corridor, there are some existing residential and agricultural uses, as well as vacant land that is proposed for residential development. Fruitville Road (and The Concession Corridor) runs just north of the large Gum Slough System. The future land uses in this area are subject to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The primary future land uses are Rural, which may be subject to the Sarasota 2050 RMA Supplement, as explained above; Major Government Uses (MGU), which applies to the existing city wellfield; and Greenway, which covers the Gum Slough system. There are also publicly owned lands south of Fruitville Road that are protected for environmental functions and values. The ecological communities in this area are pine flatwoods, oak and pine uplands, shrub and brush lands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, and forested swamps. On the western end of Fruitville Road, there are scattered wetlands and tributaries across the roadway, including Cow Pen Slough and Gum Slough. Land Uses and Significant Natural Features – The Falkner Corridor Falkner did not present a detailed description of the existing and future land uses or the significant environmental features in the areas through which the Falkner Corridor passes. In the ROW itself, of course, the existing use is electrical transmission lines. Along the corridor, however, there are areas of existing and future residential development. The corridor also passes over the Manatee River and its floodplain. D. Transmission Line Design and Construction FPL will ultimately construct the BWM Line within a ROW more narrow than the approved corridor. The width of the ROW will range from 10 feet to 75 feet. Pursuant to Section 403.522(10), Florida Statutes, after all property interests in the ROW are acquired, the boundaries of the corridor will shrink to the width of the ROW. The proposed design for the BWM Line will be a single- pole un-guyed concrete structure, 65-to-100 feet above grade, with the phase conductors framed in a vertical or triangular configuration. Each of the BWM Line’s 3 phases is anticipated to utilize bundled 954-thousand circular mils, aluminum conductors (2 conductors per phase), with a steel reinforced alumoweld core. There will also be a smaller overhead ground wire to provide shielding and lightning protection for the conductors. The maximum current rating for the BWM Line will be 2,990 amperes. The span length between structures will vary between 250 feet and 700 feet, depending on site-specific ROW widths and other design considerations. Both pole height and span length will vary due to natural or man-made constraints such as wetlands, water bodies, property boundaries, existing utility poles, utility lines, and roadways. Shorter structures might be required in proximity to an airstrip, to comply with applicable clear zones, or to accommodate the wishes of underlying property owners. The transmission line poles can accommodate the placement of electric distribution lines or communication cables beneath the transmission line’s conductors, referred to as “underbuilding.” For poles shorter than 85 feet, however, it is difficult to underbuild. Use of shorter poles also requires a wider ROW to comply with the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) requirements established in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Surveying the ROW to facilitate acquisition of the necessary property interests is a first step toward construction. Concurrently with surveying, FPL will work with the underlying landowners to determine the most appropriate boundaries of the ROW and the location of poles within the ROW. Another early task is to determine where access roads or structure pads are needed. After the ROW is established, the initial phase of construction involves clearing the ROW. Clearing the ROW will consist mainly of tree trimming in compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Generally, trees that cannot be avoided and which exceed or are capable of exceeding 14 feet in height will have to be removed to ensure adequate clearance is maintained around the conductors, both vertically and horizontally. In wetlands, trees capable of exceeding 14 feet will be removed by hand. Lower wetland vegetation will not be cleared. After the ROW is cleared, any necessary access roads and structure pads will be constructed. To the greatest extent practicable, existing roads will be used. Improvements might be made to existing roads, depending on their condition. Where soil conditions will not support large construction and maintenance vehicles, usually in wet areas and areas with soft soil, FPL will probably construct new access roads and structure pads. Where new access roads are constructed, they will typically be 14 feet wide and at least six feet above seasonal high water. Structure pads will typically extend about 20 feet around the pole, but, on at least one side, must extend at least 30 feet to accommodate the outriggers on the construction and maintenance equipment. Access roads and structure pads will not be paved. They will have culverts installed beneath them, when needed, to maintain preconstruction water flows in the area. The next phase of construction involves the augering of holes, erection of poles, and backfilling of the holes. Poles are typically embedded 18-to-25 feet into the ground. The poles are then “framed,” which is the installation of the insulators and clamp hardware. If the pole is set at a location where the line turns a large angle, guy lines will be installed to compensate for the greater tension on the conductor. Then, the conductors and overhead ground wires are installed. The conductors are then tensioned to provide the proper design vertical clearances and “clipped in” to the insulator assemblies. The final stage of construction is ROW clean-up, smoothing of ruts, and placement of sod or seed as needed. During all stages of construction, FPL will maintain traffic on any adjacent county, state or federal roadways in compliance with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Throughout construction, sedimentation management techniques (e.g., silt fences, turbidity screens, and hay bales), will be employed as necessary to minimize potential impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation. The entire construction process for the BWM Line will take 13-to-15 months. Conditions of Certification The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification must comply with the Conditions of Certification. The Conditions of Certification establish a review process through which the final right-of-way, access road, and transmission line structure locations will be reviewed by agencies with regulatory authority over the project. The parties agree that the Conditions of Certification attached as Appendix I to DEP Exhibit 8 are consistent with applicable non-procedural requirements of the state, regional, and local agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over the BWM Line. FPL agrees to comply with the Conditions of Certification. Agency Review of Corridors Proper for Certification Local, regional, and state agencies with regulatory authority over the construction of the BWM Line reviewed the FPL Original Corridor application and each subsequent alternate corridor application filed in this proceeding and submitted to DEP a report on matters within the agency’s jurisdiction. DEP’s first Summary and Compilation of Agency Reports, dated April 27, 2007, addressed only the FPL Original Corridor. At that time, DEP reported that the FPL Original Corridor “can be certified so long as the conditions of certification are met.” The other commenting agencies recommended that the FPL Original Corridor be certified, subject to the conditions of certification. A revised Summary and Compilation of Agency reports was issued by DEP on September 7, 2007. It addressed the FPL Original Corridor and 12 alternate corridors. DEP stated that “any of the proposed corridors can be certified.” The other commenting agencies, except for Manatee County and Sarasota County, had no objection to certification of any of the proposed corridors. Manatee County recommended denial of four alternate corridors, including SMR #1, which is the same as The Concession Corridor. Sarasota County also expressed concerns about SMR #1. DEP’s most recent Addendum to Staff Analysis Report, dated May 5, 2008, compiled the updated reports of the reviewing agencies on the alternate corridors proper for certification, including the Consensus Corridor. Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit supporting data for the corridor and the agencies did not review or comment on the Falkner Corridor. In the Addendum, Manatee County again recommended denial of The Concession Corridor. Comparison of Corridor Impacts The Effect of Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement In the second half of the certification hearing, an issue arose regarding the credibility of the testimony of witnesses for 15 non-governmental parties. These parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on November 7, 2007, which contained the following condition in paragraph 5: The Parties agree that, through their pleadings and testimony, they shall urge the Administrative Law Judge to recommend, and the Siting Board to certify, the Consensus Corridor subject to the supplemental conditions of certification set forth below. FPL and the other signatories to the agreement offered testimony to show that they had not entered into the agreement until they were genuinely convinced that the Consensus Corridor was the best of the proposed corridors. They asserted, therefore, that the credibility of the testimony offered in support of the Consensus Corridor is not diminished by the fact that the parties had contractually obligated themselves to support the Consensus Corridor in their testimony. Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement, however, also raises the question of whether witnesses for the signatories to the agreement felt free to express a subsequent change of opinion with respect to any aspect of the Consensus Corridor; a change of opinion which they reached either on their own or through cross-examination. The Administrative Law Judged asked several of the witnesses whether their testimony was serving their oaths to tell the truth or their contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. All the witnesses claimed allegiance to their oaths to tell the truth. The credibility of the witnesses, based on their demeanor and other indices of veracity, was still discernable by the Administrative Law Judge, despite Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement. Only one witness gave testimony that, in some respects, appeared to be based not on personal knowledge or genuine belief, but on the witness’ sense of contractual obligation to support the Consensus Corridor. Lack of Detailed Information for the Falkner Corridor Because the Falkner Corridor was rejected by FPL, Falkner did not submit detailed information in support of his corridor and the agencies did not review it. Therefore, Falkner had the burden to present in the certification hearing all of the information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor and to compare it to the corridors proper for certification. Falkner contends that his right to due process was violated because “FPL prevented the public and government agencies from fully considering the proposal to build the BWM Line in the existing FPL right-of-way.” The evidence offered by Falkner in support of his due process claim, however, amounts to nothing more than discussions between FPL and governmental parties about TSLA procedures and the effect of the PSC need determination. The governmental parties remained free to disagree with FPL and to take whatever related action they deemed appropriate. FPL had no power to “prevent” action by a governmental party. Section 403.526(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the failure of an agency to submit a report is not grounds to deny or condition certification. In several respects, Falkner failed to present the detailed information needed to fully evaluate the Falkner Corridor. For example, the potential environmental impacts associated with the Falkner Corridor (especially the impacts associated with crossing of the Manatee River) were described in less detail than was done in the case of the corridors proper for certification. The record evidence regarding the existing and future land uses adjacent to the Falkner Corridor is also inadequate to make detailed findings on that subject. The Certification Criteria Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, provides: In determining whether an application should be approved in whole, approved with modifications or conditions, or denied, the board, or secretary when applicable, shall consider whether, and the extent to which, the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line will: Ensure electric power system reliability and integrity; Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, economical, and timely fashion; Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of the agencies; Be consistent with the applicable provisions of local government comprehensive plans, if any; and Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the transmission line as a means or providing reliable, economically efficient electric energy, as determined by the commission, under s. 403.537, and the impact upon the public and the environment resulting from the location of the transmission corridor and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines. The three corridors proper for certification and the Falkner Corridor will be compared below with respect to each certification criterion. Ensure Electric Power System Reliability and Integrity The PSC determined that locating the BWM Line in a geographically separate ROW from the existing common ROW would enhance the electric system reliability benefits of the new line. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that this determination by the PSC did not preclude Falkner or any other party from presenting evidence regarding electric system reliability. The Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) is a component of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). FRCC’s primary purpose is to ensure electric system reliability in Florida. FRCC has adopted NERC’s planning standards, which are mandatory and enforced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. All four proposed corridors would be equally able to achieve the reliability standards established by NERC for “single contingency” events, those that result from the loss of a single element such as a generator or a transmission circuit. The reliability issue in dispute in this proceeding relates to the potential for the loss of all circuits on a common ROW, referred to as a “corridor outage.” NERC planning standard TPL-004 requires electric utilities to plan for and mitigate the system performance problems that could occur during a corridor outage. The key to maintaining adequate system performance during a corridor outage is reinforcement elsewhere in the transmission system. FPL’s records from 1985 to date show that FPL has experienced eight corridor outages in that period. Corridor outages have been caused by, among other things, fires, airplanes contacting the lines, hurricanes, tornados, and lightning. These are all events that could occur in the common ROW that is the Falkner Corridor. Vince Ordax, FPL’s former supervisor of local area transmission planning, testified that a corridor outage with the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor could possibly trigger cascading, or uncontrollable, outages. A simulation performed under the direction of Carlos Candelaria, an expert in transmission planning, also showed that a cascading outage could occur, resulting in a blackout lasting hours and affecting 500,000 customers. Such a blackout would jeopardize public health, safety and welfare. FPL admits, and it is understood in the electric utility industry, that the probability of a corridor outage is very low. Falkner agrees that “if the BWM Line is built in the existing right-of-way, and if there is a corridor outage, a cascading outage might result causing customer service interruption of up to 4-6 hours.” Falkner further agrees that, “If the BWM Line is built in a geographically separate corridor . . . then a cascading outage is unlikely and customer service interruptions should be resolved in minutes, not hours.” Falkner’s position is that this difference in system reliability is not significant and does not prevent an ultimate finding that the Falkner Corridor would have the least adverse impact when all the certification criteria are considered. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that geographic separation of the BWM line from the existing ROW would improve system reliability with respect to system performance in the event of a corridor outage. Placement of the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would reduce system reliability in the event of a corridor outage. This enhancement of system reliability is a part of the need for the BWM Line as determined by the PSC. There is an airstrip that is in active use that is perpendicular to Fruitville Road within The Concession Corridor. The proximity of an airstrip to the BWM Line poses a risk of a plane striking the line. The Consensus and FPL Original Corridors are the same length, about 26 miles. The Concession Corridor is 3.3 miles longer and the Falkner Corridor is 2.5 miles longer. A shorter line reduces line losses and exposure to reliability risks, such as lightning or falling trees. However, the differences in the lengths of the four corridors under review are not significant with regard to system reliability. Electric system integrity addresses the adequacy of design and strength of the transmission line to withstand various events. The BWM Line will be constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with all applicable design codes, including the National Electrical Safety Code, DEP’s regulations on electric and magnetic fields (Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814), the Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual, Manatee County and Sarasota County noise ordinances, and the standards of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, NERC standards, as well as FPL’s own internal standards. If the BWM Line were constructed in the Falkner Corridor, several structures would have to be built in the open water and floodplain of the Manatee River. Maintenance of these structures would be more difficult and the replacement of poles and some other major components would require barges or helicopters. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are on nearly equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion, with the Concession Corridor slightly less attractive. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Meet the Electrical Energy Needs of the State in an Orderly and Timely Fashion In its need determination for the BWM Line, the PSC determined that the line must be in service by December 2011 to preserve electric system reliability and integrity. The design, construction, and operation of the BWM Line can be accomplished in an orderly and timely fashion and in compliance with the conditions of certification in any of the corridors proper for certification. FPL contends that there was an insufficient showing that the BWM Line could be constructed, operated and maintained in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the conditions of certification and, therefore, an insufficient showing that a new transmission line in the Falkner Corridor could meet the area’s electric energy needs in an orderly and timely fashion. FPL’s position is based in part on its belief that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. Although the record evidence indicates that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor would have wetland impacts associated with its crossing of the Manatee River, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that a permit could not be obtained. Some questions remain about whether the BWM Line could physically fit within the existing common ROW in the area south of SR 70 where a Peace River Electric Cooperative (PRECO) transmission line, called the Crawley tap, is located within it or in locations requiring the BWM Line to turn corners where guying would be needed. Within the next 10 or 15 years, FPL and PRECO plan to place four new distribution substations east of Interstate 75 in Manatee County and Sarasota County to serve future growth. Placing the BWM Line in a corridor east of the existing common ROW would more efficiently integrate these future distribution substations than placing the transmission line in the Falkner Corridor. Placement of the BWM Line in one of the corridors proper for certification would facilitate the building of an integrated system that could be efficiently expanded in the future as this area continues to develop. The Falkner Corridor, because it is on the western edge of the service area, would be less able to provide these benefits. The Concession asserts that its corridor has the unique advantage of passing FPL property that was purchased many years ago for a future distribution substation, referred to as the Oakford site. However, because of the uncertainties associated with whether and when the Oakford site will ultimately be used, how other planned substations will be integrated, and their costs, the proximity of the Oakford site to the Concession Corridor cannot be assigned much weight at this time. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on essentially equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has some potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Comply with Applicable Nonprocedural Requirements of the Agencies The construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line on any of the corridors proper for certification, subject to the conditions of certification proposed by the DEP, will comply with the applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Described earlier, but also relevant to this particular certification criterion, is FPL’s contention that it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to obtain agency approvals for the wetland impacts associated with the transmission line crossing of the Manatee River in the Falkner Corridor. FPL suggests that the availability of the alternative river-crossing along CR 675 in the corridors proper for certification would pose a problem in demonstrating that a transmission line in the Falkner Corridor avoided or minimized wetland impacts. However, the Falkner Corridor would only be certified by the Siting Board if it determined that the Falkner Corridor had the least adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. Such a determination made in this integrated certification proceeding would have to be considered in the wetland permitting process. As stated above, the record evidence is insufficient to find that the Falkner Corridor could not be approved due to its wetland impacts. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. The FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor are all on an equal footing with regard to this particular certification criterion. The Falkner Corridor has more potential adverse impact with regard to this criterion. Consistency with Applicable Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan has no provisions specifically addressing transmission lines. Policy GS 2.4 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan discourages the crossing of Greenway RMAs by utilities, but allows a utility crossing when it shown to be necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry. A utility crossing must be designed to have minimal impacts on the environment. The Consensus Corridor crosses a Greenway RMA in Sarasota County within the HRCE. Sarasota County has authorized placement of the BWM Line across the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified.6 In the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Objective VOS 5 and Policy VOS 5.2 require protection of the “open vistas” and “integrity of the rural character” of Fruitville and Verna Roads. Because transmission lines are commonly placed in rural settings, FPL asserts that a transmission line is consistent with rural character. The comments of the public show this notion is not generally accepted. Although it is undisputed that transmission lines are commonly placed in rural areas, there appears to be almost unanimity in the belief that a transmission line reduces the quality of a rural vista. Neither Manatee County nor Sarasota County asserted in this proceeding that any of the four proposed corridors is inconsistent with the applicable provisions of its comprehensive plan. However, the TLSA requires a consideration of “the extent to which” the proposed corridors are consistent with local government comprehensive plans. Because Sarasota County has recognized the special character of the Verna Road/Fruitville Road area and adopted policies that seek to preserve its open vistas and rural character, The Concession Corridor along Verna Road and Fruitville Road presents a “negative” with respective to this criterion. The Consensus Corridor also presents a consistency issue under the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan because the corridor crosses through the HRCE. However, due to the mitigation proposed as part of the corridor proposal (discussed in the next section), there is a net positive furtherance of the relevant comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies regarding environmental protection, generally, and the HCRE, specifically. The four proposed corridors are not far apart with respect to this particular certification criterion, but, as explained above, there is an advantage with The Consensus Corridor and a disadvantage with The Concession Corridor. Effecting a Reasonable Balance Between the Need for the Transmission Line and the Impact Upon the Public and the Environment Proximity to Residences There is no route between the Manatee Energy Center and the proposed Bobwhite substation that would make the BWM Line unseen from residences. Of the corridors proper for certification, the Consensus Corridor has the fewest homes within 600 feet and The Concession Corridor has the most. The Consensus Corridor has 40 existing homes within 600 feet, the FPL Original Corridor has 54, and The Concession Corridor has 189. The record does not show how many existing homes or residential lots are within 600 feet of the Falkner Corridor, but the Falkner Corridor passes through or by residential developments and urban areas. Taylor & Fulton/the Hunsaders/Bridle Creek The FPL Original Corridor, south from SR 64, begins at Dam Road and travels south through a large tract of agricultural land owned by Taylor & Fulton. Manatee County plans to extend Dam Road north from University Parkway to SR 64, and the FPL Original Corridor would be aligned with Dam Road through the Taylor & Fulton property. Collocation with Dam Road, compatibility with the existing agricultural uses, and avoidance of the residential land uses to the east and west were some of the reasons given by FPL for selecting this segment of the corridor as part of the FPL Original Corridor. The Consensus Corridor in this segment is derived from an agreement between FPL and Taylor & Fulton to have the BWM Line follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary. Jay Taylor testified that this location would cause less impact to the future development of the Taylor & Fulton property. In order to follow Taylor & Fulton’s eastern property boundary, it is necessary to construct the BWM Line in a “C”- shaped notch. The notch adds about one mile of transmission line, compared to a straight line. FPL asserts that such notches are not unusual and FPL has created notches in other areas of the State to follow property boundaries or to avoid wetlands. However, the only examples presented by FPL were notches with much longer sides. The notch in the Consensus Corridor creates a tight “C” shape, with the sides close to each other. From several vantage points around the notch, a viewer would see two, three, or even four transmission lines. There are technical solutions for transmission lines that turn sharp angles, so the tight turns in the proposed notch can be engineered and built. The problem created by the proposed notch in the Consensus Corridor is not an engineering issue, but a problem of extreme visual impact on adjacent properties. The complaints and concerns expressed by many persons and parties in this proceeding were over the prospect of a single linear “eyesore.” The notch in the Consensus Corridor, however, would make it appear that there were three or four separate transmission lines built close together and running in different directions. This dramatic difference undermines attempts to describe the Consensus Corridor as more favorable than the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. The Hunsaders own property that would be surrounded on three sides by the BWM Line in the notch of the Consensus Corridor. In this area, the Hunsaders host the annual Hunsader festival, a rural community festival that attracts thousands of people. Collocation with existing or planned roads is an important consideration in transmission line siting. The FPL Original Corridor south of SR 64 is collocated with the future Dam Road extension. The Consensus Corridor would provide an opportunity to collocate with existing farm roads on the Taylor & Fulton property, but collocation with Dam Road is the better of these alternatives. Although Taylor & Fulton claims that the Consensus Corridor would cause significantly adverse impact to its property, the evidence offered in support of this claim was not persuasive. Agricultural uses are relatively unaffected by a transmission line. Unlike SMR, Taylor & Fulton has no specific future development plans for its property. Its concern regarding the impacts of the BWM Line on future development is speculative. The Dam Road extension (four-lanes) will divide the Taylor & Fulton lands into two distinct areas, east and west of the road. The BWM Line would run along one side of Dam Road. It will be Dam Road, not the BWM line, that will be the primary feature that Taylor & Fulton will have to incorporate into its future development plans. Moreover, the potential adverse impacts to Taylor & Fulton’s future development interests must be considered in conjunction with the fact that Dam Road and the BWM Line are both major public infrastructure projects that will provide substantial future benefits to Taylor & Fulton and the other developers in that area. FPL and other parties emphasized in this proceeding that when a transmission line is constructed in rural areas in advance of residential development, there are many options and techniques available to a developer to integrate the transmission line into future development plans in order to minimize its visual impact. In the future development of Taylor & Fulton’s agricultural lands, Taylor & Fulton will have these same development options and techniques. The difference between the three-sided notch and a simple line defies simple comparisons, such as the numbers of current residents in the vicinity of the Consensus Corridor versus the FPL Original Corridor in this segment. In order to assuage the concerns of the residents of the Bridle Creek subdivision on the south side of the Consensus Corridor where it runs back to the west to join the FPL Original Corridor alignment, Taylor & Fulton agreed to have the BWM Line located on the north side of a drainage canal and a line of trees so that the BWM Line would be screened from Bridle Creek. Taylor & Fulton would not remove the trees in this area if the BWM Line is constructed within the Consensus Corridor. FPL has agreed to the following condition, to be added to the Conditions of Certification as No. XVIII(F), if the Consensus Corridor is certified: To the extent feasible, and upon request by the Bridle Creek Homeowners Association (BCHOA), FPL shall consult with Taylor & Fulton, Inc. and BCHOA in the design of the transmission line to: 1) keep the pole heights along the northern BCHOA property boundary to the minimum height that is practicable, consistent with the desires of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices; and 2) work collaboratively to locate the poles in such a way as to accommodate the BCHOA to the extent practicable, consistent with the wishes of Taylor & Fulton, and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices. The Concession’s Entrance The Concession’s main concern is the impact of the BWM Line on its entrance. An attractive entrance is an important aspect of a residential development. The Concession believes the BWM Line in the FPL Original Corridor and the Consensus Corridor would substantially diminish the attractiveness of its entrance and harm the marketability of lots and homes within The Concession. Although The Concession did not join in the Settlement Agreement that resulted in the Consensus Corridor, the Consensus Corridor was designed to reduce the potential impacts of the BWM Line on The Concession’s entrance and property. FPL has agreed to locate the BWM Line along the west side of four-lane Bourneside Boulevard, the opposite side of Bourneside Boulevard from The Concession’s entrance. The transmission line would not cross over The Concession’s entrance road. In this area, the BWM Line would be 450 feet from The Concession golf course and 832 feet from the nearest residential lot. The Concession has opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the line with landscaping. The Concession’s entrance is not currently unblemished. A 250-foot telecommunications tower is located on SMR’s property several hundred feet from The Concession entrance. The tower was constructed before The Concession purchased its property, and the tower operator has a lease which allows the tower to remain there for many years. The telecommunications tower affects the siting of the BWM Line in this area. Telecommunications towers must be separated from high voltage power lines by a distance equal to the tower’s height. Therefore, the BWM Line must be located at least 250 feet from the tower. The Concession presented no direct evidence that the prospect of the BWM line near the entrance to The Concession residential development has harmed lot or home sales. The presence of the telecommunications tower was not shown to have affected sales. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(D): In the area of the planned Dam Road/Bourneside Boulevard extension (“Extension”), south of SR 64 and north of University Parkway and connecting with SR 70, FPL shall coordinate to the extent practicable with Manatee County Transportation Department and the underlying property owners regarding the location of the ROW for the Extension and the ROW for the BWM Line. If either Manatee County or the property owner(s) decline to participate in the coordination effort, FPL shall coordinate with the cooperating entity. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8, as No. XVIII(E): During design of the BWM Line, FPL shall locate poles, to the extent practicable and in compliance with the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code and good engineering practices, to maximize the space between a pole and the primary entrance of a major residential subdivision, using typical structures, and within the ROW alignment. FPL has agreed to the following condition of certification, to be added to the Conditions of Certification contained in Exhibit DEP-8 as No. XXVII(B): To the extent practicable and consistent with safe operation and ongoing maintenance practices for the BWM Line, and in compliance with the requirements of Section 163.3209, F.S. (2007) and FPL’s Transmission Vegetation Management Procedures [which have been filed with NERC and are mandatory], after construction of the BWM Line is complete, FPL shall allow underlying property owners along the BWM Line ROW to plant vegetation within the ROW. Vegetation planted within the ROW shall not have a mature height of more than 14 ft from natural ground grade and must maintain at least 75 ft of clear space around the base of the structure and must not be located so as to impede access to the BWM Line for routine and emergency maintenance. Plans for vegetation planting along the BWM Line ROW shall be reviewed and approved by FPL to ensure compatibility with the access, operation and maintenance of the facility; if compatible, the planting must be permitted. These three conditions of certification would provide opportunities to reduce the visual impact of the BWM Line in the Consensus Corridor on The Concession’s entrance. The Concession proposes a condition of certification that would require the BWM Line to be constructed several hundred feet west of Bourneside Boulevard, on SMR property. However, this would create substantial interference with SMR’s Lake Club development, part of an approved Development of Regional Impact. The adverse impacts to the Lake Club would be disproportionately greater than the adverse impacts to The Concession’s entrance caused by the Consensus Corridor. University Parkway FPL and SMR have agreed to work together on the design of the BWM Line, including ROW location, pole height, and framing configuration, in the areas of University Parkway and Bourneside Boulevard to minimize the visibility of the poles. With respect to the area south of University Parkway, the Consensus Corridor has fewer impacts on existing and future residences than the FPL Original Corridor because the Consensus Corridor is more distant from residences. It avoids crossing lands designated for future Village Land Use on the Sarasota 2050 Plan and as RES-1 on the Manatee Future Land Use Map. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road The Concession Corridor is close to and would adversely impact more existing homes and approved future residential lots than the FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor. CR 675, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road have narrow rights-of-way, with homes closer to the roads, and less opportunity for landscaped screening. The Falkner Corridor The number and proximity of existing and future homes along the Falkner Corridor was not shown. There already are multiple transmission lines in the Falkner Corridor, so for many persons living near the corridor, the incremental increase in the visual impact of adding another transmission line in the corridor should be relatively small. Nevertheless, the overall impact of the Falkner Corridor in this respect is unknown. Electric and Magnetic Fields Some members of the public expressed concern at the public hearings and through letters submitted to the Administrative Law Judge about the potential for health effects from electric and magnetic fields (EMF). However, EMF standards have already been established for the protection of human health and safety and would apply to a transmission line constructed in any corridor certified by the Siting Board. Neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Siting Board has authority in this certification proceeding to determine the appropriateness of any EMF standard. FPL provided reasonable assurances that the BWM Line, if built within any of the corridors proper for certification, will comply with the EMF standards. Falkner did not show, and it was not conceded by FPL, that the BWM Line could be constructed in the Falkner Corridor in compliance with the EMF standards. Environmental Impacts No matter what corridor is certified, FPL has agreed to follow a number of procedures to avoid and minimize the impacts to wetlands. For example, wetlands will be spanned wherever possible so poles or pads are not placed in wetlands. The transmission line will follow disturbed areas when possible. FPL has agreed to use restrictive clearing practices in forested wetlands, removing only trees taller than 14 feet and leaving the understory vegetation in place. Where fill is required, FPL will install culverts to maintain water movement. FPL will appropriately mitigate for wetland impacts that cannot be avoided. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor are wide in some areas for the purpose of providing flexibility to avoid natural vegetated communities and waterbodies to the greatest degree possible. The FPL Original Corridor and Consensus Corridor can be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. The Concession Corridor is narrower, but generally follows areas that are already disturbed and can also be constructed without significant disturbance to wetlands. Based on a simple calculation of total wetlands that are crossed by the corridors, The Concession contends that it would have the least environmental impact. That is a simplistic analysis that fails to account for the fact that, in any of the corridors proper for certification, FPL will probably be able to avoid significant impacts to the wetlands. All of the corridors proper for certification cross the Manatee River and Gilley Creek on existing bridge crossings without any poles needing to be placed in open water or wetlands. These crossings would be accomplished by spanning over the water, upland-to-upland. The BWM Line in the three corridors proper for certification would be collocated with CR 675 at the Edward Chance Preserve, adjacent to the Preserve’s parking lot. The pristine, natural areas of the preserve would not be disturbed. For most of the Falkner Corridor, a new transmission line in the existing ROW would appear to have no wetland impacts, but the Falkner Corridor crosses the Manatee River at a much wider point than the other three corridors. Building the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would require placing at least four structures within the Manatee River, and 7-to-8 structures in the adjacent floodplain. Four miles south of SR 64, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor cross the Braden River. The river is narrow within these corridors and can be spanned. The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor do not cross the Braden River. The Concession Corridor crosses Gum Slough and Cow Pen Slough on Fruitville Road, and Wolf Slough on CR 675 south of SR 64. The other proposed corridors do not cross these sloughs. However, no significant impacts to these wetlands are expected to occur if the BWM Line is constructed in The Concession Corridor. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the BWM Line in any of the corridors proper for certification is not expected to adversely impact any listed species or their habitats. There are no known listed plant species within the proposed corridors. However, there are conditions of certification which require FPL to survey for and protect any listed plant species found after certification of the BWM Line. Much of the wildlife habitat within the proposed corridors has been disturbed by roads, farming operations, and other man-induced impacts. No listed wildlife species are known to use the lands within the proposed corridors. FPL is required by the conditions of certification to protect any listed species that are found after certification of the BWM Line. The significant wildlife habitats (for non-listed species) in the corridors proper for certification are either avoided or, in the case of the Consensus Corridor’s location in the HRCE, the impacts are mitigated by measures to protect more wildlife habitat. There are some large live oak trees along CR 675. FPL can avoid or minimize impacts to those trees. In addition, FPL has agreed to the following additional condition of certification to be added as Condition No. XVIII(G) to the Conditions of Certification: When establishing the ROW location and constructing the transmission line, the Licensee shall minimize impacts to pre- existing natural features and minimize tree removal and trimming of vegetation, to the extent feasible and in compliance with Section 163.3209, Fla. Stat. (2007), which incorporates by reference National Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) standard FAC-003-1, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards A300 (Part I)-2001 and Z133.1-2000, and NESC standards adopted by the Florida Public Service Commission. Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement (HRCE) and Mitigation The Consensus Corridor is the only corridor that goes through the HRCE. The BWM Line would involve 18-to-28 acres of transmission line ROW in the 1,972-acre HRCE, depending on pole height and EMF-related ROW width requirements. The Consensus Corridor is near the western edge of the HRCE, which is primarily improved pasture and pine flatwoods, and follows jeep trails and fire breaks for much of its length. No unique or significant wildlife habitat exists in the corridor. No wetlands or important environmental features of the HRCE would have to be disturbed. The environmental functions of the HRCE would not be impaired. Although the HRCE is in a conservation land use designation, the portion of the HRCE within the Consensus Corridor is not environmentally sensitive, but serves as a buffer to the environmentally sensitive Gum Slough system. Sarasota County, the holder of the HRCE conservation easement, has approved the construction, operation and maintenance of the BWM Line within the HRCE in the Consensus Corridor. SMR has agreed to add 140 acres to the HRCE if the Consensus Corridor is certified. These 140 acres include portions of Gum Slough and large isolated wetlands. Protection of these additional lands would provide wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. SMR would also protect 470 acres of additional lands contiguous to the HRCE with restrictive covenants. The 470 acres include wetland systems, such as Cow Pen Slough, which would be protected from future development. The restrictive covenants require SMR to ensure that these wetlands are maintained in as good an ecological condition and functionality as currently exists, or better. The restrictive covenants would aid in the protection and preservation of the natural drainage pattern in the area, and would provide a benefit to the Gum Slough system for wildlife habitat and water quality. Summary of Environmental Impacts At this level of analysis, it is impossible to predict the unavoidable environmental wetland impacts that would be associated with each of the corridors proper for certification. As required by the Conditions of Certification, the construction of the BWM Line in any certified corridor must comply with the wetland regulatory standards applicable to such projects. The three corridors proper for certification have some potential for environmental impacts, but for all of these corridors, the environmental impacts should be relatively minor. However, the Consensus Corridor is the best of the three proposals because it presents an opportunity for a net environmental benefit with SMR’s offer to protect 600 more acres of sensitive lands. The Falkner Corridor has the greatest potential for adverse environmental impacts because of the need to place structures in the Manatee River and its floodplain. Costs The FPL Original Corridor is estimated to cost about $25.5 million, the most of the three corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor is estimated to cost $3.3 million less, primarily due to the agreements with Taylor & Fulton and SMR regarding ROW acquisition. The Concession Corridor is estimated to cost $500,000 less than the Consensus Corridor. The difference between the estimated costs for the Consensus Corridor and The Concession Corridor, $500,000, represents a small percentage of the total project costs, especially in light of the margin of error in these cost estimates. Even a cost differential of $3 million, at this early stage of planning and cost analysis, is not a substantial difference. The estimated cost of placing the BWM Line within the existing common ROW in the Falkner Corridor was not clearly established in the record. Falkner used 2006-2007 cost estimates to argue that the Falkner Corridor would cost millions less than the other corridors. FPL states that the FPL Corridor would require that transmission lines be looped in and out from the existing common ROW to FPL’s future distribution substations, adding over $7 million of costs when compared to a geographically separate corridor. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record regarding the costs associated with future substations and connecting transmission lines to meaningfully compare the four corridors with regard to these and other future system components. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that the BWM Line in the Falkner Corridor would probably cost the least to build. However, the record evidence is not sufficient to state how much less the Falkner Corridor would cost. Other Issues The Concession Corridor and Falkner Corridor avoid impacts to Lake Manatee State Park. The potential impacts of the FPL Corridor and Consensus Corridor on the park would be small, but the Consensus Corridor would have less impact because it avoids the Park’s entrance and reduces the BWM Line’s length along the park boundary on SR 64 by about one mile. Within the park, the BWM Line would likely be screened from view by trees in the park. There should be no adverse ecological impacts to the park. If the BWM Line is located in the Consensus Corridor or FPL Original Corridor, FPL would first try to place the line in the road ROW. If that were not possible, FPL would locate the line just inside the Park’s fence in an area already cleared. With respect to traffic interruption during construction of the BWM Line, the Consensus Corridor and FPL Original Corridor would have equally small impact. Construction of the BWM Line in The Concession Corridor along CR 675 (south of SR 64), SR 70, Verna Road, and Fruitville Road would likely require intermittent closure of at least one lane of traffic for the 2-to-3 month construction period. Summary Regarding The Balancing of Need and Impact All three corridors proper for certification would cause adverse impacts to the public which can be avoided without jeopardizing the objectives of the TLSA and without losing the benefits associated with integrating the BWM Line with existing and future land uses. However, the TLSA clearly contemplates that a proposed corridor can cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment, but still meet the criteria for certification. The three corridors proper for certification are found to meet this criterion because none would cause adverse impacts to the public and the environment that are so great that they outweigh the need or benefits of constructing the BWM Line. The evidence submitted for the Falkner Corridor, however, was insufficient to make a finding regarding this particular criterion. I. The Corridor that would have the Least Adverse Impact Section 403.529(5)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that the Siting Board shall deny certification if it determines that a rejected corridor has the least adverse impact with regard to the certification criteria. The Falkner Corridor has more potential for adverse impact regarding some of the certification criteria than the corridors proper for certification. For some certification criteria, insufficient evidence was presented regarding the Falkner Corridor to make a meaningful comparison with the corridors proper for certification. Therefore, the record evidence does not support a finding that the Falkner Corridor has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes. If two or more corridors proper for certification meet the statutory criteria, certification must be granted to the corridor that has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4) Florida Statutes, including costs. § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat. Because the FPL Original Corridor, the Consensus Corridor, and The Concession Corridor meet the certification criteria, it must be determined which of them would have the least adverse impact. During the certification hearing, the parties promoted one corridor over another based on the advantages and disadvantages associated with their various segments. However, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the best combination of corridor segments, creating a corridor that has the least adverse impact and effects the best balance between the need for the BWM Line and impacts upon the public and the environment, is not one of the corridors proper for certification. The Consensus Corridor does not effect the best balance between the need for the transmission line and the impact on the public because it includes substantial adverse impacts on the public in the area of the notch on Taylor & Fulton’s property that are unnecessary and avoidable. The avoidance of these impacts, the opportunity to collocate the BWM Line with the Dam Road extension, and several other advantages described by FPL in its corridor application and in the evidence presented by FPL during the first part of the certification hearing, make the FPL Original Corridor preferable in this area of Manatee County. The best combination of corridor segments is the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation.
Conclusions For Applicant, Florida Power & Light Company: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Virginia Daily, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 For the Department of Environmental Protection: Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32333-3000 For Manatee County: Sarah A. Schenk, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Manatee County Attorney’s Office 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 969 Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206-1000 For Sarasota County: Stephen E. DeMarsh, Esquire David Pearce, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 For the Southwest Florida Water Management District: Martha Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 LLC: For the Department of Transportation Leon M. Biegalski, Esquire Kimberly Menchion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc., and Lake Club Investors, W. Douglas Hall, Esquire H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Dianne Triplett, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 For Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC; FC, LLC; Sarasota One, LLC; John Cannon Homes - Eastmoor, LLC; Schwartz Farms, Inc.; Michael and Jo Anne Schwartz: Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire R. David Jackson, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1001 Third Avenue West, Suite 670 Bradenton, Florida 34205 For Gum Slough Preservation Foundation; Kittie L. Chapman; East County Homeowners Organization, Inc.; and Hi Hat Ranch, LLP: Robert S. Wright, Esquire Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For ManaSota-88, Inc.: Barbara G. Hines, Esquire 117 81st Street Holmes Beach, Florida 34217 For John Falkner: Roy W. Cohn, Esquire 2406 Watrous Avenue Tampa, Florida 33629 For Pacific Land, Ltd.: Maureen M. Daughton, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For The Concession Land Development, LLC; and The Concession Golf Club, LLC: Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Anchors Smith Grimsley The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Michael, David, and Doanld Hunsader: Paul F. Grondahl, Esquire Mackey Law Group, P.A. 1402 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 For Bridle Creek Home Owners Association, Inc.: Keith Colabella, pro se . c/o Miller Management 2848 Proctor Road Sarasota, Florida 34231 For Taylor & Fulton, Inc.: Joel E. Roberts, Esquire V. Nicholas Dancaescu Gray Robinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a Final Order that certifies the corridor for the BWM Line as consisting of the FPL Original Corridor from the Manatee Energy Center to the point where it is perpendicular to Taylor & Fulton’s southern property boundary, and then continuing south in the Consensus Corridor to the proposed Bobwhite substation; and that is subject to the Conditions of Certification that were entered into the hearing record as DEP Exhibit 8; and that is subject to the additional conditions agreed to by FPL and cited in paragraphs 161 through 163, and 183, of this Recommended Order; and that incorporates the terms set forth as paragraphs 5A through 5D of the Settlement Agreement entered into the record as FPL Exhibit 91, or comparable terms that provide for the environmental mitigation described therein, as conditions of this certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008.
