Findings Of Fact PROCEDURAL MATTERS 12 PROJECT DESIGN 16 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE 17 Design 17 Construction 21 Maintenance 23 SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND SEPARATION FROM EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES 24 THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CORRIDORS FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 29 DESCRIPTION OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 29 Land Uses 29 Unusual Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 32 Water Resources 32 Vegetation 33 Wildlife 33 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 34 Land Use Impacts 34 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 41 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 41 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 43 Water Resources Impacts 43 Vegetation Impacts 44 Wildlife Impacts 45 THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CORRIDOR FROM CORBETT SUBSTATION TO LEVEE SUBSTATION 45 DESCRIPTION OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 45 Land Uses 45 Water Resources 48 Vegetation 49 Wildlife 50 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 51 Land Use Impacts 51 Unique Proposed Uses 52 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 52 Other Consideration - Impacts to Sugar Cane 53 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 54 Water Resources Impacts 54 Vegetation Impacts 55 Wildlife Impacts 56 DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 57 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 57 Land Uses 57 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 58 Water Resources 59 Vegetation 59 Wildlife 59 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 59 Land Use Impacts 59 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 60 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 61 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 62 Water Resources Impacts 62 Vegetation Impacts 62 Wildlife Impacts 62 DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 63 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 63 Land Uses 63 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 64 Water Resources 65 Vegetation 65 Wildlife 65 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 65 Land Use Impacts 65 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 66 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 67 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 67 Water Resources Impacts 67 Vegetation Impacts 67 Wildlife Impacts 68 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 68 CONSISTENCY OF THE TCRPC CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 68 St. Lucie County 68 Martin County 68 Palm Beach County 69 CONSISTENCY OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 69 Palm Beach County 69 Broward County 69 Dade County 70 THE SITE FOR THE CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 71 SYSTEM PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 71 System Planning 71 Engineering 72 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 73 Land Uses 73 Vegetation 74 Wildlife 74 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE PROPOSED SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 74 Land Use Impacts 74 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 74 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plans 75 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 75 Vegetation Impacts 75 Wildlife Impacts 75 COSTS FOR THE LEVEE-MIDWAY TRANSMISSION LINE 76 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS 77 Compliance with EMF Rule 77 Lightning 78 Noise 78 Radio and Television Interference 79 NONPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF AGENCIES 80 Conditions of Certification Agreed to by FPL 80 Supplemental Conditions Agreed to by FPL and SFWMD 83 Conditions of Certification Proposed by SFWMD but Opposed by FPL 85 Conditions of Certification Proposed by GFWFC 87 Local Government Zoning 89 Stipulations for Settlement Entered into by FPL 91
Conclusions Corridors That Remain Certifiable 93 Standing 94 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE CORRIDORS THAT REMAIN CERTIFIABLE 95 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(a), Florida Statutes 96 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(b), Florida Statutes 97 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(c), Florida Statutes 98 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(d), Florida Statutes 100 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(e), Florida Statutes 101 Impacts on the Public 101 Impacts on the Environment 104 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(a), Florida Statutes 106 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(c), Florida Statutes 107 CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 108 RECOMMENDATION 109
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order and therein dismiss the parties who failed to make and appearance; ratify the partial Summary Recommended Order; and grant certification for the location of the Levee-Midway Transmission Line in TCRPC Corridor 1 and the SFWMD Corridor and for the construction and maintenance of the transmission line within those corridors as proposed in the application and in accordance with the conditions of certification contained in Appendices C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K, as modified and recommended on pages 98 and 99 herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990. * APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER * Appendix to this Recommended Order is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez David L. Powell Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Attorneys for Florida Power and Light Company Richard T. Donelan, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Attorney for Department of Environmental Regulation James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Attorney for the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Frances Jauquet John J. Fumero Attorneys at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road (33406) Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Attorneys for South Florida Water Management District 1 Katherine Funchess Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Attorney for Department of Community Affairs Roger G. Saberson, Attorney at Law Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council E. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attorney for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Samuel S. Goren, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Attorney for South Florida Regional Planning Council Fred W. Van Vonno Assistant County Attorney Martin County 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 Attorney for Martin County Patrick M. Casey Assistant County Attorney Dade County Metro-Dade Center N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128-1993 Attorney for Dade County Krista A. Storey Assistant County Attorney St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Attorney for St. Lucie County Noel M. Pfeffer, Deputy General Counsel Broward County Governmental Center, Suite 423 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Broward County Robert P. Banks Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County Governmental Complex, 6th Floor 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorney for Palm Beach County Andrea L. Moore Assistant City Attorney City of Coral Springs 9551 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Attorney for City of Coral Springs Richard L. Doody, Attorney at Law Office of City Attorney City of Tamarac 7525 NW 88th Avenue Tamarac, FL 33321-2401 Attorney for City of Tamarac Steven L. Josias, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. Centrust Savings Bank 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorneys for Vesta Vestra, Inc. and the City of Parkland Jon M. Henning, City Attorney City of Sunrise 10770 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, FL 33351 Lisa N. Mulhall, Attorney at Law Burke, Bosselman & Weaver One Lincoln Place 1900 Glades Road, Suite 350 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Attorney for Town of Davie Heather Ruda, Attorney at Law Gibson & Adams, P.A. 303 First Street, Suite 400 (33401) Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-1629 Attorney for Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County Scott Shirley, Attorney at Law Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Attorney for Coral Ridge Properties William L. Hyde, Attorney at Law Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue (32301) Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Co-counsel for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Donald R. Hall, Attorney at Law Gustafson, Stephens, Ferris, Forman & Hill, P.A. 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Silver Lakes Partnership, Hollywood STS Associates, and the William Lyon Company Donna H. Stinson, Attorney at Law Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for Indian Trail Grove, Limited, Irving Cowan, Savin Groves, Kenneth G. Savage, Robert Povey and Harold Wideman, and Sunny Urban Meadows Landowners Association; Indian Trail Scott Mager, Attorney at Law Mager & Gaffney, P.A. The 110 Tower - 12th Floor 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for the Shennandoah Community Association and Jeff Reisburg Water Control District Stephen Covert, Attorney at Law 631 U.S. Highway One, Suite 200 (33408) Post Office Box 14035 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Attorney for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves J. A. Jurgens, Attorney at Law Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100 (33401) Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Co-counsel for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves Timothy J. Manor Margaret H. Schreiber Attorneys at Law Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 North Eola Drive (32801) Post Office Box 2809 Oriando, FL 32802-2809 Attorney for The Coca-Cola Company William J. Payne Dale Konigsburg Donna Stinson Attorneys at Law Rinker Materials Corporation 1501 Belvedere Road (33401) Post Office Box 24635 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4635 Attorneys for Rinker Materials Corporation Lawrence N. Ctrtin Samuel J. Morley Attorneys at Law Holland and Knight 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Attorneys for New Hope Sugar Company, Okeelanta Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., South Bay Growers, Inc. United States Sugar Corporation, S. D. Sugar Corporation, Florida Sugar Cane League Alfred J. Malefatto, Attorney at Law Shapiro & Bregman, P.A. Suite 310, East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive (33401) Post Office Box 20629 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-0629 Attorney for FreBar, Inc.; Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor Ag Corporation Mark P. Gagnon Stanley D. Klett, Jr. Attorneys at Law Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & Hyland, P.A. 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 900 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Attorneys for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Leigh A. Williams, Attorney at Law Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike, P.A. 1855 S. Kanner Way (34994) Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, FL 34995 Attorney for VBQ, Inc.; Beach Brooks as Trustee and Individually Darrell White, Attorney at Law McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building (32301) Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 Attorney for Allapattah Properties Partnership Michael K. Spotts, Attorney at Law Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson & Gorman, P.A. 519 South Indian River Drive (34954) Post Office Box 3779 Fort Pierce, FL 34948 Attorney for Reuben Carlton Honorable Bob Martinez Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Eric Simon, Attorney at Law Borkson, Simon & Noskowitz 1500 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 401 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorney for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Mary M. Viator, Attorney at Law Caldwell & Pacetti Post Office Box 2775 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Attorney for Indian Trail Water Control District Robert D. Miller, Attorney at Law 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Tower A, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor-Ag Corporation Joseph M. Norton Transmission Line Siting Coordinator Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Tim Murphy Anita Tallarico Attorneys at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Attorneys for South Florida Regional Planning Council Kerri L. Barsh, Attorney at Law 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Graham Companies Donald S. Rosenberg, Attorney at Law 2600 AmeriFirst Building One S. E. Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Black Island Partnership Robert E. Ferris, Trustee 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul H. Amundsen James C. Hauser Attorneys at Law Blank, Hauser & Amundsen 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for D.L. Scotto & Company; Indian River Citrus League Frank H. Fee, III, Attorney at Law Fee, Bryan & Koblegard, P.A. Post Office Box 1000 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 Attorney for North St. Lucie River Water Control District Thomas E. Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 David Swafford, Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0875
Findings Of Fact Unit No. 2 is certified to be a nuclear facility situated on 300 acres of a 1132 acre site previously cleared and filled on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The site is presently occupied by Unit No. 1, also a nuclear facility. Hutchinson Island is a typical but highly developed coastal barrier island of the Florida Atlantic Coast. The site prior to development was predominantly flat and water covered, with dense vegetation typical of coastal mangrove swamp. On the Eastern side of the island, the land rises slightly in a dune to approximately 15 feet above mean low water. The cooling system for Unit No. 2 is essentially the same as that for Unit No. 1. It is proposed that the existing intake and discharge canals, present on the 300 acre tract for Unit No. 1, will be utilized by Unit No. 2. As originally planned and presently certified, the discharge structure for cooling water from Unit No. 2 consists of an open discharge canal, excavated to elevation - 17 feet. This canal is 28 feet wide at the bottom, with a slope of to 3. The open discharge canal extends from the plant approximately 2200 feet to a point 400 feet west of the existing shoreline. From there, a 12 foot diameter concrete conduit, for each unit, is buried beneath the ground and carries the discharged water under the beach and ocean floor out to the ocean discharge structures. The conduit for Unit No. 2 will extend approximately 2800 feet from the shoreline. The Unit No. 2 ocean discharge structure consists of a multiport diffuser containing 48 ports. Each port will be 1.5 feet in diameter, spaced 22.5 feet between centers and oriented to discharge horizontally. The jets will be mounted in an alternating manner on either side of a 1,060 foot manifold. Ocean depth at the discharge point will be approximately - 35 to - 40 feet mean low water. Exit velocity of the discharged water from each port will be approximately 13 feet per second. The effects on the environment which would occur from construction of the discharge conduit with the multi-port diffuser originally planned for Unit No. 2 were thoroughly studied and were the subject of extensive testimony at the 1975 certification hearing. Paragraphs 11, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, 55 and 64 of the Findings of Fact contained in the October 8, 1975 Recommended Order, discuss and summarize the studies and testimony. On January 11, 1980, Florida Power & Light Company filed and served on all parties a "Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification" pursuant to Section 403.516(3), Florida Statutes. The petition requests a modification to the certification previously issued to reflect proposed design modifications to the cooling water discharge system which are necessary to account for design head losses resulting from the final multi-port diffuser design and to allow a margin for greater than anticipated marine fouling effects. The petition filed by Florida Power & Light Company seeks to modify the original design from that described in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order entered October 8, 1975 by widening the distance which the open discharge canal extends along the shoreline, increasing the size and length of the conduit, and increasing the number of ports in the diffuser. On January 28, 1980, pursuant to Sections 120.57 and 403.615(3), Florida Statutes, and proper notice published in the local newspapers and served on all parties, a formal hearing was held at the St. Lucie County Library, 124 North Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. At the hearing, Florida Power & Light Company presented three (3) witnesses who testified in support of the Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification. These witnesses, Clifford Kent, James O'Hara, and J. Ross Wilcox, described the need for, and the effects of the proposed modifications. Their testimony demonstrated that the proposed modification will result in improved availability of St. Lucie Unit No. 2, and will not result in a significant environmental impact or effect to the public that was not previously considered in the certification proceedings. Florida Power & Light Company also introduced into the record documentary evidence reflecting that it has applied for and been granted the following permits and approvals for this project: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit No. 79K-1019 issued January 7, 1980, and State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Department of Natural Resources) Easement No. 25624 (2670-56)A, St. Lucie County, approved January 8, 1980. The testimony and evidence were not opposed or contradicted by testimony or evidence of any other party. At the hearing on the petition to modify, the Department of Environmental Regulation presented evidence indicating that the effects anticipated from construction of the modified discharge system would increase turbidity in the ocean during construction in the immediate area of the excavation. Adequate control structures are to be used however. The construction of the canal extension would remove approximately two acres of impounded mangrove habitat. To mitigate this loss, Florida power & Light Company proposes to breach the dike on the northern mangrove area to allow approximately 50 acres of mangrove to function more normally with the Indian River estuary. The environmental effects from operation of the revised Unit No. discharge system will be approximately the same as the original proposal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended that the proposed modification be certified subject to the following additional conditions: That the dike around the mangrove area north of the discharge canal be opened up to Big Mud Creek by breaching the dike in three (3) places. Each breach in the dike shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide at the bottom and the bottom elevation of the breach shall not be higher than one foot below mean sea level (- 1 MSL) or deeper than - 3 MSL. That the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores be allowed to inspect the dune once restored. Florida Power and Light Company has agreed to the imposition of the proposed conditions. The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County has stated that its experts have concluded that the anticipated effects on the environment from the proposed modification will not be dramatically different from those which have previously occurred. Accordingly, the Alliance does not oppose this petition to modify.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner is MCI Telecommunications Corporation, whose business address is Suite 400, 400 Perimeter Center Terrace NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The Respondent is State of Florida, Department of General Service, whose address is 614 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The Intervenors are Microtel, Inc., whose address is 7100 West Camino Real, Suite 311, Boca Raton, Florida 33433, and United States Transmission Systems, whose business address is 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. MCI, Microtel, AT&T, Southland, and USTS are all interexchange carriers authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide, among other things, interstate WATS. MCI, AT&T, Southland, and Microtel are all interexchange carriers certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide, among other things, intermachine trunks and intrastate WATS. The interexchange carriers who participated in the November 5, 1987, negotiations were not advised prior to 9:00 a.m. on that day that the negotiations would consist of three rounds of price quotations with the prices quoted and each round being posted immediately on the board for review by the other carriers. The posting by the Division of Purchasing between 3:00 p.m. on November 2, 1987, and 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, of a draft memorandum from William Monroe to Glenn Mayne was not a bid tabulation. The State of Florida provides a communications system to state agencies, local governments, and public school districts through the SUNCOM Network. The SUNCOM Network consists of switches, access lines, and transmission facilities such as Intermachine Trunks, Interstate WATS, and Intrastate WATS. On the SUNCOM Network, long distance calls from one SUNCOM user to another SUNCOM user are completed on IMTs. Intrastate WATS facilities are used to place in-state long distance calls from a SUNCOM user to a party not a member of the SUNCOM Network. Interstate WATS facilities are used to complete out-of-state long distance calls. The Division of Communications desired to migrate the data users of the SUNCON Network from an analog environment to a digital environment. In order to do that, there had to be changes to the SUNCOM switching facilities and changes to the transmission facilities. In 1984, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the switches. As a result of the RFP, the network went from 5 to 11 switches on December 1, 1986. The Division of Communications decided to utilize digital transmission facilities for both IMTs and Interstate WATS facilities on the newly configured network. In 1985, the Division of Communications negotiated a contract with MCI for the provision of the Interstate WATS. MCI made no protest to being awarded the contract by negotiation. AT&T was selected to provide the IMTs. The selection of AT&T and MCI was an interim measure to give the Division of Communications time to evaluate the transmission facilities for changes after the new network had stabilized. At the time of the final hearing, AT&T was the current provider for the IMTs and Intrastate WATS and MCI was the current provider for the Interstate WATS. On March 1, 1987, the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing sent a letter to seventeen suppliers of transmission facilities. The letter advised the suppliers that the Division of Communications was beginning an evaluation process to determine the viability of replacing some or all of the SUNCOM Network completion facilities with different suppliers. The suppliers were advised that a potential supplier did not have to service all routes or provide all facilities in order to be considered. Suppliers were requested to provide information concerning their transmission facilities. It was contemplated that the transmission facilities would be tested for approximately 90 days, during which time there would be consideration of reliability, maintainability, cost, and billing. The evaluation process also contemplated consideration of corporate viability and status, network typology, and references from existing customers similar in size to the State of Florida. The suppliers were cautioned that their participation in the evaluation process did not guarantee a contract and that it was possible that the evaluation process might not result in any contract. The suppliers were also advised that any contract would be negotiated. The March 18, 1987, letter is a request for information and was so considered by the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing. By April 9, 1987, the Department of General Services had received ten responses to the March 18, 1987, letter. A five member evaluation team was formed to review the April 9 responses from the suppliers, conduct the oral presentations, conduct the 90-day test and make recommendations. The evaluation committee was comprised of five employees of the Division of Communications. Division of Purchasing personnel did not actively participate on the evaluation committee because they wanted to remain impartial in the event the Division of Purchasing would later have to decide what method of procurement to use. Each potential supplier was scheduled for an oral presentation in late April or early May of 1987. Additional information about the proposals was obtained at those presentations. The suppliers were asked during oral presentation if their prices were open for negotiation. Ed Martinez of MCI said that MCI was open for negotiation. Of the carriers that survived the technical evaluation process, MCI had submitted the lowest price for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. An in-service test of the ten suppliers was conducted from July 10 to September 30, 1987. One supplier, Lightnet, disconnected its transmission facility prior to the end of the test period. Robert Davis, chairman of the evaluation committee, used a numerical rating scheme to assist in evaluating the suppliers. The numerical point system was used as a way to make the evaluation process more objective. Additionally, when the evaluation was begun, the evaluation committee did not know whether contracts would be awarded through a formal acquisition process or through negotiation. The committee thought that an orderly ranking of the participants based on a rating scheme would be beneficial to Mr. Mayne in determining the method of acquisition. Mr. Mayne was unaware that a numerical point system was being used to evaluate the responses until he read the report prepared by the evaluation committee. On October 16, 1987, the evaluation committee issued the "Report on Alternate Suppliers for SUNCOM Network Transmission Facilities." The report outlined the evaluation process, presented the findings of the committee in the areas of pricing, billing, reliability-maintainability, corporate viability and general compliance by the suppliers, and made recommendations based on their findings. The evaluation committee concluded that, based on the prices submitted by the suppliers, it was possible for the state to reduce the cost of the operation of the network by over $368,000 per month. In considering the corporate viability of a supplier, the evaluation committee did not intend to conduct an indepth financial analysis. The evaluation committee wanted to determine whether the suppliers would have the ability to survive in a competitive environment for the contract period of three years. Both DGS' staff and MCI's financial analysis expert agreed that ITT, MCI, Microtel, AT&T and Southland were in a position to maintain their corporate viability for the contract period. The evaluation committee recognized that there was an opportunity to further reduce the cost of the network transmission facilities. The committee recommended that the IMTs, Interstate WATS and Intrastate WATS not be provided by one supplier. It was also recommended that Sprint, Digital Signal, and Lightnet be eliminated from further consideration. The report did not recommend specific suppliers. The committee recognized that if the point evaluation were used that the ranking would change as the result of further negotiations. They felt that if a decision was made not to use the point evaluation, then low cost would determine the suppliers. The report was presented to Glenn Mayne for his consideration. Based on his review of the report, Mr. Mayne determined that the State was currently paying far too much money for the transmission facilities; the State desired to have more than one supplier for the transmission facilities; and there was a group of potential alternate suppliers who could supply the State with transmission facilities which would be acceptable for the SUNCOM Network. As soon as Mr. Mayne became aware of the enormous potential savings to the State (and probably because of that awareness) things began to happen very quickly. A copy of the evaluation report was given to Bill Monroe. Mr. Mayne and Mr. Monroe discussed the report and Mr. Mayne expressed some concerns relating to the Division of Communications' need to migrate data signals to the network. Monroe asked that those concerns be put in writing. Mr. Mayne complied by memorandum dated October 28, 1987, in which he expressed his concerns relating to the discontinuance of Telpak and the Division of Communications' plans to migrate data to the voice network. The desire to address these concerns in the negotiations was due primarily to an AT&T proposal submitted in the late summer or early fall of 1987, which addressed these concerns. The Department had made no effort to obtain proposals similar to AT&T's from the other suppliers prior to requesting authority to negotiate from the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing deemed the October 28 memorandum to be the Division of Communications' formal request for the authority to negotiate. Mr. Monroe authorized the Division of Communications to negotiate contracts for the transmission facilities and services for the SUNCOM Network. The authorization to negotiate was granted because the providing of transmission facilities and services was a regulated portion of the telephone industry; the participants were limited to those which met Florida Public Service Commission guidelines for facility based operations; an indepth evaluation of the suppliers had been performed; and the delay incident to using any other procurement method would result in a substantial monetary loss to the State. The most significant factor in the decision to negotiate was the monetary loss which would result from delay. The authorization memorandum recommended that the negotiation be handled as a joint venture between the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing, and that the Division of Purchasing participate in development of the criteria for final selection of a supplier. Mr. Mayne discussed the method of negotiations to be used with Mr. Monroe and his staff. Based on his past experience with one-on-one negotiations, Mr. Mayne felt it would be fairer to put up everyone's prices on the board so that all suppliers could see each others prices. Mr. Mayne suggested that there be two verbal rounds of pricing and a final round in writing. Mr. Monroe concurred with Mr. Mayne's suggestion. It was felt this method of negotiations would result in better pricing for the State; could be done quickly and easily; and would reduce the chance of one supplier being favored over another. The intended decision of the Division of Purchasing to authorize the negotiation was posted in the Division of Purchasing beginning November 2, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. The posting was in the form of a post-dated, unsigned memorandum from the Division of Purchasing Director to the Division of Communications Director. Stamped at the bottom of the draft memorandum was the language required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, indicating that the failure to file a timely protest would constitute a waiver of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceedings. In large letters at the top of this posting was the word DRAFT. Each of the ten suppliers was notified that the Division of Purchasing had authorized negotiations and that this decision would be posted beginning November 2 through November 5, 1987. On November 2, 1987, Cherrie McClellan, a purchasing specialist for the Division of Purchasing, called MCI's Ed Martinez to advise him that the authorization for the Division of Communications to negotiate for the procurement of the SUNCOM Network alternate suppliers would be posted from 3:00 p.m. November 2, 1987 to 3:00 p.m. November 5, 1987. Ms. McClellan was unable to reach Mr. Martinez and left the message on his recording machine. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Martinez called Ms. McClellan to confirm the message. She told him that the posting was for the authority for the Division of Communications to negotiate and she assumed that the Division of Communications would be contacting him. In giving the telephone notification to MCI, the Division of Purchasing did not specifically advise MCI that its failure to file a timely protest of the Division of Purchasing's decision would waive MCI's rights to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On November 3, Mr. Martinez also called John Fain, a purchasing specialist supervisor with the Division of Purchasing. Mr. Fain advised Mr. Martinez that the Division of Purchasing had received a request for authority to negotiate from the Division of Communications, final negotiation could not begin until after the conclusion of the posting at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, and he did not know if there would be another posting. On November 2, 1987, Mohammed Amirzadeh Asl, an electrical engineer with the Division of Communications, called Ed Martinez between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.; invited him to the negotiations on November 5; told him to bring his best prices for IMT routes and personnel who could make a decision; advised him he would have access during the negotiations to a phone but he had to use his credit card for any calls; and told him that DGS would be faxing him additional information concerning the negotiations. Mr. Amirzadeh also advised the other suppliers on November 2 of the negotiations and told them the same thing he had told Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez called Mr. Amirzadeh on November 3 and 4 with questions concerning the negotiations. On November 4, DGS faxed a memorandum to the suppliers concerning the criteria for the negotiations and the prices which had been quoted thus far to the Division of Communications. The memorandum advised the suppliers that preliminary discussions would start at 9:00 a.m. on November 5 at the Division of Communications and official negotiations would not start until 3:00 p.m. When Mr. Martinez, the MCI representative, came to the negotiations, he expected the Department to negotiate first with MCI to attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement for the solicited telecommunications facilities and services, and he expected the Department to negotiate with other suppliers only if the negotiations with MCI were unsuccessful. These expectations were based on MCI's status as one of the incumbent suppliers, on the fact that the Department appeared to very satisfied with MCI's performance, and on the fact that MCI had submitted the lowest price proposals for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services in its April 9, 1987, submittal. These expectations were unwarranted. The negotiations began at 9:00 a.m. on November 5,1987. Glenn Mayne started out the negotiations by discussing the criteria which had been faxed to the suppliers on November 4. The suppliers were also given copies of the evaluation committee report. The suppliers were advised that there would be three rounds of negotiations The first two rounds would be preliminary. The last round of negotiation was to take place prior to 5:00 p.m. There were some assumptions that the suppliers were given to use in presenting their prices. The suppliers' prices were to be for one T-1 on each route, and the costs were to include access charges. Additionally, if there was any difference between the quoted and actual access charges the difference would be the responsibility of the supplier. The format used by the Division of Communications for the negotiations on November 5, 1987, was not normally used by the Department. The first round of pricing was at 11:00 a.m. Each supplier gave its price orally and as the price was given it was written on a board in the room. An objection was raised by one of the suppliers that the method used could give the last supplier an advantage because he would have seen all of the other suppliers' prices prior to giving his price. The second round was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. The method of receiving prices was changed to accommodate the objections at the first round. In the second round each participant wrote his prices on a piece of paper, all the papers were picked up, the papers opened, and the prices were written on the board. Between the second and third rounds, each supplier was given an opportunity to meet with Mr. Mayne and his staff. Mr. Martinez met with Mr. Mayne and his staff at 3:00 p.m. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that DGS would like two separate fibers for each T-1 route for IMTs. The price for IMTs given by Microtel was approximately $9.50 per mile month. The corresponding price for MCI was around $15 or $16 per mile month. Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that, in order for MCI to be considered for a portion of the IMTs, MCI's price needed to be around $10 per mile month. Mr. Mayne did not reference access charges when he discussed the $10 per mile month. One of the assumptions of the pricing for the negotiations was that all prices would include access charges. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne told Mr. Martinez that MCI's price for IMTs was almost twice as much as the other suppliers. Additionally during the 3:00 p.m. meeting between Mr. Mayne and Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mayne explained to Mr. Martinez that the suppliers would reconvene at 4:00 p.m. and report their final responses and the last round of pricing would be before 5:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the clear explanation of when the suppliers would have their last opportunity to give their final prices, Mr. Martinez was apparently confused because he thought (albeit erroneously) that he would have another opportunity to offer a price after the third round. Because he thought that as an incumbent supplier MCI would have another opportunity to offer a price after all of the other suppliers had given their final prices, Mr. Martinez made a judgment call not to offer MCI's best price during the third round of the negotiations. The best price that Mr. Martinez was authorized to offer on the interstate WATS was slightly higher than the best price actually offered by another supplier. Mr. Martinez appears to be the only one who was confused about the finality of the third round of negotiations. It would not have been fair to the other suppliers to have afforded MCI an opportunity to submit further prices after the third round. No one from the Department of General Services advised Mr. Martinez that he would be given an opportunity to present further pricing after the other suppliers had given their best and final prices. The suppliers reconvened at 4:00 p.m. A supplier inquired whether the prices could be given before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne asked the other suppliers whether they were ready and no one objected to giving the prices before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne emphasized the third round was the last round. The suppliers gave their final prices at 4:19 p.m. The suppliers were asked to sign the sheets which contained their prices for the last round. Microtel submitted the lowest price for IMTs at $8.89 per mile. MCI's price for the IMTs was $12.52 per mile. ITT submitted the lowest price for Interstate WATS facilities at $.1249 per minute. MCI submitted $.1285 per minute for the Interstate WATS facilities. MCI submitted the lowest price for Intrastate WATS facilities at $.1133 per minute. Microtel submitted $.1139 per minute for the Intrastate WATS facilities. At the conclusion of the final round of pricing, AT&T indicated that they had additional pricing which was contained in a proposal submitted to Mr. Mayne in late summer or early fall of 1987. Mr. Mayne thought that AT&T had submitted its final prices during the last round and he advised AT&T that he would not consider the prices that were not contained on the sheets submitted by AT&T during the last round. John Fain, representative for the Division of Purchasing at the negotiations, also stated that prices not placed on the board could not be accepted. Mr. Mayne advised the suppliers at the end of the negotiations that the Division of Communications would try to reach a decision by the close of business on November 6. At the end of negotiations on November 5, 1987, the Division of Communications returned to AT&T its proposal which had formed part of the basis for the Division of Communications' request for authority to negotiate after AT&T claimed pricing information contained in that proposal was proprietary. At the beginning of the negotiation session on November 5, Mr. Mayne was satisfied that each of the participants could provide the solicited transmission facilities and services. Since the AT&T proposal would not be considered, Mr. Mayne determined that the contract should be awarded based on lowest cost for each of the transmission facilities. Prior to acting on this determination, Mr. Mayne discussed the matter with the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing concurred in the decision to award on the basis of lowest cost. The contract awards were based on low price and not the total points assigned to the providers based upon the numeric rating system used by the evaluation committee in the evaluation report. Mr. Amirzadeh telephoned Mr. Martinez on November 6, 1987, to inform MCI that the Department intended to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to MCI. Mr. Martinez advised Mr. Amirzadeh that the prices submitted by MCI were package prices. MCI later contacted the Department and advised the Department that the MCI price for Intrastate WATS was a package price. MCI withdrew its offering for Intrastate WATS. On being advised that MCI was withdrawing its offer for the Intrastate WATS facilities, the Department decided to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to the next lowest provider, which was Microtel. On November 10, 1987, the Department issued Communications Service Authorizations (CSAs) to Microtel for the Intrastate WATS facilities and IMTs, and to ITT for the Interstate WATS facilities. These CSAs are the only contracts to be executed by the State of Florida for the solicited telecommunications services and facilities. The CSAs were signed by the Division of Communications. By contracting with Microtel for IMTs, Mr. Mayne estimated there would be a cost savings of $216,000 per month. The cost savings associated with contracting with Microtel for the Intrastate WATS is approximately $98,000 a month. It is estimated the State will save approximately $105,000 per month by contracting with ITT for Interstate WATS. MCI filed a notice of intent to protest the contract awards on November 12, 1987. MCI filed its formal written protest on November 23, 1987. In acquiring these transmission facilities the Department is leasing spaces on the supplier's fiber optic cable. The spaces within the cable are analogous to time envelopes, which may carry information or no information, being shot down the fiber optic cable. The Department leases the spaces in multiples of T-1s. A T-1 represents 1.544 million spaces per second. When the Department leases a T-1, the Department has a dedicated physical connection and the information that will be contained in the spaces or time envelopes will always appear in the same space and in the same time. The Department leases the fiber facilities on a 24-hour-a-day basis, because it is more economical than leasing for shorter periods of time. While the space is being leased to the State, no other customer of the transmission facilities supplier can use that space. The functions of the facilities can also be described as follows. The interstate WATS service, the intrastate WATS service, and the IMT service for which the Department contracted, involve the receipt by the carrier of an originating call from a SUNCOM switch and the transmission of that call over the carrier's owned or leased facilities, including access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange company, to its destination either outside or inside the State of Florida or to another SUNCOM switch. In addition to the lease of spaces, the Department will be acquiring maintenance and billing services and, in the case of the WATS facilities, it will also be procuring management reports concerning the location of calls. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the State of Florida will not have physical access to, the ability to monitor traffic over, maintenance or repair responsibility for, or rights to use particular components of those facilities. This applies to both the carriers' facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches and the carriers' facilities. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the long distance carrier will have the responsibility for maintenance and repair of those facilities, the right to replace or upgrade those facilities in a fashion transparent to the State, and the right to determine the physical path through those facilities over which information from the State of Florida would be transmitted. This applies to both the carrier's facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches to the facilities. The Department interprets Rule Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, to apply to the acquisition of nonregulated communications equipment. The forms referred to in Rule 13C-2.008 are forms which State agencies use in requesting approval from the Division of Communications for the purchase or lease of nonregulated communications services or equipment. Rule Chapter 13C-1, Florida Administrative Code, has been interpreted by the Department to deal with a regulated environment. The procurement at issue in this proceeding is in a regulated environment. The criteria and procedures described in Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, were not used in this procurement of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. The negotiation process itself was negotiated in a fair and equitable manner. Each supplier was advised at the beginning of the negotiation session that there would be three rounds of pricing. There has been no claim by MCI that any of the suppliers had knowledge prior to 9:00 a.m. on November 5, 1987, of the actual negotiation process that would be used. When an objection was made by one of the suppliers to the method of accepting pricing in round one, the method of accepting prices was changed so that no supplier would have an advantage over another. It was made clear that the third round was the last round in which the suppliers could submit their best and final offers. The Department did not consider offers which were not submitted during the third round. The Department attempted to provide competition in the negotiation process by having the suppliers compete against each other in the pricing rounds. No supplier was treated more favorably than another. MCI was never told that it would be awarded the contracts. MCI made no protest or objection to the negotiation process prior to or on November 5, 1987.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5338BID The following are my specific ruling on all of the findings of fact proposed by all of the parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: All generally accepted, but some details have been omitted as either subordinate or unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 26 and 27: Accepted. Paragraph 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: Rejected a subordinate and unnecessary Paragraphs 31 and 32: Accepted: Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39: Accepted. Paragraphs 40 and 41: Rejected because the analogies fail. Paragraph 42: Accepted. Paragraph 43: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18: Accepted. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: First sentence accepted. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 46: First four sentences accepted. Last sentence is a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 47 and 48: Accepted. Findings proposed by the Intervenors: Paragraph 1: Rejected as statement of position rather than proposed finding. Paragraph 2 and 3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, details. Paragraphs 12 add 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 16 and 17: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most have been rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 28: Accepted. Paragraph 29, 30, 31 and 32: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38: Accepted. Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 50 and 51: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 52 and 53: Accepted. Paragraph 54: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 55: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 56: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 57, 58 and 59: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 60 and 61: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Kirkland, Esquire Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Richard D. Melson, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Patrick K. Wiggins, Esquire Wings Solcum Benton, Esquire Ranson & Wiggins 325 West Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 1657 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
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.
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 issue is whether Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Richard and Clara Marron have an in-ground, fiberglass pool at their home in Zephyrhills. The pool is approximately 25 years old. In December 2005, the Marrons' pool service company told them that the pool had a leak. The pool service company referred the Marrons to Coral Isle Pools and Spas (Coral Isle) in Zephyrhills. Coral Isle was owned and operated by Richard Delafield--the father of Respondent Scott Delafield--until his death on January 31, 2006. Richard Delafield was a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, registered plumbing contactor, and the qualifying agent for Coral Isle. On or about March 29, 2006, the Marrons went into Coral Isle's store and talked to Scott Delafield about fixing the leak in their pool.2 Mr. Delafield determined that the pool was leaking around the underwater light fixture and that the light needed to be replaced. He agreed to perform the necessary repairs for $858.55. The invoice prepared by Mr. Delafield described the work to be performed as follows: "dig under deck redue [sic] electrical conduit" and "labor to install light and do diagnostic on transformer." On May 6, 2006, the Marrons made an initial payment of $250.00 to Coral Isle. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool. Mr. Delafield did not obtain a permit from Pasco County before commencing the work on the Marrons' pool.3 The work was done in four stages. First, a trench was dug under the pool deck to provide access to the back of the light fixture. Second, the existing light was removed and replaced with a new light. Third, the wire for the new light was routed through PVC conduit pipe Mr. Delafield laid in the trench. Fourth, Mr. Delafield connected the wire to the "junction box"4 adjacent to the pool deck. The trench under the pool deck was dug by Carl Lind or Mark Pickett, not Mr. Delafield. Mr. Lind and Mr. Pickett were subcontractors of Coral Isle. Mr. Delafield removed the existing light by removing the screws on the front of the light fixture. He then installed the new light and ran the wire for the light through new PVC conduit pipe to the junction box. On May 17, 2006, the Marrons paid the balance of the invoice, $608.55. Mr. Delafield did not perform any work on the higher voltage electrical wires between the junction box and the breaker box at the house. Mr. Delafield did not drain the pool to replace the light. He was able to access the light fixture from the front because the water level in the pool was below the fixture as a result of the leak in the pool. At some point after Mr. Delafield completed his work on the pool light, Mr. Lind and/or Mr. Pickett drained the Marrons' pool in order to "patch" the fiberglass bottom of the pool.5 The light installed by Mr. Delafield works, and the pool no longer leaks. Indeed, the Marrons acknowledged in their testimony at the final hearing that the work done by Mr. Delafield fixed the leak and that the pool now "holds water." Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle were not licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical contracting work at the time Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool light. In April 2006, the Department issued temporary emergency certifications to Mr. Delafield as a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, and registered plumbing contractor. The certifications authorized Mr. Delafield to complete Coral Isle's "projects in progress" at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The certifications did not authorize Mr. Delafield to enter into new contracts, nor did they authorize him to perform electrical contracting work. The Marrons' project was not in progress at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The agreement to perform the work was not entered into until several months after his death. In June 2006, the Marrons filed an unlicensed activity complaint against Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle. The Department incurred costs of $206.69 in its investigation of the complaint, not including costs associated with an attorney's time. In February 2007, the Marrons made a claim for $150,000 against Richard Delafield's estate in which they alleged that their pool and deck were "rendered useless" due to the negligence of Coral Isle. They also filed a civil suit against Mr. Delafield and others for damage to their pool. The Marrons did not pursue the claim against the estate, but the civil action is still pending. Coral Isle is no longer in business. Mr. Delafield testified that he planned to pursue licensure so that he could keep the business operating after his father's death, but that he never did so. Mr. Delafield was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Delafield guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes; Imposes an administrative fine of $1,000 on Mr. Delafield; and Requires Mr. Delafield to pay the Department's investigative costs of $206.69. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2008.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should certify the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project (“Project”) of Tampa Electric Company ("TEC"), including its associated electrical transmission lines, subject to the proposed Conditions of Certification.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated there are no disputed issues of fact. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission. It is headquartered in Tampa and has supplied electricity to customers in the Tampa Bay area since 1899. TEC's electric service territory covers approximately 2,000 square miles and includes all of Hillsborough County and portions of Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC has five generating stations, Big Bend, HL Culbreath Bayside, JH Phillips, Polk Power Station, and Partnership Station. The Project is proposed for the Polk Power Station. Existing Facilities The Polk Power Station was certified pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act in January 1994. It is located in southwest Polk County, 17 miles south of the City of Lakeland and 28 miles southeast of the City of Tampa. The original site consists of 4,348 acres bordered by the Hillsborough County line on the west; County Road 663 (Fort Green Road) on the east; County Road 630, Bethlehem Road, and Albritton Road on the north; and State Road 674 and several former phosphate clay settling ponds on the south. The Polk Power Station has five electric generating units and associated facilities. Polk Unit 1 is 260 megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle facility fired with synthesis gas or “syngas” produced by gasifying coal and other solid fuels. Polk Units 2 through 5 are 165 megawatt simple cycle combustion turbine generators fueled primarily with natural gas. Support facilities at the Polk Power Station include a 755-acre cooling reservoir, oxygen blown gasifier, air separation unit, sulfuric acid plant, slag byproduct storage area, and switchyard. The station is served by four 230 kilovolt (“kV”) transmission circuits, a railroad line, and a natural gas pipeline. Water is supplied from four onsite groundwater wells for the cooling water reservoir and other plant processes. Other existing facilities include an administration building, control room, warehouse, and construction management building. The Proposed Project Need On January 8, 2013, the Florida Public Service Commission issued its Final Order Granting Certification of Need for Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion. The Commission determined that the most cost effective and reliable alternative to meet future power needs is the construction of the Project at the Polk Power Station. The Commission's Final Order is TEC/Department Joint Exhibit 2. Among other findings, the Commission determined that the Project would improve fuel diversity and supply reliability, incorporate renewable energy and conservation factors, and is needed to maintain electric system reliability and integrity. Power Generation The Project involves the conversion of the four existing simple cycle combustion turbine generator units to combined cycle operation. The Project would be a four-on-one combined cycle unit consisting of the four existing combustion turbine generators, each combined with a new heat recovery steam generator, and a new steam turbine generator. The Project would achieve improved efficiency in electrical power generation. When operated in a simple cycle mode, a combustion turbine generator releases hot gases to the atmosphere. In the proposed combined cycle configuration, this exhaust heat would be routed to the heat recovery steam generators and the steam produced by the heat recovery generators would be routed to the new steam turbine generator to produce additional electricity. The Project is designed to allow the combustion turbine generators to be operated in simple cycle mode when the steam turbine generator is not in service. The combustion turbine generators may also be operated in simple cycle mode to meet peak power demands. The conversion would increase the nominal net generating capacity of the four existing generators from 660 megawatts to 1,160 megawatts. Total capacity for the Polk Power Station would be increased from 1,150 megawatts to 1,420 megawatts. The proposed generating facilities would be state-of- the-art, incorporating improvements in technology that have occurred over the past 20 years. They are designed by Black & Veatch, an internationally-recognized engineering firm with significant experience in designing similar facilities. Fuels The four combustion turbine generators would be fired with natural gas as the primary fuel. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be the backup fuel. The four heat recovery steam generators would have natural-gas-fired duct burners for peaking operations. The existing onsite natural gas pipeline would provide the natural gas for the Project and the backup ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel would be stored in existing onsite fuel storage facilities. Water Use Groundwater withdrawals from four wells are authorized by the current Conditions of Certification for 4.3 million gallons per day (“mgd”) on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly average. The Project will require additional water for cooling and plant process water uses. To minimize use of groundwater, TEC would treat and reuse 5.7 mgd of treated reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland. The treated reclaimed water would primarily be used to supply the makeup water for the proposed new cooling tower and the existing 755-acre cooling reservoir, as well as some process water needs. The cooling reservoir would be used for condenser cooling purposes. The new six-cell mechanical draft cooling tower would provide cooling for the Project’s auxiliary systems, which would be modified to use the new cooling tower instead of the reservoir. The reclaimed water would be initially provided by the City of Lakeland through a 15-mile pipeline. Later, reclaimed water would be provided by the City of Mulberry and Polk County. The Project systems are designed to maximize water reuse and recycling to reduce groundwater consumption. However, TEC requests that the maximum groundwater withdrawals currently authorized -- 4.3 mgd on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak monthly basis –- be maintained in this certification to ensure that TEC can reliably and safely operate the facilities and manage water quality and levels in the cooling reservoir during extended periods of low rainfall conditions and in the event there is an interruption in the delivery of reclaimed water. The Project’s proposed water uses comply with all applicable agency requirements. Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges Stormwater and wastewater treatment systems are already in use at the Polk Power Station. These systems would be used for the Project facilities. The proposed facilities will not significantly affect the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff at the Polk Power Station. The current wastewater streams include runoff from industrial areas and process wastewaters. Wastewaters would continue to be collected and treated by the onsite industrial wastewater systems, including the equalization basin, neutralization basin, filtration system, and oil/water separator, and then discharged to the cooling water reservoir. With the addition of the Project, cooling water blowdown from the new cooling tower and treated reclaimed water will be introduced to the cooling reservoir. TEC has a permit for underground injection control wells which it plans to test for disposal of nonhazardous wastewater such as reverse osmosis reject water from the reclaimed water treatment process. The Project’s stormwater and wastewater discharges would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Air Quality Impacts Construction of the Project facilities at the Polk Power Station would generate fugitive dust emissions. These would be controlled by dust suppression control measures such as watering. The vehicles used by construction workers would release nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and other fuel combustion- related air pollutants. These kinds of emissions from construction equipment would be minimized through the use of ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel in various diesel engines. Even under worst-case conditions, the air quality impacts caused by construction activities would be minimal, temporary, and limited to the construction site. The Project qualifies as a major modification to an existing major source. Air quality impacts from plant operations would be primarily nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from the four combined cycle units, particulate emissions from the cooling tower, and various combustion emissions from operation of the emergency diesel generator. Air quality analyses were performed for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The dispersion modeling analyses demonstrate that the Project’s air quality impacts would not exceed the applicable regulatory limits and would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increment or National Ambient Air Quality Standard. For certain air emissions, Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") is required. BACT controls for nitrogen oxide would include the use of dry, low-nitrogen-oxide burners when firing natural gas and water injection when firing ultra- low-sulfur diesel fuel, and the installation of selective catalytic reduction technologies for the combined cycle combustion turbines. For sulfur dioxide emissions and emissions of sulfuric acid mist, BACT controls would include the use of low-sulfur natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, BACT calls for good combustion design and operation. BACT for combustion particulates would be the use of low-ash natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel as a backup fuel. For the emergency diesel engine, proposed BACT for all pollutants would be compliance with the applicable Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, which are federal standards that have been adopted by the Department. Proposed BACT for particulate emissions from the cooling tower is the use of high efficiency drift eliminators. The proposed air quality control technology for the Project and the expected emissions from the Project’s construction and operation would comply with all applicable agency requirements. Transmission Lines and Corridors The Project includes two new transmission line corridors. The proposed “Polk-Pebbledale Corridor” is a 5.5-mile, single-circuit 250 kV transmission line from the Polk Power Station north to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County. The proposed “Polk-Fishhawk Corridor” would be a single-circuit 250 kV transmission line running west from the Polk Power Station to the Mines substation near the intersection of State Road 674 and County Road 39 in Hillsborough County; from there, north and then west again to connect to a new Aspen switching station to be located near the intersection of County Road 672 and Balm-Boyette Road; and from the Aspen station, two separate 230kV transmission lines would run northeast to the existing Fishhawk substation near the intersection of Fishhawk Boulevard and Boyette Road; a total length of 27 miles. TEC exercised its option under section 403.5064(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to allow parties to file alternate transmission line corridors. No alternate corridors were filed or reviewed in this proceeding. TEC used a multidisciplinary team to evaluate alternative corridors for the new transmission lines. The team conducted initial data collection, prepared regional screening maps, identified alternate route segments, developed evaluation criteria, evaluated the routes, and selected the preferred routes. Public participation was a part of this effort. A regional screening map was created to identify existing infrastructure, roads, railroads, rivers and other water bodies, and siting constraints within the study area. TEC has existing transmission line rights-of-way in much of the study area, which together with public road rights-of-way provided co- location opportunities. The Polk-Pebbledale Corridor runs across former phosphate mining lands and follows roads and existing transmission line corridors to a point south of the town of Bradley Junction where it turns to the northeast and follows a transmission line through reclaimed phosphate lands to the intersection with another existing transmission line. In this certification proceeding, no party or non-party expressed opposition to the Polk-Pebbledale transmission line corridor. The Polk-Fishhawk Corridor runs across former and active phosphate mining lands, along road rights-of-way, and agricultural lands. As it approaches the Fishhawk substation, however, it passes through a residential development, referred to as the Fishhawk Community. The portion of the corridor that runs through the Fishhawk Community follows an existing TEC-owned transmission line right-of-way. No developer, agricultural operator, commercial entity, agency, or local government expressed opposition to the Polk to Fishhawk transmission line corridor, but residents of the Fishhawk Community testified in opposition to the corridor at the public hearing held in the Fishhawk community center. Their testimony at the public hearing is discussed later in this Recommended Order. The proposed transmission lines would be installed on steel poles embedded in the ground. Guy wires are generally not needed except where a transmission line makes a large angle turn or guy wires are otherwise necessary for safety and sound engineering. Pole heights would vary from 80 to 135 feet. The typical span length between poles would be 500 to 700 feet, but it can range up to 1,000 feet, when necessary to avoid natural or manmade obstacles or other siting constraints. The corridors are wider than the rights-of-way that will ultimately be determined in order to allow for flexibility in the final selection of the rights-of-way. The proposed rights-of-way would be reviewed by the agencies to insure compliance with the Conditions of Certification. Each transmission line would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with good engineering practices and all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including the National Electric Safety Code, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, requirements of the Florida Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide, applicable local and state government requirements, and TEC's internal design standards. TEC designs all of its 230 kV transmission lines to withstand a 130-mile-per-hour wind band, which exceeds the criteria in the National Electric Safety Code. Electric and Magnetic Fields The electric field produced by a transmission line is relatively constant over time. The magnetic field fluctuates over time depending on the load on the line. Electric and magnetic fields have been calculated for each of the configurations that may be used for the Project, based on the maximum requested voltage and current. The maximum expected levels for the electric and magnetic fields are within the limits in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. Considerable scientific research has been conducted in the past 30 years to understand the potential health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields. There is general agreement among scientists in national and international health agencies that the available evidence does not show adverse health effects can occur from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. The Department’s limits for electric and magnetic fields at the edge of a transmission line right-of-way are lower than the limits recommended by the World Health Organization. Noise Impacts The noise limits applicable to the Project are those contained in the Polk Land Development Code and the in the rules of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. The Polk County noise limits are 75 decibels, A-weighted measurement (“dBA”) from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for non- residential areas and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for residential areas. The noise requirements applicable to transmission lines in Hillsborough County are 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise levels measured at four locations in the vicinity of the Project site varied between 41.9 and 51.1 dBA. Offsite noise levels during construction of Project facilities at the power station would be minimal because of the distance from the construction area to the site boundaries. Noise levels at the power station during operation are not expected to differ significantly from existing levels. Audible noise associated with transmission lines is usually associated with “corona,” which is a phenomenon that occurs when there is an irregularity on the surface of the conductors, such as water droplets or other significant particles. If the noise occurs during a rainstorm it is usually masked by the noise of the rain. At other times, corona noise will often be masked by other outdoor noises. Noise calculations were conducted for the proposed transmission lines and ranged from 32.0 to 45.2 dBA. These levels do not exceed the applicable limits. Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology The areas proposed for the Project’s generating and associated facilities have been altered by the construction and operation of the Polk Power Station. These areas are also surrounded by lands altered by phosphate mining and reclamation. Wildlife habitats have already been destroyed, altered, or diminished by these activities and no longer have high functional values. Construction activities at the power plant site would not disturb any native or reclaimed wetland or upland habitats. Wildlife species expected to be found onsite would be common species for the region. Only two listed species of special concern were documented at the power station, the American Alligator and Tricolored Heron. They are both found in the reclaimed wetland west of the construction area and would not be affected. Impacts to other wildlife caused by construction at the Polk Power Station would be temporary and insignificant. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species at the Polk Power Station. No reclaimed or natural upland or wetland habitats are proposed to be affected. Wildlife habitats along the proposed transmission line corridors includes pine flat woods, mixed forested uplands, and various wetlands, including cypress forests, mixed hardwood swamps, and marshes. Surrounding land covers are dominated by current or former phosphate mining, farmsteads, or landscaped residential properties. The Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve, Little Manatee River, Hurrah Creek, Fishhawk Creek, and Little Fishhawk Creek provide the best wildlife habitats along the transmission line corridors, but the corridors would cross these areas where there are already existing transmission line rights-of-way or roads. Wildlife found along the corridors are species commonly found in the region. No listed species are known to occur. Construction and maintenance of the transmission lines within the corridors would not significantly impact the habitats of fish and wildlife found in these areas. Impacts to vegetation along the transmission line corridors would be minimized by siting the rights-of-way within the most disturbed areas or on existing road and transmission line rights-of-way. TEC would span all open waters such as streams and tributaries. For smaller water crossings and wetlands, the facilities would be co-located with existing linear facilities to minimize impacts. Restrictive clearing practices on forested wetlands would be utilized, removing vegetation selectively. Impacts from filling would be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through a careful alignment of the transmission line rights-of-way and through the choice of span distances between structures. Where wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the impacts would be minimized and mitigation would be provided. Prior to the final selection of rights-of-way and the beginning of construction, surveys would be conducted to determine the presence of protected plant and animal species and the results would be shared with the FWC to determine if mitigation may be required in accordance with Conditions of Certification. Archeological and Historic Sites When the Polk Power Station was first certified and subsequently, archeological surveys were conducted to determine the presence of cultural and historical resources of significance. No such resources were identified. Cultural and historical resources in the study area for the transmission line corridors were evaluated during the corridor selection process. All National Register of Historic Places sites and districts as well as other known cultural resources were mapped and candidate corridors were laid out to avoid those resources. Corridors were laid out to co-locate with other transmission lines and linear facilities that have already disturbed the land to reduce the potential for new disturbances to cultural resources. After the rights-of-way within the corridors have been determined, cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify the location of any archeological or historical resources and determine potential impacts whether they can be avoided. The surveys would be submitted to the Division of Natural Resources for its review and consideration. Transportation Impacts No additional transportation impacts are expected from the operation of the Project because there would be no addition to the current Polk Power Station staff of 78 employees to operate all facilities. The construction phase would generate 357 daily trips by construction workers and 50 additional delivery trips. The trip distribution per day is expected to be 228 northbound trips on State Road 37, 82 southbound trips on State Road 37, 75 northbound trips on Fort Green Road, and 22 southbound trips on Fort Green Road. Even at the peak of construction activities, the surrounding roadway network is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Land Use Compatibility The Project facilities would be located within the existing power station site, which is the logical and efficient location for the Project. There are no conflicting land uses in the vicinity of the Project site. Most of the land uses along the corridors are former and active phosphate mining lands, undeveloped lands, agriculture, and rural residences. The key exception is the segment of the Polk-Fishhawk Corridor that runs through the developed Fishhawk Community, which is a suburban residential area. Transmission lines of the types proposed are frequently located in proximity to all of these affected land uses, including the suburban residential areas. It is officially recognized that many people, if given a choice, would prefer not to have high voltage transmission lines near their homes, primarily based on aesthetic considerations. However, it is also officially recognized that many people are willing to live near transmission lines. Until there is a practical alternative to above-ground transmission lines, they will have to be located in developed areas in order to supply electricity to residences. The proposed transmission lines are not incompatible with residential uses. Polk County and Hillsborough County do not oppose the Project on any basis, including land use compatibility. The Project is consistent with the comprehensive plans and the land development regulations of these counties. Socioeconomic Impacts The Project would provide additional clean and reliable energy, additional jobs during construction, an increased property tax base, and increased economic activity in the form of purchases of goods and services. Local revenues from property taxes levied on the new plant facilities would primarily benefit Polk County. The estimated additional property tax revenue is between $6 million and $6.5 million annually. Significant revenues are also expected from sales taxes on goods purchased directly for the plant or indirectly from purchases of goods and services by the construction workers. Sales taxes are estimated to be $105,000 per year. Construction of the Project would employ an average of 250 workers, with a peak projected in 2015 of about 500 workers. Most of the construction workers would be drawn from an area within a commuting distance from the Project site. The construction payroll for the overall Project is expected to be $88 million and much of this would likely be spent in Polk County and the region. Site Boundaries TEC requests that the boundaries of the Polk Power Station site be reduced from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres to reflect that the original certification required a donation of 1,511 acres to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund as a wildlife management area and recreation area. The donation was completed in 2012. Construction Schedule Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in January 2014 and be completed in time to allow commercial operation in January 2017. Public Notice and Participation TEC engaged in extensive public outreach for the Project, using direct mail, a survey, public meetings, newspaper advertisements, a project webpage, a toll-free telephone number for information, and communications with agencies and public officials. TEC used two direct mailings, totaling over 10,000 letters in both English and Spanish. The letters were mailed to landowners and residents within one-quarter mile of the proposed transmission line corridors, all homeowners' associations within one mile, and all landowners and residents within three miles of the plant site boundaries. Three public meetings were held regarding the Project. The first meeting was held on April 10, 2012, at the Little Union Baptist Church. The second was on April 12, 2012, at the Fishhawk Fellowship Church. The third was on April 19, 2012, at the Wimauma Senior Center. TEC held meetings with county commissioners, mayors, state senators, and state representatives to inform them of the Project and the certification process. TEC representatives also met with developers in Hillsborough County who could be affected by the corridors to provide information and answer questions. Copies of the Application were available for inspection at the Polk County Library in Bartow and the John Germany Public Library in Tampa. A copy was also available for public review at TEC’s offices in Tampa. On October 24, 2012, public notice of the filing of the Application was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger. On April 18, 2013, notice of the Certification Hearing was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger and on April 19, 2013, in the Tampa Bay Times. When the certification hearing was rescheduled, TEC published notice of the rescheduling in The Tampa Tribune, The Ledger, and the Tampa Bay Times on June 16, 2013. The Department published notices of the Application, the certification hearing, the public testimony hearing, and rescheduling the certification hearing in the Florida Administrative Register. Hillsborough County published notice of the public testimony portion of the proceeding in The Tampa Tribune on June 19, 2013. Public Testimony A hearing was held in Lithia, Florida, on June 25, 2013, in the Fishhawk Community to provide members of the public who are not parties to the certification proceeding an opportunity to present sworn testimony concerning the transmission line portion of the Project. Twelve members of the public testified. Eight comment letters were received into the record as Public Testimony Composite Exhibit 1. A number of the residents expressed anger about what they perceived as the failure of the developer who sold them their homes, and TEC, to disclose to them that a transmission line might be constructed near their homes. As previously stated, the corridor is on property owned or controlled by TEC for the installation of transmission lines. The record evidence does not indicate any duty to disclose, any misrepresentation, or any obfuscation by TEC in this regard. If there was a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation by the developer, those are matters between the homeowners and the developer and beyond the scope of this proceeding. Several residents expressed concern about possible adverse health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission lines. However, no speaker referred to personal knowledge or to any study results to support their comments on this subject. It is likely, therefore, that their concerns are based on rumors or speculation. As discussed above, independent scientists have not been able to substantiate the occurrence of adverse health effects from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with transmission lines. There is a tennis court and there are nature trails underneath existing transmission lines located in another part of the Fishhawk Community, indicating that the fear of electrical and magnetic fields is not universal. Some residents urged that TEC be required to install the portion of the transmission line in the Fishhawk Community underground. There are substantial engineering difficulties associated with underground installation of high voltage transmission lines. TEC has never installed this type of transmission line underground. The cost for underground installation could be as much as 15 times greater than for overhead installation. Agency Reports Agency reports with proposed conditions of certification were submitted to the Department by SWFWMD, FWC, Florida Department of Transportation, Hillsborough County, and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Agency Reports without recommended conditions of certification were submitted by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Polk County. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources did not file an agency report, but recommended conditions in its Completeness Review. On January 28, 2013, The Department issued its Project Analysis Report for the transmission line portion of the Project, incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing Conditions of Certification. On April 26, 2013, the Department issued its Project Analysis Report on the power plant and proposed Conditions of Certification. The Report was modified on May 21, 2013. No agency opposes certification of the Project. Conditions of Certification The Department recommends certification of the Project subject to the revised Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8, which supersedes all prior statements of conditions. The Conditions of Certification address numerous subjects and are designed to ensure that the construction and operation of the Project is protective of the public and the environment. The Conditions of Certification provide for post- certification reviews and investigations to confirm, for example, that sensitive areas will be avoided and that transmission lines structures will avoid or have minimal adverse impacts. TEC has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the Project in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. No variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Certification Considerations In determining whether TEC's application for the Project should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, the Siting Board must determine whether, and the extent to which, the location, construction, and operation of the Project would: Provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. Be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations. Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to s. 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state resulting from the construction and operation of the facility. Minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse affects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. Serve and protect the broad interests of the public. § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would provide reasonable assurance that the operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would be consistent with applicable local comprehensive plans and land development regulations. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would meet the electric energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to section 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. The evidence presented demonstrates that the location, construction, and operation of the Project would serve and protect the broad interests of the public.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a final order: approving TEC's application for certification to construct, operate, and maintain the Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project, including its associated transmission lines, subject to the Conditions of Certification set forth in Department Exhibit 8; approving the increase in ultimate site capacity for the Polk Power Station site from the previously approved 1150 megawatts to 1420 megawatts; and modifying the Polk Power Station site boundaries from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres, as depicted in TEC Exhibit 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland and Knight LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Toni Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Anthony Justin Pinzino, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Adam Teitzman, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Michael S. Craig, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office 330 West Church Street, Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Marva M. Taylor, Esquire Hillsborough County Attorney`s Office 27th Floor 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4156 Richard Tschantz, Esquire Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 3629 Queen Palm Drive Tampa, Florida 33619 Patricia Anderson Department of Health Environmental Engineering 4042 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1742 Laura Kammerer Bureau of Historic Preservation R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Manny L. Pumariega Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Suite 100 4000 Gateway Center Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Patricia M. Steed Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830-3931 Forrest Watson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should issue certification to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) to construct and operate a 2,200 megawatt (MW) nuclear electrical generating facility and associated facilities, including electrical transmission lines, to be located in Miami-Dade County (County), and if so, what conditions should be imposed; (2) whether the Siting Board should direct the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to grant FPL three separate easements over state-owned lands for certain Project features; and (3) whether the Siting Board should approve FPL's request for a variance from section 24-43.1(6), Miami-Dade County Code (MDC), to allow use of the on-site package sanitary treatment 4 plant and other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County.
Findings Of Fact An Overview of the Project FPL is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. As a regulated utility, FPL is granted an exclusive franchise by the PSC to provide reliable and cost-effective electric service to customers within its service territory in Florida. FPL's service territory covers all or parts of 35 Florida counties and serves approximately nine million customers. It has 14 electrical generation sites in Florida and an electrical transmission line system of approximately 6,500 miles. FPL proposes to construct, operate, and maintain two new 1,100 MW (net) nuclear electrical generating units (Units 6 12 and 7) and supporting facilities on an approximately 300-acre site (site) within its existing Turkey Point plant property, as well as new transmission lines and other off-site associated linear and non-linear facilities (the Project). This is FPL’s single largest project of this magnitude in over 40 years. The Project includes the following proposed non- transmission line associated facilities: a laydown area; a nuclear administration building; a training building; a parking area; a FPL reclaimed water treatment facility; a reclaimed water pipeline corridor; radial collector well system and associated pipelines; an equipment barge unloading area; corridors for construction access roads and bridges; and a potable water pipeline corridor. The Project also includes the on-Site Clear Sky electrical substation, expansion of the Levee electrical substation, two access-only transmission line corridors, and proposed corridors for the following transmission lines: Clear Sky-Turkey Point transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Turkey Point substation on the Turkey Point plant property; Clear Sky-Davis and Davis-Miami transmission lines: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Davis substation in southeast Miami-Dade County, and another 230-kV line from the Davis substation to the existing 13 Miami substation in downtown Miami, just north of the Miami River, in FPL's East Preferred Corridor; Clear Sky-Levee No. 1 and No. 2 transmission lines: two 500-kV lines from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Levee substation in west Miami-Dade County in the West Consensus Corridor or, as a back-up, in FPL's West Preferred Corridor; and Clear Sky-Pennsuco transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Pennsuco substation in northwest Miami-Dade County, also in the West Consensus Corridor or, as a back-up, in FPL's West Preferred Corridor. FPL has proposed to locate these transmission lines in approximately 88.7 miles of transmission line corridors: 52 miles in the West Preferred Corridor (or 51 miles in the West Secondary Corridor) and 36.7 miles in the East Preferred Corridor. FPL is now seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor -- a combination of an alternate corridor proposed by MDLPA and FPL's West Preferred Corridor -— as its preferred western corridor. FPL is also seeking certification of the original West Preferred Corridor to serve as a back-up to the West Consensus Corridor should a contiguous right-of-way (ROW) be unable to be timely achieved within that West Consensus Corridor or if a right-of-way cannot be obtained in a cost- 14 effective manner. FPL is no longer seeking certification of the West Secondary Corridor. On April 11, 2008, the PSC issued its affirmative need determination for the Project in Final Order No. PSC-08-0237- FOF-EI. That Order was not appealed and is now final. By that Order, the PSC found that there is a need for the Project taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity; the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability; the need for base load generating capacity; the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost; and whether the Project is the most cost-effective alternative available. In making its determination of need, the PSC also found that there are no renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures reasonably available to FPL which might mitigate the need for Units 6 and 7. The PSC's need determination remains in legal effect and requires annual monitoring of the feasibility of construction of the Project. Reconsideration of that determination is neither permissible nor appropriate in this proceeding. Section 366.93 allows for the PSC's annual reviews and cost recovery for nuclear plant construction. The nuclear cost recovery process includes an annual hearing to review past, current, and subsequent year costs for the Project. The PSC's annual review considers "a detailed analysis of the long-term 15 feasibility of completing the power plant." Fla. Admin. Code R. 25-6.0423(5)(c)5. The PSC has annually approved FPL's requested nuclear cost recovery, and it has recognized and accepted the projected in-service dates for Units 6 and 7 of 2022 and 2023, respectively. In association with the Project, FPL has obtained from the Department an Air Construction/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit; Exploratory Well and Dual Zone Monitoring Well Permit; an Underground Injection Control (UIC) well construction and operational testing permit; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals for the Units 6 and 7 containment buildings; County Unusual Use Approval for a nuclear power plant and ancillary structures and equipment; an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) to allow roadway improvements to accommodate construction traffic; and a County zoning approval for the Radial Collector Well System, Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility (RWRF), and other various requests. Pending approvals for the Project include the Combined Operating License (COL) from the NRC; a Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and an Industrial Wastewater Permit modification from the Department. FPL has submitted three amendments to its application. The first amendment primarily removed the proposed FPL-owned 16 fill source from the application. The second amendment updated information presented in the original submittal of the application and completeness responses; it did not materially affect the environmental impact analysis or the conclusions presented. The third amendment related to two minor revisions in the previously-submitted groundwater model and corresponding groundwater modeling report. FPL also submitted errata to the second amendment, correcting page and appendix numbering issues. FPL has engaged in an extensive public outreach program for the Project, including among other things, direct mailings, newspaper notices, nine open houses, agency workshops, numerous presentations and meetings, a public survey, periodic e-mail updates to local and state agencies, a website, and toll free telephone number. The public outreach program activities provided the public and agency representatives opportunities to informally voice preferences on transmission line corridor selection and Project concerns. The application was available for public review at seven public libraries and at FPL and Department offices. All notices required by law were timely published by FPL, the Department, and the proponents of alternate transmission line corridors in accordance with section 403.5115 and rule 62-17.281. Proofs of publication were timely provided to the Department in accordance with rule 62-17.281(12). All 17 direct written notices required by law were timely mailed, and lists of landowners and residences notified were timely submitted to the Department in accordance with subsections 403.5115(6) and (7). The Department sent direct mailings for the sovereign submerged lands easements for the radial collector well laterals and Miami River crossing in accord with section 253.115 and rule 18-21.005(3). Plant and Non-Transmission Line Associated Facilities Generally FPL's Turkey Point plant property is located in unincorporated southeast Miami-Dade County, east of Florida City and the City of Homestead, and bordered by Biscayne Bay to the east. The existing 9,400-acre plant site consists of two nominal 400-MW natural gas/oil-fired steam electric generating units (Units 1 and 2), two nominal 800-MW nuclear units (Units 3 and 4), and a nominal 1,150-MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit (Unit 5). Units 3, 4, and 5 are certified under the PPSA. Units 1 and 2 pre-date the PPSA and are not certified. The Site for Units 6 and 7 is south of Units 3 and 4 and occupies approximately 300 acres within the existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. Proposed Units 6 and 7 are two 1,100-MW nuclear electric generating units. The principal structures are the nuclear reactors, a containment building, a shield building, an 18 auxiliary building, a turbine building, an annex building, a diesel generator building, and other related buildings. Each unit will include two standby diesel generators, two ancillary diesel generators, and one diesel-driven fire pump. FPL has selected the Westinghouse AP1000 as the plant design for Units 6 and 7. The Westinghouse design has been certified by the NRC as complying with federal regulations. This design incorporates the latest technology and advanced safety features. The NRC oversees the construction, safety, and operation of all nuclear units in the United States, including the transport and handling of nuclear fuel. Construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 require separate approval by the NRC. As part of the federal permitting process for nuclear power plants, FPL submitted a COL application to the NRC. The NRC is currently reviewing that application. As least one party in this case, the NPCA, has intervened in the NRC proceeding and opposes federal approval. The process for obtaining the state site certification under the PPSA is separate from the NRC approval process. Certification is not dependent upon prior issuance of the NRC's approval. In addition to the two reactor units, other Project facilities include six cooling towers with a makeup water reservoir, a blowdown sump, tanks, a sanitary wastewater 19 treatment plant, electrical transformers, and various buildings. A new electrical switchyard/substation, named Clear Sky, will also be located on the Site, and a laydown area will be located on the far western portion of the Site. New nuclear administration and training buildings, along with a parking area, will be located just north of the Units 6 and 7 Site. Other Project-related features to be located within the existing FPL Turkey Point plant property include the RWTF, a portion of the reclaimed water pipeline, radial collector well caissons and delivery pipelines, portions of new access roads to be used during Project construction, a portion of the potable water pipeline, and an equipment barge unloading area. The new units will use reclaimed water supplied by the County as the primary source of cooling water. This water will be supplied by a reclaimed water pipeline and will receive further treatment in the RWTF. That treatment facility will be located northwest of the Units 6 and 7 Site. When reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the Project's water needs, cooling water will be supplied from a radial collector well system to be installed northeast of the Units 6 and 7 Site. The laterals for that well system will extend from the FPL plant property out beneath Biscayne Bay. 20 In accordance with Condition 4 of County Resolution Z- 56-07, as amended by Resolution Z-1-13, FPL will not use the Biscayne Aquifer as a primary source of cooling water for Units 6 and 7. The foundation for the nuclear units will include engineered fill and reinforced concrete that supports the containment building and auxiliary building. Site preparation will require removing the existing muck (organic layer) down to the initial rock layer. This muck is unsuitable for use in the foundation. The Site will then be backfilled with approximately 7.8 million cubic yards of structural fill (aggregate) to a finished grade of approximately 25.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) above mean sea level that will support power plant and ancillary facility construction. The design elevation of the plant floor is 26 feet NAVD 88. An additional three million cubic yards of fill will be required for other plant facilities, including the administration and training buildings and the RWTF. Material from excavation for the Site will be deposited on designated berms within the existing industrial wastewater facility or stock-piled on the Turkey Point plant property for other future uses. FPL will utilize best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts during placement of the spoil materials on the berms to 21 protect nearby wetlands and surface waters. FPL will obtain the majority of fill from certified vendors. In accordance with Condition 14 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 17 of County Resolution Z-1-13, all fill used on the two units and onsite facilities will be "clean fill" as defined in section 24-5, MDC. All fill material will comply with section 24-48.3(4), MDC. FPL has prepared and submitted an earthwork and materials disposal plan to the reviewing agencies, including the County. FPL's earthwork and materials disposal plan is consistent with Condition 7 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 16 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of those two conditions. In accordance with Condition 21 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL has designed the Project to accommodate water level increases on the order of one foot or more to accommodate potential physical modifications and operational changes to County and State drainage canals. Relative sea level is measured using tide or water level gauges to measure water levels with respect to tidal benchmarks. The hourly water level heights from the tide gauge are averaged to get a monthly or annual average. Using that information, the long-term change in the annual or monthly mean is determined over a period of decades or centuries. Relative 22 sea level is affected by vertical land motion; tectonic uplift; thermal expansion; glacial melt; ocean circulation; wind effects; changes in barometric pressure; and tides and tidal currents. The Project has been designed to accommodate potential sea level rise during the life of the Project. The proposed finish floor elevation at the Units 6 and 7 plant area was selected by FPL based on the calculation of probable maximum storm surge and coincident wind-wave effects. FPL input a conservative estimate of one foot of sea level rise over the life of the plant to the "Sea, Lakes and Overland Surge from Hurricanes" (SLOSH) Biscayne Bay Basin model. The SLOSH model was used to predict a maximum storm surge elevation of 21 feet during a probable maximum hurricane near the Site. The maximum water level at the safety-related structures, including predicted maximum storm surge elevation and estimated storm- related wave run-up, is calculated to be 24.8 feet. The design elevation of the plant floor is 26 feet NAVD 88. Facilities to be located at this elevation include, among other Project components, the reactors, the electrical turbines, and the emergency diesel generators. Impacts on support facilities and services for the Project will be managed through final design and by pre-planning for storm effects. In addition, plant procedures will be focused on nuclear and personnel safety 23 during a hurricane and post-storm recovery. Plant safety- related functions will not be adversely affected by sea level change or storm events. Based on available records from stations throughout the state -- Cedar Key, Fernandina Beach, Key West, Mayport, Miami Beach, Pensacola, and St. Petersburg -— sea level rise throughout Florida is tightly grouped around the level of 0.74 feet per century, with a very small standard deviation of plus or minus 0.07 feet per century. The nearest station with the longest (from 1913 to 2012) continuous sea level record to the Turkey Point Site is the Key West station; relative sea level rise there is 0.75 feet per century. Mathematically, the best explanation for the Key West relative sea level rise is a linear trend. There is no statistically significant evidence of acceleration in relative sea level rise at Key West. Given the available records in the area and the close grouping of values for sea level rise throughout the state, use of Key West records to project sea level rise at Turkey Point is appropriate. FPL used a linear trend method in assessing the relative sea level change for the Project. The linear trend is generally accepted by the scientific community as an appropriate method for evaluating relative sea level change. The sea level rise projections used by FPL are reasonable and conservative. FPL's projection appropriately responds to various assessments 24 on sea level rise. The plant design elevation accounts for more than maximum storm surge plus sea level rise. FPL has provided reasonable assurance that the Project is not contrary to the public interest as it relates to sea level rise. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be built above the 100-year flood level, and will not increase erosion or create a flood hazard to others. The Project will be constructed outside of the coastal high hazard area to comply with applicable flood protection requirements. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project has sufficient operational safeguards to protect the public welfare. The Project will meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Water and Use Treatment Construction Dewatering Excavation is required to construct the foundations of Units 6 and 7. Concrete diaphragm walls around each foundation excavation will minimize horizontal flow of groundwater into the excavation. In addition, a horizontal grouted barrier constructed below the bottom of each unit to the bottom of the 25 diaphragm walls will minimize vertical flow of groundwater into the excavation. Grout will be injected in a series of "primary" borings. Subsequent borings will then be drilled in between the primary borings. Three sets of borings are possible after the primary set –- secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. Each set is drilled and grout is injected until refusal occurs. Quaternary borings may not be required at all locations, only where continuing seepage is observed as the excavation progresses. The diaphragm walls and grouting will minimize groundwater flow during construction to less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) per unit, which will be controlled by sump pumps at the bottom of the foundation excavations. Dewatering effluent from construction of these facilities will be routed to the existing industrial wastewater facility or disposed in the underground injection wells. During the three-month grouting process, short-term maximum groundwater withdrawals from each unit will not exceed 1,000 gpm and average withdrawals will be 230 gpm. During the three-month excavation phase, the maximum groundwater withdrawals per unit will not exceed 1,000 gpm and average withdrawals will be about 400 gpm. These short-term withdrawals will be sequential, not simultaneous. During the 24-month foundation construction phase, the groundwater withdrawal rate for each unit will not exceed 100 gpm, and the maximum combined groundwater withdrawal rate (construction of 26 Unit 6 combined with grouting/excavation of Unit 7) will average about 430 gpm. Construction dewatering will not cause adverse impacts to ground or surface water resources. The projected inland groundwater impacts, expressed as drawdown, will not extend beyond the cooling canal system that surrounds the Units 6 and 7 Site or cause a water resource concern. No large-scale or area-wide dewatering is anticipated to be associated with construction of the cooling tower foundations, RWTF, the nuclear administration and training buildings, or parking area. However, local small-scale dewatering of these facilities and onsite pipelines may be required. Dewatering during construction of the radial collector wells will be limited to the caissons, which will be dewatered to allow for horizontal drilling of the well laterals. Construction dewatering will not cause saltwater intrusion into areas where saltwater is not already present. Hydrologic Evaluations and Water Conservation FPL submitted to the County an extensive and comprehensive hydrologic study for the Project as required by Condition 15 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of that condition. FPL submitted a complete description of all surface and groundwater practices at the existing Turkey Point Plant to 27 the County as required by Condition 16 of County Resolution Z- 56-07. FPL has fulfilled the requirements of that condition. FPL has submitted a water conservation plan for the Project. FPL will implement the County's water use efficiency manual. FPL Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility and Reclaimed Water Pipeline Corridor The Project includes a RWTF. The proposed location for the RWTF is approximately 44 acres in size located northwest of the Site on the Turkey Point plant property. Pipelines will convey the treated reclaimed water from the RWTF to the cooling water makeup reservoir. The RWTF will polish the reclaimed water to remove dissolved solids, nutrients, and mineral content that would otherwise negatively impact the efficient and reliable operation of the cooling reservoir, the cooling towers, and the circulating water system. The treatment provided by the RWTF will allow FPL to utilize reclaimed water to the maximum extent possible. The treated water from the RWTF will comply with applicable Department requirements for use of reclaimed water in cooling towers. Operation of the RWTF and the use of reclaimed water will comply with applicable local government non-procedural requirements. 28 FPL has fulfilled the requirements of Condition 5 of County Resolution Z-56-07 through utilization of reclaimed water to the maximum extent possible and by conducting an evaluation of alternative water sources for the Project. FPL and the County have entered into an agreement for the County to provide the reclaimed water. This reclaimed water use is a beneficial and cost-effective means of maximizing the use of reclaimed water from the County and helps the County meet its reclaimed water compliance requirements. In the absence of reuse opportunities, this treated domestic wastewater would likely continue to be discharged to the ocean or deep injection wells. The County is required to eliminate ocean outfalls and increase the amount of water that is reclaimed for environmental benefit and other beneficial uses. The RWTF will be constructed at an elevation of 14 feet. This elevation is above the 100-year flood elevation of ten feet; will accommodate an additional one foot of increased water levels due to regional hydrologic restoration projects that affect the RWTF site; and will account for one foot of sea level rise. There will be a two-foot reserve capacity above any predicted water levels at the RWTF location. FPL has proposed an approximately nine-mile reclaimed water pipeline corridor for delivery of reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department's (MDWSD) South District 29 Wastewater Treatment Plant to the FPL RWTF. FPL selected the reclaimed water pipeline corridor to utilize, to the greatest extent practicable, existing infrastructure in order to minimize environmental impacts. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor is also co-located with an existing FPL overhead transmission line right-of-way (ROW) for most of its route. The pipeline corridor varies in width from 500 feet to one mile. The pipeline will be installed below ground level the entire length with subaqueous canal crossings. Open cutting or trenching will be utilized for the majority of the reclaimed water pipeline installation. Trenchless technologies will be used when crossing canals. The reclaimed water pipeline will cross several SFWMD canals. When constructing the pipeline, FPL will avoid as much as practicable Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland parcels, avoid longitudinal runs in the L-31 E canal right-of-way, and will use subaqueous crossings of SFWMD canals. All reclaimed water pipeline canal crossings will be located, designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. Radial Collector Well System The radial collector wells will be used as a backup source of cooling water. Radial collector wells have been used since the 1920s in commercial, industrial, and power plant 30 facilities, including another nuclear power plant. The wells will consist of four central caissons located on the Turkey Point peninsula. Up to 12 laterals will be directionally drilled from within each of the caissons horizontally at a distance of up to 900 feet beneath Biscayne Bay and at a depth of approximately 25 to 40 feet below the Bay bottom. The laterals will not extend beneath Biscayne National Park (BNP). The wells will be designed, sited, constructed, and operated to induce groundwater recharge from Biscayne Bay. FPL has agreed to a condition of certification that would limit operation of the radial collector wells to 60 days in any consecutive 12-month period. When using 100 percent salt water or saline water (based on 1.5 cycles of concentration in the cooling water system's cooling towers), Units 6 and 7 will use a maximum of 124.4 mgd. Each of the four wells will have a design capacity of 43.2 mgd. Operation of three wells will meet the plant make- up requirements, with the fourth well acting as a back-up. The caissons for the radial collector wells will be installed within previously-filled upland areas of the Turkey Point peninsula. Construction of the radial collector wells will not result in any discharges to Biscayne Bay, other than construction-period stormwater run-off. Sedimentation barriers 31 or other best management practices will be implemented to limit potential impacts to surface water bodies. The radial collector well laterals will be constructed using conventional rotary-type horizontal drilling with the drilling fluid consisting of formation water. The drilling will occur from inside the concrete caisson. The directional drilling for the laterals is designed to avoid "frac out," a situation where drilling mud enters a surface water body via a fracture or solution channel. Construction of the radial collector wells will not require dredging in Biscayne Bay. The radial collector wells will be constructed and operated in accordance with all Department, SFWMD, and local government applicable non-procedural requirements related to well construction and monitoring. No explosives will be used during construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project, including during construction of the radial collector wells. The radial collector well easement area is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The radial collector well area includes the portion of the radial collector well system that will extend beneath State-owned submerged lands in Biscayne Bay. The Department's Division of State Lands reviewed the information submitted by FPL regarding the radial collector well sovereign submerged lands easement and concluded that the 32 Project is in the public interest. The Division of State Lands recommended that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to issue the sovereign submerged lands easement for the radial collector well system. FPL owns the upland area adjacent to the requested easement for the radial collector wells. The radial collector wells will be designed and constructed to avoid restriction or infringement on riparian rights of adjacent upland landowners. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells is a water-dependent activity. By the nature of the design and location, the radial collector well laterals cannot be reasonably constructed without going under the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The radial collector wells are "structures required for the installation or expansion of public utilities" and "reasonable improvements for public utility expansion," and are therefore specifically allowed by the Act that created the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. See § 258.397, Fla. Stat. Construction and operation of the Project, including the radial collector well system, is consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan and is in the public interest. 33 Groundwater Modeling FPL has conducted extensive groundwater modeling of the predicted impacts of the groundwater withdrawals associated with operation of the radial collector wells to supply cooling water. That modeling utilized the MODFLOW 2000 computational system. To support this modeling effort, FPL undertook an aquifer performance test (APT) at the Turkey Point peninsula to provide information on the potential yield from the water bearing units and to identify changes in existing water levels and water quality during pumping in the shallow aquifer at the location of the radial collector wells. The APT was undertaken in accordance with professional standards. MODFLOW 2000 was developed by the United States Geological Survey. It is a widely accepted computer code for groundwater modeling. The groundwater modeling was conducted consistent with the applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements. The steady-state, constant-density, and three- dimensional groundwater model used conservative assumptions to produce an environmentally conservative assessment of potential environmental impacts. In assessing the potential impacts associated with operation of the radial collector wells, the model considered water levels prior to radial collector well operation, water 34 level changes as a result of operating the radial collector wells, seabed approach velocity, and a breakdown of the sources of water that will be withdrawn by the radial collector wells. Seabed approach velocity is the velocity of the water just prior to entering the seabed above the radial collector wells. The results of the groundwater model predict that the radial collector wells will withdraw water from a saltwater or saline aquifer that will be recharged from Biscayne Bay. FPL's model predicted that: (1) approximately 97.8 percent of the aquifer recharge will originate from boundaries representing Biscayne Bay; (2) approximately two percent will originate from boundaries representing the cooling canal system; and (3) approximately 0.2 percent will be from boundaries representing precipitation onshore. The modeling indicated that operation of the radial collector wells will not cause water from the existing cooling canal system to enter Biscayne Bay. The seabed approach velocity is predicted to be a maximum rate of 0.00002 feet per second overlying the laterals. To put this in perspective, a one-foot, wind-driven wave on Biscayne Bay in five to six feet of water can induce a velocity of approximately one foot per second near the Bay bottom. This wave velocity is about five orders of magnitude greater than the velocity predicted to be induced by the radial collector wells. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection 35 Agency's (EPA) benchmark for regulating potential impingement of species from intake structures that draw directly from the water column is 0.5 feet per second. This is 25,000 times higher than the seabed approach velocity predicted for the radial collector wells. In terms of the predicted effect of operation of the radial collector wells, the maximum drawdown in groundwater levels of three feet occurs near the radial collector well laterals, located 25 to 40 feet below the Bay bottom. This drawdown reduces to one foot at a distance of 1,500 feet from the radial collector well caissons, and this level of drawdown is confined to off-shore of the Site. The 0.1 foot drawdown contour extends on-shore a maximum of 3,000 feet. Radial Collector Well Potential Impacts FPL's proposed water uses will not cause harm to wetlands or other surface waters or cause pollution of water resources or degradation of surface or ground water quality. Some of the areas contributing precipitation recharge to groundwater west of the radial collector wells contain wetlands. Water contributed to the radial collector wells from these areas is captured as it flows under natural conditions toward the coast. This water is not induced to flow from these areas by the operation of the radial collector wells; it would flow from these areas regardless of whether the radial collector 36 wells were pumping or not. The operation of the radial collector wells will not have an adverse impact to these wetlands. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact the ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, including the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and BNP. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not cause saltwater intrusion into areas where saltwater is not already present. FPL conducted extensive simulation modeling of the potential salinity impact to Biscayne Bay from operation of the radial collector wells using a regional hydrodynamic model. The model used a bounding approach, simulating operation of the radial collector wells at drawdown rates both below and well above the design flow rate as sensitivity analyses. At the design flow rate, the model predicted that any changes to salinity in Biscayne Bay caused by operation of the radial collector wells would be immeasurable and imperceptible. Even at a simulated rate of 850 mgd, or nearly seven times the design flow rate of the radial collector wells, the predicted change in salinity in Biscayne Bay would be very slight. Operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact salinity levels in Biscayne Bay. 37 The design of the radial collector well system minimizes adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, including endangered and threatened species habitat, and other natural or cultural resources in Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Operation of the radial collector wells will not interfere with the ecology and aquatic life, regional fisheries, and recreational uses of Biscayne Bay. Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, or their habitats. FPL evaluated the potential entrainment and impingement impacts of the radial collector well system using particle drift modeling. The modeling considered conservatively bounded scenarios to evaluate potential impacts under varying levels of drawdown and natural environmental conditions. The modeling predicted that at the design flow rate of the radial collector wells, the expectation of entrainment and impingement impacts associated with the radial collector wells is zero. Even at 350 mgd, or more than double the design flow rate, the model predicted no entrainment or impingement of organisms. Operation of the radial collector wells will not result in impingement or entrainment of larvae or other biological particles. 38 FPL conducted a six-month long replicated mesocosm study to determine the impacts, if any, to seagrasses associated with the operation of the radial collector well system by simulating the downward movement of water into seagrass sediments. Mesocosms are generally accepted by the scientific community as an appropriate and accurate method of evaluating impacts to seagrasses. The study conservatively tested the potential stress to seagrass for three months, or one month longer than FPL would normally be allowed to operate the radial collector wells in any 12-month period. The results of the mesocosm study showed that operation of the radial collector wells could result in a 95 percent reduction in porewater nutrient concentrations. Despite that potential reduction, there was no evidence of an adverse impact on seagrass productivity. Leaf turnover rates fell within the range of values expected for healthy seagrass meadows and cumulative biomass production rates showed that the seagrass continued to grow over the course of the entire experiment. There was no evidence of reduced cumulative biomass production rates. Results during the recovery period of the experiment showed that porewater nutrient concentrations were capable of increasing to the higher levels found prior to the imposition of the downward flux of waters into the bottom sediments. 39 Construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely impact submerged land resources, including seagrasses and other benthic resources, and will not impact the County's potable water wellfields. Those wellfields are not within the area impacted by the withdrawals. The radial collector wells are compatible with and will not detract from or adversely affect the natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses of Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Because the radial collector wells will not have an adverse impact on Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, they will not contribute to a cumulative impact on the Preserve's natural system. FPL has a demonstrated need for the proposed water uses. FPL has provided reasonable projections of the Project's water needs, quantities, and sources. FPL has legal control over the Project site and facilities, and the proposed uses of water are compatible with the current land use at the Project site. FPL has a demonstrated demand for an alternative secondary or back-up cooling water source to be provided via the radial collector well system. FPL's proposed water uses are not inconsistent with SFWMD-established minimum flows and levels and will not withdraw 40 water reserved under chapter 40E-10. They will not be harmful to water resources. They are reasonable-beneficial uses, will not interfere with present existing legal users, and are consistent with the public interest. The water withdrawals will not harm off-site land uses. The Department, FWC, and SFWMD have proposed conditions of certification requiring monitoring of the impacts of the radial collector well system. FPL has agreed to those conditions as reflected in stipulations of the parties. FPL and the County have also stipulated to imposition of radial collector well system monitoring conditions. FPL's compliance with these agreed-upon conditions of certification fulfills its obligations under Conditions 3 through 12 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Potable Water and Potable Water Pipeline Potable water from the MDWSD will be used as makeup water for the service water system (SWS) cooling system. The SWS is a much smaller system that dissipates heat from reactor components. Unlike the collector well system that can be designed to use saltwater or freshwater, the SWS must use freshwater. Assuming four cycles of concentration, the normal amount of potable water needed for the SWS is 0.7 mgd. The SWS normal water use is approximately one percent of the total plant water use when the collector well system is using reclaimed 41 water and approximately 0.6 percent when using saltwater. Potable water will also be used for the potable water system, fire protection system, de-mineralized water treatment system, and other miscellaneous uses. The normal total amount of potable water needed for the Project is 1.3 mgd, including the water used in the SWS. The maximum amount of potable water needed is 3.7 mgd, including the SWS, potable water system, de-mineralized water system, equipment/floor washdown, and fire water system. It is highly unlikely that all of these streams will be at maximum capacity at the same time. Potable water will be delivered to the Site via an approximately nine-mile proposed pipeline that will connect to the County potable water supply system. The potable water pipeline ROW will be located within or adjacent to existing or planned roads and ROWs. Typically, pipe installation takes place by excavation and backfill techniques. SFWMD canals will be crossed by the potable water pipeline. Pipeline crossings of SFWMD canals will be located, designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non- procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. 42 Wastewater Disposal During the construction phase of the Project, wastewaters including dewatering effluent will be disposed by the injection wells or released to the cooling canal system. Construction site stormwater will be released to the cooling canal system. The cooling canal system is an existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. These releases will not cause adverse impacts to water quality. During operation, the major wastewater streams associated with the Project are the circulating water system blowdown, the service tower blowdown, and effluent from the de- mineralized water treatment system. These and other smaller wastewater streams, except stormwater, will be collected in a lined blowdown sump along with other Project waste streams and then will be discharged to the deep injection wells. Operation of Units 6 and 7 will not utilize the existing industrial wastewater facility for cooling or wastewater disposal, except that stormwater will be routed to this facility. The Project will not result in any discharge of industrial wastewaters to any jurisdictional surface waters during construction or operation. Construction and operation of the Project will not cause or contribute to violations of any applicable state and local surface or ground water quality standards. 43 It is not technically feasible to reuse Project wastewaters for discharge to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. In accordance with Condition 6 of County Resolution Z- 56-07, FPL has prepared and submitted documentation comprising a wastewater discharge plan to the reviewing agencies, including the County. Underground Injection Well System The proposed underground injection well system consists of 12 or 13 Class I industrial deep injection wells and six or seven dual zone monitoring wells. At least two of these injection wells will serve as back-up wells. These injection wells will be designed to meet applicable injection well design requirements, including incorporating measures to protect the wells against corrosion or damage resulting from native groundwater and the injected fluids. The wells will be periodically tested for mechanical integrity. The underground injection wells will dispose of Site wastewaters into the Boulder Zone, which is within a geologic formation known as the Oldsmar formation approximately 3,000 feet below land surface. The water in the Boulder Zone has salinity close to that of sea water. The Boulder Zone is used extensively to dispose of wastewaters in Florida. 44 The Boulder Zone is located deep underground and separated and confined from the shallower aquifers that are classified and used as underground sources of drinking water in South Florida. The Boulder Zone at the Turkey Point Plant is classified by the Department as a G-IV aquifer because it is a confined aquifer with no potable use and with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or greater. Except for a prohibition on injection of hazardous waste, no groundwater quality criteria, including thermal standards or limitations, apply to discharges into the Boulder Zone. FPL analyzed the geology at the Turkey Point property to determine if it was suitable for disposal of wastewater through underground injection by constructing a 3,230-foot deep exploratory well. This exploratory well was authorized by a Department-issued underground injection control (UIC) permit, and it was constructed to the standards for a Class I injection well. On July 29, 2013, the Department issued UIC permit number 293962-002-UC, authorizing FPL to convert this exploratory well to an injection well to dispose wastewaters associated with the construction of Units 6 and 7. This converted exploratory well could also be used to dispose of industrial wastewater after 45 Units 6 and 7 become operational, subject to authorization for this purpose by the Department through another UIC permit. FPL also constructed a dual zone monitoring well approximately 75 feet from the exploratory well, within the 150- foot maximum distance of the Department's UIC rules. The dual zone monitoring well allows for collection of groundwater samples from two separate subsurface intervals. Dual zone monitoring wells help determine whether there is adequate confinement of the injected fluid. Construction of the exploratory well and dual zone monitoring well was in accordance with applicable Department requirements and authorized by a permit. During construction of the exploratory well, FPL conducted testing to determine the appropriate well casing setting depths, confirm the presence of an injection zone, and evaluate the confining characteristics of intervals overlying the injection zone. A report documenting this testing was prepared and provided to Department staff who agreed with the report's information and conclusions. This testing determined that the top of the injection zone occurs at a depth of approximately 2,915 feet below pad level and there is a confining unit of approximately 985 feet above the top of the injection zone. The injection zone is over 1,400 feet below the deepest potential underground source of drinking water as 46 defined by the Department. The injection zone is a confined aquifer with a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 10,000 mg/L. This injection zone is capable of receiving water at the proposed injection rate. Before beginning operational use of the injection wells, FPL will be required to further test the ability of the injection zone to receive the injected fluid. The Department UIC rules required FPL to conduct an "area of review" analysis to ensure that there were no wells, springs, mines, faults, or other geological features that could provide a pathway to allow Turkey Point injected wastewater to migrate upwards into an underground source of drinking water. FPL's area of review analysis found no wells, springs, mines, faults, or other geological features that could provide a pathway to allow the Turkey Point injected wastewater to migrate upwards into a potential underground source of drinking water. The Department reviewed FPL's area of review analysis as part of the exploratory well permit. To further ensure that the geology above the Boulder Zone was sufficient to confine the injected wastewater to the Boulder Zone, FPL performed a confinement analysis by comparing hydrogeologic data collected during the exploratory well testing to data from other injection wells. This data comparison, particularly comparing the sonic logs, demonstrated that the geology above the Boulder Zone has little evidence of 47 fracturing. This is indicative of effective vertical confinement. Finally, although not required by the UIC rules, FPL performed a density-dependent groundwater flow modeling analysis to determine how the injected wastewater would move through the underground formations. This groundwater flow model considered the geology of the area, the differences in the density of the injected wastewater compared to the native groundwater, and simulated a period of 60 years of injection followed by 40 years of no injection for a total of 100 years. The groundwater flow model showed that even after 100 years the injected wastewater did not move out of the confining layer and did not move into any potential underground source of drinking water. Additionally, the injected wastewater will not affect the mechanical integrity of the injection wells, will not jeopardize the integrity of the confining zone, and will not alter the hydrologic characteristics of the injection zone to the point of endangering the underground source of drinking water. All of the testing, analysis, and modeling demonstrate that there is adequate confinement to prevent upward migration of the injected wastewater out of the injection zone. Also, the injection of this industrial wastewater will not modify the ambient water quality of other aquifers overlying the 48 injection zone, and the injection zone can receive wastewater at the rate proposed by FPL. Thus, injection of industrial wastewater from Units 6 and 7 will not cause or allow the movement of fluid into underground sources of drinking water that would cause a violation of drinking water standards or otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. Even after 100 years of plant operation, the injected wastewater will remain over 1,000 feet below the base of the underground source of drinking water. The injection wells will be operated consistent with applicable injection pressure and fluid velocity requirements. The injection wells will also comply with applicable emergency discharge requirements. Through the underground injection control permitting process, FPL will be required to continually monitor these injection wells and report that information to the Department. The wastewater discharged to the underground injection wells will not be hazardous as defined by chapter 62- 730. Thus, the wastewater complies with the Department's Boulder Zone's G-IV aquifer requirements. Additionally, the wastewater is not a radioactive waste as defined by rule 62- 528.200(54). Thus, the injection wells are considered Class I industrial injection wells under rule 62-528.300(1)(a)2. 49 Separate from this certification proceeding, FPL has obtained a permit to convert the Class V exploratory well to a Class I injection well. The permit to convert the exploratory well to a Class I injection well includes a requirement to operationally test the injection well for up to two years. The construction of the other underground injection wells will require a Class I UIC construction permit from the Department. That permit will contain a requirement to operationally test the injection wells for up to two years. This operational testing will allow FPL to further confirm that the underground injection control system operates as designed with no upward fluid migration. This operational testing period data will, in part, support FPL's application for one or more separate Class I UIC operating permits from the Department for the system. The operating permit must be renewed by the Department every five years. Class I UIC permits require periodic monitoring of the injection process and reporting of that monitoring information to the Department. Thus, the Department will continually oversee FPL's deep well injection system and will re-review the system every five years as part of the Class I operation permit renewal. Stormwater/Surface Water Management FPL has prepared and submitted to the reviewing agencies as part of its application a stormwater management plan 50 for construction and operation of the Project at the Site and for the associated non-linear facilities. During construction of the Site and associated non- linear facilities, erosion control measures such as silt fences and hay bales will be used to decrease velocity of sheet flow and to control small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas in runoff. Temporary basins or sediment traps will be constructed to control runoff from larger disturbed areas. Temporary fill diversions will be used for slope protection and to divert runoff to sediment basins and stabilized outlets. Construction stormwater requirements will be addressed through compliance with rule 62-621.300(4) and other applicable agency regulations. During operation, the stormwater management system is designed to release stormwater runoff from the Units 6 and 7 site into the existing permitted industrial wastewater facility. The stormwater runoff from the nuclear administration building, training building, and parking area will also be released to the industrial wastewater facility. The industrial wastewater facility currently has sufficient capacity and will not be impacted by stormwater runoff from the Project during operation. All stormwater associated with industrial activity from the RWTF equipment area will be captured, treated as necessary, and reused within the reclaimed water treatment 51 process. Runoff from non-equipment areas will be routed to stormwater management facilities and released to local drainage. Stormwater during construction and operation of the non-transmission linear facilities will be handled in accordance with applicable Department, SFWMD, and County non-procedural requirements. The proposed reclaimed water and potable water pipelines will be installed underground. The construction access roads will include stormwater management facilities designed to meet applicable Department standards. Runoff from the potentially oil-contaminated areas, such as the containment area for transformers and other oil-containing or handling equipment, will first be directed through an oil/water separator and then routed to the industrial wastewater facility. There will be no adverse impacts from stormwater during construction, operation, or maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the stormwater management systems for the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause flooding to on-site or off-site property; will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; will not adversely affect the quality of any jurisdictional waters or result in a violation of any 52 water quality standards; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and will not cause adverse impacts to any SFWMD water resources. Domestic/Sanitary Wastewater Sanitary wastewater treatment for Units 6 and 7 will be provided by a new on-site package sanitary treatment plant. The sanitary treatment plant will be designed to process sanitary wastes from Units 1 through 7. This treatment plant will replace several existing septic tanks and an existing sanitary wastewater plant that serve Units 1 through 4 and that discharges to the surficial aquifer. Units 6 and 7 will have a sanitary drainage system that will collect sanitary waste from plant restrooms and locker room facilities and carry this waste to the sanitary treatment plant where it will be processed. Effluent from the proposed sanitary treatment plant will be disposed through the underground injection wells in compliance with applicable regulations. FPL is requesting that the final certification for the Project include approval for the use of the on-site package sanitary treatment plant and the other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County. FPL has 53 requested a variance from section 24-43.1(6), MDC. No reviewing agency, including the County, objected to the requested variance. With the exception of this one requested variance, the Project will comply with all applicable non-procedural standards and requirements of all reviewing agencies. A pipeline of the required length to connect to the MDWSD system for the flow generated by the Project would be below the desired minimum design velocity for the pipeline. The sanitary wastewater treatment plant will provide secondary waste treatment and high level disinfection; it will be designed in accordance with sound engineering practice; and the design, construction, and operation of the sanitary wastewater facilities will be consistent with applicable Department and County non-procedural requirements. Storage Tanks The Project will include some above-ground storage tanks for petroleum products and for the storage of chemicals. Above-ground storage tanks will be inside buildings or covered and will have required secondary containment. All storage tanks will be constructed, operated, and maintained according to the applicable requirements of chapters 62-761 and 62-762. 54 Air Emissions, Controls, Impacts, and Airspace The sources of air emissions associated with the Project will include circulating water cooling towers and service water system cooling towers, standby diesel generators, ancillary diesel generators, diesel fire pumps, diesel fuel storage tanks, and general purpose diesel engines. There will also be air emissions associated with Site preparation and construction. The Project will have six circulating water cooling towers to support the operation of the nuclear units, with three towers for each unit. The primary air emissions from Units 6 and 7 during operation are particulate matter (PM) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or less (PM10) in the form of atmospheric drift. The primary source of the PM and PM10 emissions is the circulating water cooling towers. There will also be small amounts of PM and PM10 from the service water system cooling towers. There will be emissions of PM and PM10, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and sulfur oxides from the use of emergency diesel generators. Cooling tower drift will be controlled through the use of state-of-the-art cooling tower design including drift eliminators designed to limit drift to 0.0005 percent of the amount of water circulating through the cooling towers. The use 55 of high efficiency drift eliminators represents Best Available Control Technology as required by the EPA and Department. The water treatment levels and location and the operation of the cooling towers will comply with the Department's regulations for the use of reclaimed water in cooling towers. The Department has issued Air Permit No. PSD-FL-409, Project No. 025003-013-AC. The Department found that the Project would not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standards. It also determined that the Project would comply with all applicable state and federal regulations. Construction and operation of the Project will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the vicinity, including air quality in the Everglades National Park, BNP, or Big Cypress National Preserve. There will be no adverse visibility, fogging, or icing impacts resulting from the operation of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 cooling towers. "Drift" is made up of various sized water droplets containing minerals. These water droplets fall out of the cooling tower plume at various distances from the cooling tower and deposit materials. Deposition results when the solution drift falls to a surface such as the ground or water. 56 The constituents in treated reclaimed water will not result in adverse environmental impacts as a result of cooling tower deposition. FPL's deposition analysis considered the quality of the treated reclaimed water and the areas that may be potentially impacted by deposition. The results demonstrate that, while deposition of the various constituents can be calculated, the resulting concentrations of the constituents will be negligible and immeasurable. The constituents in saltwater, when using the back-up cooling water source, will not result in adverse environmental impacts as a result of cooling tower deposition. FPL's deposition analysis considered the quality of water and the areas that may be potentially impacted. The results demonstrate that, while deposition of the various constituents can be estimated through modeling, the resulting concentrations of these constituents could not be measured since their concentrations are extremely small compared to natural variation, and concentrations of many constituents would be well below the detection limits of analytical methods. While the deposition of TDS is higher in the vicinity of the cooling towers than background deposition, that area consists of vegetation that is salt tolerant due to the close proximity to Biscayne Bay. Moreover, the resultant concentration from deposition is much lower than the levels found in the 57 environment and the use of saltwater would be short-term given the durational condition of certification to which FPL has agreed. When using either treated reclaimed water or saltwater, air emissions from the Project will not have an adverse effect on natural resources, including surface waters and wetlands, in the vicinity of the Project. Atmospheric deposition from the operation of cooling towers associated with the Project will not degrade or lower ambient water quality in Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and BNP. Operation of Units 6 and 7 will avoid a considerable amount of air pollution emissions and greenhouse gases. Over a 40-year period of operation, Units 6 and 7 will avoid approximately 21,300 to 49,200 tons of NOx, approximately 14,200 to 75,400 tons of sulfur dioxide, and at least 266 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Open burning during Project construction will be conducted in accordance with applicable non-procedural requirements of state and local agencies. FPL has complied with Condition 19 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL has obtained authorizations from the FAA for the Units 6 and 7 containment buildings. FPL will submit applications for FAA permits for the construction cranes prior to construction. 58 In accordance with Condition 18 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL has coordinated with the Homestead Air Reserve Base and is in compliance with Article XXXV, Homestead General Aviation Airport Zoning in sections 33-372 through 33-387, MDC. The County is currently designated as being in attainment for all Ambient Air Quality Standards for all pollutants. The non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with applicable state and local non-procedural requirements for control and protection of air quality. The Project complies with applicable County non- procedural requirements related to air quality and all provisions of the County's CDMP related to air quality and air space. The air emissions associated with the non-transmission line portion of the Project are consistent with all applicable environmental regulations. Equipment Barge Unloading Area FPL currently has a barge delivery facility at the Turkey Point plant that is used for fuel oil delivery. The barge delivery facility is located at the north bank of the barge turning basin, east of the existing Units 1 and 2. To allow for deliveries of Project components, equipment, and material during Project construction, the existing barge unloading area will be enlarged by excavation of uplands landward to approximately 90 feet by 150 feet, to a 59 depth of approximately nine feet. The excavation area will be isolated from surface waters with sheet piles or similar structures. FPL will implement other best management practices during this excavation to prevent impacts to surface waters. The maximum draft of the barges to be used for delivery during construction is 6.5 feet. Normal operation of Units 6 and 7 will not require regular barge traffic. Construction of the enlarged barge unloading area will not require any construction in Biscayne Bay or its natural tributaries. Construction Access Roadways and Traffic Impacts FPL is seeking certification for roadway improvements as associated linear facilities to the Project in order to accommodate peak construction traffic and provide access to Units 6 and 7 during construction. The roadways are those necessary to provide safe and secure access to the Project site. Improvements will be made to approximately 3.5 miles of existing paved roadways by widening those roads from two lanes to four lanes. In addition, improvements will be made to seven miles of unpaved roads by constructing three or four paved lanes. Improvements will also be made to six intersections by adding new turn lanes. The construction access roadway improvements include a new bridge over a SFWMD canal. This bridge will be located, 60 designed, and constructed consistent with applicable SFWMD non- procedural requirements, including the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. In addition to roadway segment and intersection improvements, traffic control in the form of traffic signals or police control will be required at several intersections during the peak morning and afternoon periods. These traffic control measures are only required at times of high traffic volume entering and leaving the Site during Project construction. In addition, roadway improvements south of Southwest 344th Street will be patrolled by security personnel. The roadway and intersection improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state non-procedural requirements. The roadways will comply with the criteria established in the Traffic Circulation Element of the CDMP for the Project's construction access roads. The construction activities will involve the installation of silt fences, removal of vegetation, construction of drainage, removal of unsuitable soils, placement of road-base materials, laying asphalt, and striping. Typical road construction equipment will be used to construct the roadway improvements. The final design of the roadway improvements will maintain sheet flow across roadway alignments. The final design of the roadway improvements on the Turkey Point plant property 61 will account for increased water elevations of up to one foot planned as part of regional environmental restoration projects. FPL will pay all costs associated with construction and removal of the construction access roads. Construction of the roadway improvements will commence no sooner than two years prior to the commencement of construction of the Project. The roadway and intersection improvements are temporary and designed to accommodate traffic during the construction of the Project. Following construction, all temporary roadway improvements on publicly owned ROWs will be returned to the status of the roadway prior to the commencement of construction of the temporary roadways and roadway improvements. Any privately owned roadway will be returned to the minimum roadway width required to provide maintenance to FPL facilities and will not be more than two lanes. Roadway improvements on privately owned property will not be open to the general public. The County and other agencies with needed access will be granted access to these private roadways. Level of service standards and the County's reserve capacity standards will be met with the addition of Project- related traffic during construction and operation. The construction access roads and pipelines will not be located within local wellfields. 62 Land Use/Comprehensive Plan Land uses adjacent to the site and associated non- linear facilities comprise undeveloped land; electrical generating Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and transmission infrastructure. The industrial wastewater facility is located to the west and south of the Units 6 and 7 site. Canals that return cooling water to Units 1 through 4 surround that site. The BNP, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, and the FPL Everglades Wetland Mitigation Bank are adjacent to the larger Turkey Point plant property. The Homestead Air Reserve Base and the Homestead-Miami Speedway are northwest of the site. Most of the existing land uses in the vicinity of the larger FPL Turkey Point plant property are vacant land. The Project site and associated non-linear facilities are compatible with the existing proximate land uses. Existing land uses within and in the vicinity of the proposed corridors for the temporary construction access roads and the potable water pipeline are comprised of vacant land, agriculture, residential, electric power facilities, the Homestead Air Reserve Base, and the Homestead International Speedway. Most of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the southern portion of the temporary construction access roads are vacant land. 63 Land uses within the proposed corridor for the reclaimed water pipeline comprise a water treatment facility, a landfill, agricultural land, and transmission infrastructure. The BNP and Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve are located to the east of the proposed reclaimed pipeline corridor. The Homestead Air Reserve Base and the Homestead International Speedway are located approximately five miles northwest of the corridor. Most of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed corridor are vacant land. The proposed temporary construction access roads, the potable water pipeline, and the reclaimed water pipeline are compatible with the existing land uses within those proposed corridors. FPL will grant the MDWSD an unobstructed utility easement along Southwest 360th Street from Southwest 177th Avenue to the plant property as required by Condition 2 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL will also grant the County an easement along section line road ROW on the Southwest 344th Street alignment east of Levee L-31 in accordance with Condition 13 of County Resolution Z-1-13. FPL will design the construction access roads to avoid impacts to County-designated Environmentally Endangered Lands. 64 The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be consistent with local land development regulations (LDRs), including zoning ordinances. FPL intends to comply with all of the conditions of County Resolutions Z-56-07 and Z-1-13 and with all of the criteria of the CDMP amendment for the construction access roadways. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will be consistent with the CDMP and the City of Homestead's comprehensive plan; consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the SFRPC; and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands and Wetlands Mitigation Construction of the Plant and non-linear associated facilities would permanently impact approximately 398 acres of wetlands. Approximately 250.2 acres are associated with construction on the site and are contained within the industrial wastewater treatment facility. The remaining permanent wetland impacts are associated with construction of the associated non- transmission line facilities. There will also be approximately 43.6 acres of temporary impacts associated with construction of the reclaimed water pipeline. Wetland impacts associated with the construction of the radial collector well system are limited to approximately 65 three acres of temporary wetland impacts during installation of the radial collector well delivery pipeline. The construction and operation of the radial collector wells will not impact wetland vegetation upon sovereign submerged lands. There will be no wetland impacts associated with construction of the equipment barge unloading area. FPL has made efforts to reduce and eliminate impacts to wetlands through a variety of engineering, design, and other measures, including for example, locating the site within the existing, previously impacted, permitted industrial wastewater facility; relocating the parking and laydown areas to locations within the existing Turkey Point plant property; reconfiguring the RWTF to reduce the footprint and relocating the RWTF; and restoration of roadways within the construction access improvements corridors. FPL conducted its wetlands assessment in accordance with the Department's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). A total of 262 UMAM credits of functional loss are associated with construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. This includes permanent, temporary, and secondary wetland impacts. FPL has proposed a wetland mitigation plan for the entire Project. FPL proposes to mitigate for wetland impacts associated with the plant and non-transmission line portion of 66 the Project through a combination of regional wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation initiatives furthering regional restoration goals, as well as the use of credits obtained from the Everglades Mitigation Bank and restoration of temporary wetland impacts associated with pipeline installation. The mitigation plan includes over 800 acres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Additional mitigation activities are proposed within the Model Lands Basin to the west and south of the Turkey Point plant, including creation of a crocodile nesting sanctuary and restoration of wetlands associated with the temporary construction access roadways. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan is appropriate to offset the expected wetland impacts. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will fully offset impacts to the functions of wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basins as the impacts and will avoid unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands or surface waters. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the plant and non-transmission line impacts of the Project will fully offset the effects, including functional wetland loss, caused by the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. 67 FPL is capable of successfully implementing the proposed mitigation plan. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan complies with Conditions 1 and 9 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 15 of County Resolution Z-1-13. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not contrary to the public interest. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is consistent with relevant requirements of the SFWMD. Wildlife/Threatened and Endangered Species FPL has submitted to all reviewing agencies a comprehensive threatened and endangered species management plan for all listed species for the Project. FPL has preserved, to the maximum extent practicable, all habitat that supports or is critical to listed species. The threatened and endangered species management plan addresses short-term measures to be taken during construction and permanent measures necessary to protect critical habitat. No nests of listed species will be destroyed without prior approval and relocation, if required. The plan includes permanent measures to prevent direct and indirect impacts to critical habitat sufficient to prevent disruption of sensitive behaviors such as breeding, nesting, and foraging within critical habitat. 68 FPL's threatened and endangered species management plan complies with Conditions 2 and 11 of County Resolution Z- 56-07 and Condition 18 of County Resolution Z-1-13. The threatened and endangered species management plan includes a comprehensive inventory of all threatened or endangered flora and fauna and identifies all habitat that supports these species. FPL has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife, including listed species, by locating the site and associated non-transmission line facilities within previously disturbed areas to the greatest extent practicable, avoidance of nesting habitat, commitment to conduct pre-clearing surveys, incorporation of wildlife protection features in the design of construction access roadway improvements, and requiring wildlife training of all construction employees. FPL's proposed wildlife protection features associated with the construction access roads include installing crocodile and wildlife underpasses on Southwest 359th Street east of the L-31E Canal; installing fencing (including fine mesh material along the base of the fencing) along Southwest 359th Street from the L-31E Canal to Southwest 137th Avenue and along portions of both Southwest 117th Avenue and Southwest 137th Avenue between Southwest 344th Street and Southwest 359th Street; providing a six-foot box culvert wildlife underpass 69 along Southwest 359th Street between Southwest 117th Avenue and Southwest 137th Avenue; providing a second wildlife underpass associated with the bridge on the west side of the L-31E along Southwest 359th Street; and installing enlarged arch culverts along Southwest 359th Street from the L-31E Canal Westward to Southwest 137th Avenue to replace existing culverts. FPL's proposed conservation and monitoring plans will protect listed species from adverse effects from construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portions of the Project. FPL's proposed mitigation plan offsets any potential impacts to listed species. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, or listed species. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish, wildlife, listed species, or their habitat; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, or aquatic or wetland-dependent fish or wildlife; and will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. In accordance with Condition 3 of County Resolution Z-56-07, prior to construction, FPL will obtain all permits and 70 assessments required by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the preservation and management of habitat for listed species in accordance with applicable state and federal law. Florida Panther The Florida panther is classified as an endangered species. The USFWS has not designated critical habitat for the Florida panther. USFWS has, however, designated a Panther Focus Area (PFA). Approximately 5.75 miles of the construction access roadway corridors are within the PFA. Where the potable water pipeline is co-located with the construction access roadway corridor, it is also within the PFA. The remainder of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is outside of the PFA. The roads and pipeline corridors within the PFA will result in an impact to approximately 69 acres on the fringe of the PFA. The 69 acres have a panther habitat value of 297 panther habitat units (PHUs). There is a very low likelihood that Florida panthers would occur in the area of the Turkey Point plant and the non- transmission line portion of the Project. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not 71 destroy, degrade, or result in a reduction of habitat that is critical to Florida panthers. Panthers do not use the area of the construction access roadway corridors, including for denning or as a travel corridor. FPL's proposed wildlife protection measures are appropriate and sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to Florida panthers from any traffic mortalities associated with the access roads, and are appropriate mechanisms to enhance protection for wildlife in the area. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the habitat of the Florida panther. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have an actual or potential negative impact on Florida panther habitat; will not have adverse impacts on Florida panthers, their habitat, or affect the conservation of the Florida panther and its habitat; will not have adverse secondary impacts on Florida panthers or their habitat; will not result in a reduction in the number of Florida panthers; will not destroy, degrade, or result in a reduction of habitat that is critical to Florida panthers; will comply with all applicable federal, 72 state, and local laws and regulations for protection of Florida panthers, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; is in compliance with all applicable agency non- procedural requirements related to Florida panthers; and will minimize adverse effects on Florida panthers. American Crocodiles The American crocodile is listed as a threatened species by USFWS and endangered by FWC. The American crocodile was first designated as endangered by the USFWS in 1975, and reclassified (downlisted) as threatened in 2007. In the 1980s, FPL developed a comprehensive crocodile management program for the crocodiles that are found in the existing cooling canal system at Turkey Point. These activities instituted at Turkey Point have largely been responsible for the increase in American crocodile population in South Florida over the last 25 years. USFWS has designated critical habitat for the American crocodile. The site, the radial collector well system area and delivery pipeline area, nuclear administration building, a small portion of the training building, a portion of the parking area, a portion of the potable water pipeline corridor, and a portion of the construction access roadways are within designated critical crocodile habitat. Historical 73 monitoring of the crocodile population indicates occasional observations of basking crocodiles on the Units 6 and 7 site. There has been no habitual utilization of any of those areas of the Site for foraging or nesting by crocodiles due to the lack of suitable nesting substrate, altered and highly variable hydrology, and limited food supply. The proposed facility locations outside of the designated critical habitat likewise do not provide significant basking, nesting, or foraging habitat for American crocodiles. American crocodiles do not use any of the Units 6 and 7 plant and non-transmission line facility proposed locations for nesting. The areas proposed for spoil disposal are not suitable for crocodile nesting. Placement of the spoil will not affect crocodile movement into and out of the cooling canal system or result in any adverse impacts to American crocodiles. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact American crocodile travel corridors. FPL will enhance and create crocodile habitat within and adjacent to the cooling canal system, including creation of additional juvenile low salinity refugia upon selected berms, vegetative restoration, substrate enhancement to create suitable nesting habitat upon selected berms that have not historically 74 supported crocodile nests, and construction of an additional American crocodile nesting and foraging sanctuary (the Sea Dade Canal Sanctuary) south of the cooling canal system within the Everglades Mitigation Bank. FPL's proposed constraints on traffic, maintenance, and construction within the cooling canal system and proposed wildlife protection measures, including crocodile underpasses, are appropriate and sufficient to enhance protection of American crocodiles. The measures proposed and agreed to by FPL are adequate to avoid adverse impacts to the size and health of the American crocodile population from construction and operation of the Project. The habitat that is being impacted by the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is not critical to American crocodile viability or survival, is not suitable for American crocodile nesting or foraging, and is only occasionally used for basking. The habitat that is being created far outweighs the value of any habitat being impacted. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not compromise the viability or survival of the American crocodile or result in a net reduction in the number of American crocodiles. 75 Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance of the American crocodile; will not adversely affect the conservation of American crocodile habitat; will not have any adverse impacts, including secondary or cumulative impacts, on American crocodiles, their habitat, or affect the conservation of the American crocodile and its habitat; will not adversely impact nesting locations of American crocodiles; will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of American crocodiles; will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of American crocodiles, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to American crocodiles; and will minimize adverse effects on American crocodiles. Eastern Indigo Snakes Eastern indigo snakes are classified as threatened by USFWS and FWC. No critical habitat has been designated for Eastern indigo snakes. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed in the proposed locations for the Project Site or the construction 76 access roadways. The areas impacted by the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not compromise the viability or survival of Eastern indigo snakes or result in a reduction in the number of Eastern indigo snakes. FPL's proposed pre-clearing surveys and wildlife protection measures along the construction access roadways are appropriate and sufficient to enhance protection of Eastern indigo snakes. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the habitat of the Eastern indigo snake; will not have adverse secondary impacts on Eastern indigo snakes; will not have any adverse impacts on Eastern indigo snakes, or affect the conservation of Eastern indigo snakes and their habitat; will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance of Eastern indigo snakes; complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of Eastern indigo snakes, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements; complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to Eastern indigo snakes; and will minimize adverse effects on Eastern indigo snakes. 77 Manatees The Florida manatee is classified as endangered. The equipment barge unloading area, radial collector well system area, and the reclaimed water pipeline crossings of canals occur in or near areas that may be used by Florida manatees. The presence of the Florida manatee is known to occur in Biscayne Bay, but not within the site or the industrial wastewater facility, as the closed-loop cooling canals do not connect to the Bay. Manatees occasionally are found in some of the SFWMD canals connecting to Biscayne Bay north of the Turkey Point plant, some of which are contained within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor. Construction of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will involve minimal in-water work and will be limited to the equipment barge unloading area and temporary impacts associated with canal crossings of the reclaimed water pipeline. The equipment barge unloading area will be constructed through excavation of uplands adjacent to the Turkey Point plant turning basin. No dredging within Biscayne Bay will be required. The FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work will be followed for all in-water activity located where waters are accessible to manatees. FPL will comply with the Project's 78 Manatee Protection Plan to avoid any impacts to the manatees during the equipment barge unloading area expansion. FWC- approved manatee observers will be on-site during all in-water construction activities and will advise personnel to cease operation upon sighting a manatee within 50 feet of any in-water construction activity. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact manatees and is consistent with FWC requirements to conserve and protect manatees and will not have any adverse impacts on the Florida manatee. Avian Species FWC has not designated critical habitat for any of the listed avian species in the regional ecosystem of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. While some habitat used by listed species will be affected by the plant and non-transmission line facilities, the extent of this habitat impact is minimal and will be fully mitigated. No wood stork nesting colonies are located within the vicinity of the Site or associated non-transmission line facilities. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will have minimal impacts to wood storks, due to minimal loss of foraging habitat. Snail kites do not normally occur in the area of the plant and non-transmission line associated facilities. 79 Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not adversely impact snail kites. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not result in a net loss of shorebirds or their habitat. FPL's proposed mitigation offsets any impacts to shorebird habitat. FPL will employ measures to deter Least Tern nesting on the gravel parking areas. There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the plant and non-transmission line facilities. FPL's planned activities are unlikely to have any impact on the bald eagle. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not result in a reduction in the number of listed avian species. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of avian species, including listed species; will not adversely impact the conservation of avian species, including threatened and endangered avian species or their habitats; will not cause adverse secondary impacts to avian species; and complies with 80 all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for protection of avian species, including FWC requirements, County code and zoning requirements, CDMP provisions, and City of Homestead requirements. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project complies with all applicable agency non-procedural requirements related to avian species; and will utilize reasonable and available methods to minimize adverse impacts to avian species and their habitat. Plants/Exotics/Landscaping Botanical surveys were conducted within the Site and associated linear facilities, resulting in a total of 33 threatened or endangered plant taxa observed. Many of these listed plant species were observed on side-slopes of existing roadways, transmission structure pads, and pine rockland soils that are subject to routine vegetation management such as mowing. Impacts to listed plant species will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through pre- clearing surveys, relocation of individuals, if feasible, and/or modification of facility design, such as modification of access road or pipeline alignments so as to avoid impacting listed plants. FPL has prepared an exotic vegetation management plan. FPL will not plant listed exotic or nuisance species. If 81 encountered on the locations of the site and associated non- transmission line facilities or mitigation areas, they will be removed prior to construction in that location. FPL will maintain wetland mitigation lands free of exotic vegetation, as required by Condition 10 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL's exotic vegetation management plan complies with Condition 12 of County Resolution Z-56-07. FPL will undertake final tree surveys before commencement of construction of the plant and of the construction access roads and water pipelines. FPL will take measures to avoid impacts to protected trees during construction, in accordance with local requirements. FPL will provide mitigation for impacts to trees. All off-site landscaping, including for the construction access roadways, complies with the local non- procedural requirements for landscaping and with Condition 13 of County Resolution Z-56-07 and Condition 14 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Also, FPL will comply with Condition 19 of County Resolution Z-1-13. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) The CERP was authorized by Congress in 2000 and provides a framework and guide to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including 82 the Everglades National Park. The plant and non-transmission line associated facilities are within the boundary of one CERP project; a small portion of the reclaimed water pipeline corridor falls within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. All plant and non-transmission line associated facilities, including the reclaimed water pipeline and construction and operation of the radial collector wells are not inconsistent with that CERP Project. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project is consistent with CERP and its overall objectives. Archeological and Historic Sites FPL conducted cultural resources assessment surveys for the Site and associated non-linear facilities in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements. No historical or archaeological resources were identified. FPL also conducted a preliminary cultural resource assessment survey for the Project's associated linear facilities. It is typical practice when certifying corridors to conduct a review of known or previously-recorded resources, with the field surveys to be conducted after the final ROW location is finalized. No previously-recorded archaeological sites, archaeological zones, historic structures, historic districts, historic linear resources, historic cemeteries, or historic bridges were identified within or adjacent to the reclaimed 83 water pipeline corridor, the construction access roadway corridors, or the potable water pipeline corridor. The State Division of Historical Resources (DHR), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), reviewed the cultural resources assessment reports and agreed that the site and associated non-linear facilities will not have an effect on historic properties. The SHPO also concurred with the work plans submitted for the site and associated non-linear facilities and the linear facilities. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and applicable SHPO non-procedural requirements; all applicable County code non-procedural requirements related to cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; all CDMP provisions related to archaeological and historical resources; and all applicable non-procedural requirements of the City of Homestead code and comprehensive plan related to cultural, historical, and archaeological resources. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have adverse impacts, including secondary impacts, on cultural, historical, or archaeological resources. Solid and Hazardous Waste All solid waste from construction and operation will be stored, recycled, processed, and disposed of in accordance 84 with the applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. All solid waste will be disposed of at a permitted solid waste management facility. Used oil from construction vehicles and equipment will be collected in appropriate containers and transported off- site for recycling or disposal at an approved facility. Hazardous waste materials generated during construction and operation will be managed and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Noise and Lighting Impacts Noise associated with construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will comply with the applicable County and City of Homestead non- procedural requirements. Construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have any adverse noise-related impacts. Units 6 and 7 will require outdoor lighting for security purposes and worker and plant safety, including lighted walkways, parking areas, and various equipment areas. The plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project will not have adverse lighting-related impacts and will comply with NRC, United States Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration, and County non-procedural requirements. 85 Socioeconomic/Public Impacts and Benefits The Project will have a positive fiscal impact on the County, the County School Board, and the community. The Project is anticipated to result in payment of $1.4 to $2.0 billion in property taxes to the County over the Project's operating life; payment of $52.6 to $74.2 million in state sales taxes during the construction period; payment of $1.1 to $1.7 billion in property taxes to the County School Board over the Project's lifetime; and payment of $138.3 million to $202.9 million to other taxing authorities over the Project's lifetime. From an economic impact perspective, the Project is anticipated to result in creation of 806 permanent, onsite jobs for plant operations; creation of approximately 3,950 direct onsite jobs and 3,689 indirect jobs (annual average) at peak during the construction period; $28.3 billion in total economic output over the operating period; and $8.2 to $11.2 billion in total economic output during the construction period. Project construction will take approximately 123 months. Construction and operation of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not have an adverse population impact to the County. There will be adequate housing and school capacity in the County to accommodate the construction and operation workforce and their families. Police, fire, emergency management, and medical facilities in 86 the region will be sufficient to accommodate construction and operation of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project. Construction and operation of the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project will not have an adverse impact on regional scenic, cultural, or natural landmarks or on residential, commercial, or recreational facilities and uses. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the plant and non-transmission line portion of the Project likewise will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. The Project meets an identified need for electrical power and has substantial economic and fiscal benefits. The Project will ensure electrical reliability for FPL's customers. The Project will also have environmental benefits. The environmental benefits include use of reclaimed water as the primary source of cooling water. The encouragement and promotion of water conservation and use of reclaimed water are State objectives and considered to be in the public interest. FPL's use of reclaimed water is also consistent with the County's efforts to meet the requirements of Florida's 2008 ocean outfall legislation. As described earlier, the use of nuclear power will also avoid substantial emissions of greenhouse gases. The evidence also shows that the Project will 87 fully offset all impacts to wetlands and includes additional mitigation activities conducted without credit for the generation of functional lift. The Project is clearly in the public interest and will serve the broad interests of the public. The PSC has determined that there is a need for the Project, and it reaffirmed that need through annual review. The Project will not result in any unmitigated adverse impacts to air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, or other natural resources of the state. The Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for the facility and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state resulting from the construction and operation of the Project. Road Right-of-Way Dedications The County has proposed conditions of certification to require FPL to dedicate to the County approximately 131 parcels of land at locations identified by the County in Attachment 3 to its Plant Agency Report. The County's zoning code is found in chapter 33, MDC. Section 33-133 establishes "minimum right-of-way widths for streets, roads and public ways for the unincorporated area of the County . . . ." Section 33-46 provides that "[n]o permit shall be issued for a building or use on a lot, plot, tract, or 88 parcel in any district until that portion of the applicant's lot, plot, tract, or parcel lying within the required official zoned right-of-way has been dedicated to the public for road purposes . . . ." Dedications are only required where the applicant owns the land in fee. The list of 131 locations was identified by the County Public Works Department and Environmental Resources Department. The County has existing roads at some of these locations, but it does not have the full dedicated road ROW at other locations. The County does not currently have plans to construct roads at other locations identified for dedication. The County is aware that FPL does not own the land in fee at some of the identified locations but did not identify if FPL owned the land at the listed locations. The County witnesses were not aware of prior permitting by the County Works Department or Environmental Resources Department, including permitting of transmission lines, requiring dedication of road ROW. At some locations, the County is seeking dedications in areas identified for restoration of the Everglades or Biscayne Bay under CERP; however, the County might make the dedicated road ROW available for CERP features and not use them for public roads. The County also seeks dedications to obtain County access to environmentally endangered lands managed by the 89 County. Instead of dedications for public roads at several locations, the County would require FPL to close roads and convey the land to the County. If the County later decides to not build a road, the landowner can file a petition to request that the County Commission abandon the road ROW dedication through a public hearing. Many of these 131 parcels are along or across the corridors for the electrical transmission lines, the reclaimed and potable water pipelines, and the construction access roads. The County did not identify where these parcels are located within established ROWs. Several parcels identified by the County for dedications are not located in areas proposed for Project-related facilities Transmission Facilities Overview Transmission Facilities As noted above, the transmission facilities associated with the Project proposed by FPL include the on-site Clear Sky electrical substation, expansion of the existing Levee electrical substation, two access-only transmission line corridors, and two transmission line corridors containing a total of five transmission lines. "Transmission facilities" refers to the proposed transmission lines in the application, as defined in sections 90 403.503(14) and 403.522(22), including the Clear Sky-Turkey Point 230-kV transmission line and the Clear Sky-Davis and Davis-Miami 230-kV transmission line (the eastern transmission lines); Clear Sky-Levee No. 1 and No. 2 500-kV transmission lines and Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line (the western transmission lines); and the Clear Sky substation and Levee substation expansion. FPL originally proposed to locate the transmission lines in approximately 88.7 miles of transmission line corridors: 52 miles in the FPL West Preferred Corridor and 36.7 miles in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. For its western transmission lines, FPL is now seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 -- a combination of an alternate corridor proposed by MDLPA and FPL West Preferred Corridor -— as its favored western corridor. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor are both approximately 52 miles in length. FPL is concurrently seeking certification of its original FPL West Preferred Corridor as a back-up, to be used only in the event a ROW for the western transmission lines in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. The proposed transmission lines are necessary to safely and reliably connect the new power generation from the Project to FPL's existing electrical transmission network. 91 Certification of the eastern and western transmission lines, as conditioned, serves the broad interests of the public by ensuring reliable electric service at a reasonable cost. An electrical transmission line is a high voltage system that is used to transfer power, typically from power plants or other generation facilities, to one or more substations that may be connected by the transmission line. A substation is a facility where the voltage of electricity carried on a transmission line can be increased or reduced by the use of transformers and other related electrical equipment for safe and practical transmission to other substations or distribution directly to customers. The general components of a transmission line are structures (single or multiple poles), insulators, conductors (wires that carry the electricity) and overhead ground wires (OHGW) that protect the conductors from lightning strikes and also provide for relay protection and telecommunications, other communications wires, various hardware, and access roads. In wet areas, a transmission line may also include structure pads. An access road is an integral part of a transmission line. It allows access to each structure location for construction purposes and also provides ongoing access for routine and emergency maintenance. The transmission line access 92 roads and structure pads required for the lines, if not already existing, will be unpaved. A structure pad is an unpaved area of compacted and stabilized fill that is of sufficient size to accommodate necessary access for construction and for subsequent maintenance, restoration, and emergency operation activities. Transmission line siting involves identifying a route for the transmission lines, selecting a corridor that encompasses that route, and ultimately acquiring the ROW within the corridor in which the transmission lines will be built, operated, and maintained. The route or route alignment is the line between the endpoints for the transmission lines. The corridor is the area within which the transmission ROW will be located. At a minimum, it must be wide enough to accommodate a ROW that in turn is wide enough for the planned transmission facilities; the corridor can be up to a mile wide. Once the ROW is acquired, the corridor boundaries narrow to include only the ROW. The ROW for the transmission line is established through the acquisition of property rights or through use of existing property rights. Including the alternate transmission line corridors proposed by other parties, there are a total of two corridors 93 proper for certification in the east study area and five corridors proper for certification in the west study area. 2. FPL's Siting and Corridor Selection Process FPL utilized a multidisciplinary transmission line siting team consisting of experts in land use, engineering, the environment, and public outreach to select its preferred corridors for both the eastern and western transmission lines. For the following reasons, the corridor selection process used by FPL is found to be reasonable, is consistent with the methodology, guidelines, and criteria used in prior corridor projects throughout the State, and therefore is appropriate for use in this proceeding. The fact that population data and/or density information, house-by-house or parcel-by-parcel, were not specifically used by FPL, does not detract from the validity of the selection process. The objective of FPL's corridor selection study was to select a certifiable corridor that balances land use, environmental, engineering, and cost considerations. Corridor selection methods were designed to be integrative of multidisciplinary siting criteria; rational and objective in decision-making; sensitive to social and environmental conditions; responsive to regulatory requirements; reflective of community concerns and issues; and capable of accurate documentation and verification. 94 The process sought to maximize collocation opportunities and minimize intrusion into siting constraints to the extent practicable. Collocation is the ability to follow (within or adjacent to) an existing linear feature, easement, or ROW, providing the opportunity to reduce the amount of new access road construction, impacts to wildlife habitat, and other impacts. It may include siting a utility within or adjacent to an existing vacant but established ROW. Collocation provides a way to minimize impacts in several ways. With an existing structure, the vegetation, wildlife habitat, and surrounding land uses have already been affected by the existing facility. Adding a new transmission line in such areas will add very little, if any, additional impact. In addition, positioning a corridor along existing roads where feasible to provide access often offers an opportunity to reduce wetland impacts. FPL uses existing access roads where available to minimize wetland impacts. Also, the transmission lines can be designed to avoid clusters of roadside canopy trees. The corridor selection process consisted of multiple steps, including project and study area definition, public outreach, resource mapping and alternative route delineation, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of alternate routes, and selection of a preferred corridor. 95 First, for both the eastern and western transmission lines, FPL defined the project and study area by specifying the voltages and typical ROW widths of the transmission lines to be built, the substation endpoints for the route to connect, the types of typical structures, and existing transmission line ROWs in the area. For the eastern transmission lines, FPL specified transmission structures for a single circuit, 230-kV transmission line to connect the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Turkey Point substation, and a single circuit, 230-kV transmission line to connect the Clear Sky, Davis, and Miami substations. The study area was developed to include those four substations and FPL's existing transmission line ROWs connecting them. The west study area included the Clear Sky, Levee, and Pennsuco substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. For the western transmission lines, FPL specified two 500-kV lines extending from the on-site Clear Sky substation, extending west and then north to the existing Levee substation. From the proposed Clear Sky substation, FPL also specified a 230-kV transmission line from the on-site Clear Sky substation to the existing Pennsuco substation. 96 For the next corridor selection step, FPL evaluated collocation opportunities and siting constraints within the study areas in a regional screening mapping exercise. Public outreach was initiated to solicit information for the regional screening exercise. Resource mapping information was obtained from available information sources, including local, regional, state, and federal agency geographic information systems data. FPL used a technique of overlay mapping software programs to allow flexibility in adding new information as it became available and modifying layers to analyze certain constraints or opportunities. For all transmission line routes, the types of resources mapped included base map information, including: highways, roads, and streets; county and city boundaries; railroads, airports, and heliports; existing and proposed FPL substations; existing FPL transmission lines; existing FPL properties, ROWs, and easements; water bodies, rivers, streams, and canals; land use information (existing and proposed development for which local approvals are pending); planned unit developments and developments of regional impact; property boundaries; existing schools and County School Board lands; cemeteries and historical structures and districts; national parks, wildlife refuges, estuarine sanctuaries, landmarks, or historical sites; state parks, preserves, proposed and existing 97 Florida Forever lands, Areas of Critical State Concern, Save Our Rivers lands, and aquatic preserves; SFWMD-owned lands; County lands, parks, recreation areas, and mitigation lands; Native American lands; privately-designated wetland mitigation areas; privately-owned environmental preserves/sanctuaries; military properties; and environmental information, i.e., listed federal and state-protected species and unique habitats; USFWS- designated critical habitats; and wetlands as delineated on USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps. Once those resources were mapped, the team used the study area regional screening maps as a visual tool, along with aerial photography, ground reconnaissance, and helicopter fly- overs, to develop alternative routes. The team identified routes designed to best avoid or minimize siting constraints and maximize use of collocation opportunities with existing linear features/ROWs. Using route selection guidelines developed by the multidisciplinary team and based on similar guidelines used in previous projects in Florida, several alternative route segments were developed that, when combined, could connect the Project substations. The route selection guidelines used were designed to: Maximize collocation with certain linear features (existing FPL transmission lines, easements, or ROW; roads; canals; etc.). 98 Follow parcel or section lines where practicable and when other linear collocation opportunities do not exist. Minimize crossing of constraints identified as a result of regional screening (e.g., environmentally sensitive lands, existing development, and proposed development for which local approvals are pending). Avoid known airports and private airstrips consistent with FAA and other applicable regulations. Follow disturbed alignments (ditches, roads) through wetlands, where practicable. Minimize crossing of existing transmission lines. Applying the route selection guidelines to the study area regional screening maps, FPL's multidisciplinary team identified 35 route segments that combined to form 134 eastern alternative routes and 34 route segments that combined to form 99 western alternative routes. Once alternative routes were identified, evaluation of these alternative routes involved a systematic, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of each route using environmental, land use, cost, and engineering criteria, integrating information received from the public and other stakeholders through FPL's outreach program. For all transmission line routes, the quantitative criteria used were: number of non-FPL parcels/lots crossed; 99 length of route not following FPL-owned ROW or other transmission line easements; length of route not following other linear features; length of route through existing parks/ recreation areas/designated conservation lands; length of forested wetlands crossed; length of non-forested wetlands crossed; number of eagle nests/wading bird colonies within one- half mile; and engineering/construction cost estimates. These criteria are based on the application of accepted transmission line siting factors used on previous projects across Florida. In addition, the quantitative route evaluation criteria included the number of buildings and schools/school properties within 200 feet of eastern route centerlines and within 500 feet of western route centerlines. The use of these measures of separation was not unreasonable. The proximity distance for this relative comparison among eastern routes was shorter than for the western routes due to the much higher density of development within the east study area. Data for quantitative route evaluation criteria came from the regional screening map data, recent digital aerial photography for the study area, input from agencies and local governments, ground and aerial surveys of routes, and input from the community outreach program. Each segment was analyzed for each quantitative criterion, and the value for each criterion was recorded by segment. The relative weight (importance) of 100 each criterion to be used in the alternative route evaluation was then established by the siting team. These criteria and weights were validated through input from the community obtained as part of the community outreach program. The weighting of criteria in this manner was not shown to be unreasonable. The next step of the integrated alternative route evaluation process involved performing a qualitative assessment of more localized conditions. This evaluation included analyses of siting issues and opportunities; siting constraints; additional ground and aerial surveys; and feedback, additional public input, and comments received at agency workshops and meetings, nine community open houses, and numerous individual and small group meetings with area residents, property owners, and local governments. Qualitative criteria evaluated for all transmission line routes included: available space within existing FPL ROW, easements, or fee-owned property; available ROW along roads, transmission lines, and railroads; road plans; proposed development plans; proximity of existing development; types of development in proximity; proximity and orientation of public airports and private airstrips; ingress/egress at substations; bridge crossings; constructability; acquisition status of existing and proposed conservation lands and/or greenways; ability to avoid or minimize wetland impacts; ability to avoid 101 or minimize impacts to parks, recreation, and conservation lands; proximity to historical districts, roads, and/or structures; review of potential underground scenarios where an overhead transmission line design is not feasible; potential listed species presence; crossing of Native American lands; potential use of local access roads/trails; proximity to known archaeological locations; and vegetative landscapes along streets (tall trees). Qualitative criteria for western transmission line routes also included the significance of the Everglades National Park and the ability to utilize or cross government-owned parcels. Environmental considerations and land ownership were key considerations in the west. FPL's corridor selection process took into account proposed development in the corridor areas, while avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to the extent practicable. It reflected a reasoned balancing of the need for the transmission lines against the potential impact on both the public and the environment. After quantitative and qualitative evaluation of all identified route alignments and consideration of public input throughout the corridor selection process, FPL selected preferred corridors and delineated corridor boundaries. 102 290. The PPSA requires a balancing analysis of "whether, and the extent to which" a number of considerations are satisfied. § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat.; In re: Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, LLC, Case No. 09-6641EPP, 2010 Fla. ENV LEXIS 174 (Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2010), 2010 Fla. ENV LEXIS 173 at *11 (Fla. Siting Bd. Dec. 15, 2010)(PPSA statutory scheme is one of balancing and reasonableness). Although the route selection criteria and process employed by FPL's team are not expressly enumerated in the PPSA, the criteria were used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the balance of statutory factors that the various routes would achieve. Similar criteria were used to evaluate multiple proposed routes in numerous other successful transmission line certification proceedings for projects throughout Florida. In those proceedings, the criteria were vetted by agency review, local government review, and public input. Post-Certification Planning and Design, All Corridors Proper for Certification ROW Selection and Delineation 291. Once a corridor has been selected for a transmission line and certified, FPL establishes a ROW through multiple means, including (1) purchasing easement rights over the affected parcels; (2) purchasing the property in fee simple if necessary; and/or (3) acquiring longitudinal use permits and 103 licenses for public lands, where transmission lines cross or are longitudinally located within public properties or public rights-of-way. A combination of these three methods can take place over the length of a transmission line in order to establish a ROW for that line. FPL cannot construct transmission lines on ROWs for which it has not acquired the necessary property rights. Unless the transmission line is located on available public ROW, based on a review of recently completed projects, it costs FPL approximately four times the market value of land to actually acquire and assemble a ROW within a certified corridor. This is called the "acquisition factor." After certification, FPL will be required to submit its proposed transmission line ROW alignments to the Department, with copies to DOT, SFWMD, SFRPC, the County, and the affected municipalities delineating the proposed ROW for the areas within each agency's jurisdiction. Each agency will then have the opportunity to notify the Department of any apparent conflicts with the requirements of the Conditions of Certification. The final transmission line alignment will take into account approved development to be constructed in the area. For example, upon FPL's request, the County will identify the location of approved but not yet constructed development within the County's jurisdiction so FPL can plan to avoid or minimize 104 conflicts with any such development. Further, to address any concerns by local governments regarding future development, FPL is willing to comply with a condition of certification to accommodate approved but not yet constructed development in the design of the transmission line. Selection of a ROW within a corridor and optimal placement of structures within the ROW can also avoid potential obstructions and minimize wetland impacts. For example, the ROW can be positioned along existing roads to provide access, which can reduce wetland impacts. Transmission Line Design Standards FPL's transmission lines are designed to conform to applicable codes, guidelines, and industry standards, including: National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) standards, such as those for clearances, loading, strength, and extreme wind event design; Department standards for electromagnetic fields (EMF); DOT Utility Accommodation Manual specifications; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers standards; American Society of Testing Material (ASTM) standards; American Concrete Institute (ACI) standards for the design of concrete transmission poles; United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for safe minimum approach distances; 105 applicable noise ordinances of local governments, and FPL's own design and hardening standards for transmission lines. The NESC is the standard adopted by the PSC with which FPL's transmission lines must comply to protect public safety. The NESC, rather than local building codes, is the national industry standard for construction and public safety that is most applicable for transmission lines. FPL presented evidence demonstrating that many of its internal design standards exceed those of the national standards. These internal design standards may require minimization of impacts even beyond regulatory requirements, where practical. For example, FPL may reverse phase on double circuit lines to minimize the magnetic field or may vary the span between structures to avoid significant environmental, historical, or archaeological resources or conflicts with existing land uses like driveways. Overhead design for its transmission lines constitutes FPL's current standard and customary practice where there is no engineering constraint requiring an underground installation. About 98 percent of FPL's transmission system is overhead in design. Undergrounding of FPL's proposed transmission lines is not justified by any asserted concern about their structural integrity. The concrete monopole structures are specifically 106 engineered to withstand extreme wind events, which meet or exceed NESC requirements. Extreme weather can affect both underground and overhead transmission lines. In some cases, restoration of an underground circuit can take significantly longer than for an overhead circuit. The Coral Gables/Pinecrest transmission line expert agreed that undergrounding transmission lines can involve reliability problems, and it could take weeks or months to repair a fault on an underground transmission line. FPL's overhead transmission lines such as those proposed for this Project have performed very well in extreme weather events over their operating history. The PSC, not local governments, has regulatory authority over undergrounding of electric utility lines. The incremental costs of undergrounding transmission lines, where overhead transmission lines are feasible, but undergrounding is requested for aesthetic reasons, are typically paid by the requesting entity. This cost allocation principle has been recognized by the PSC, the Florida Legislature, and the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that entities that benefit from extraordinary costs will bear those costs when other means are technically feasible. See § 366.03, Fla. Stat. ("No public utility shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or locality, or subject the same to 107 any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect."); Fla. Power Corp. v. Seminole Cnty., 579 So. 2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1991)("Permitting cities or counties to unilaterally mandate the conversion of overhead lines to underground would clearly run contrary to the legislative intent that the [PSC] have regulatory authority over this subject."). Transmission Line Construction and Maintenance Process The first step in transmission line construction is to survey the land to locate property lines, property corners, section corners, and road ROW lines to prepare the easement descriptions for ROW acquisition or to establish the boundaries of an existing transmission ROW. After any necessary acquisition, additional surveying is undertaken to stake out ROW lines and stake locations for poles, anchors, structure pads, and access roads for ROW preparation. The second step in transmission line construction is ROW preparation. ROW preparation requires trimming or removal of vegetation in conflict with safe construction and operation of the transmission line. Where clearing is required in uplands or wetlands, trees and shrubs whose mature height could exceed 14 feet and which are very close to the transmission line will be evaluated for pruning or clearing to ground consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Stumps may be removed or grubbed and treated with approved herbicides. 108 FPL will implement tree protection, replacement, and relocation measures in compliance with applicable non-procedural requirements of the local government within which the work is being conducted. In wetland areas, selective clearing of vegetation by hand may be required. Additionally, in wetlands and sensitive pine rockland communities such as County- designated Natural Forest Communities (NRCs), trees and shrubs whose mature height could exceed 14 feet which are very close to the transmission line will be pruned or cleared using only restrictive cutting techniques. Where there is an existing cluster of canopy trees, FPL can design the transmission lines to avoid removing the trees with higher structures or shorter or longer spans. FPL will implement tree protection and replacement measures in compliance with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local government where the clearing is being conducted. Alternately, a contribution to a local government's tree fund may be made, where allowed. ROW preparation also includes construction of access roads and structure pads where required. FPL will evaluate existing access roads, both public and private, for possible use. If necessary, in some instances these existing access roads may need to be improved to accommodate the construction and maintenance equipment needed for the transmission lines. 109 Where new access roads and pads are necessary, they will be constructed with hauled in clean fill material. Culverts will be included in the design of the roads and pads as necessary to maintain existing surface water flow conditions. The next steps in transmission line construction are material hauling and spotting and structure erection. The transmission line poles are trucked to each pole location and can be laid out along the patrol or access road or can be installed as soon as they are delivered to the site. A hole will be augured at each pole location. For the concrete single- pole, this hole will typically be 18 to 25 feet deep and approximately 72 inches in diameter on average. The material excavated from the holes will be spread evenly onto adjacent uplands, either onto existing or recently constructed access roads or pads where appropriate, or be removed from the site. The pole will then be set by the use of cranes and backfilled with crushed rock. The framing process, or installation of hardware and insulators on the poles, may be done with the poles laid on the ground or once erected. Some of the transmission line structures, including most of the structures for the western transmission lines and some of the heavy angle structures for the eastern transmission lines, will also require the installation of anchors and guy wires. 110 Anchors will be either multi-helix screw-in-type anchors or pile-type anchors. Pile-type anchors provide strength applications by embedding a short reinforced concrete pole section to a required depth with backfill. Multi-helix anchors are installed using truck-mounted equipment to screw the anchor into the ground to the required length or torque to meet design requirements. Guy wires will be attached to hardware connected to the anchor extending above the ground and to the transmission line structure. Span lengths can be varied for several reasons. Sometimes a pole location or height is adjusted to avoid a wetland, cluster of canopy trees, or other environmentally sensitive feature, or to coincide with property lines or the location of existing distribution poles that will be displaced. Span length can also be adjusted to accommodate the location or crossing of other electric utility lines or poles, or over highways, canals, or other linear features. Once the poles are in place and the insulator assemblies and hardware are installed, conductors and OHGW will be installed. A rope will be used as a pilot line to pull the conductors and OHGW through the stringing blocks. Conductor pulls will be up to two miles apart, or about 10,000 feet or shorter between dead-end or heavy angle structures. A conductor or OHGW stringing operation typically has a puller at one end of 111 the installation and the conductor reels with the tensioner at the opposite end of the installation. The pilot lines will be pulled in one direction, and the conductors will be pulled in the opposite direction. After pulling, the conductors and OHGW will be spliced together and ultimately sagged (tensioned) to ensure that the conductor is installed with the proper clearance. The conductor will then be attached to the insulator assemblies, and the transmission line will be energized. FPL will minimize the potential for impacts to wetlands during construction through the use of sedimentation control devices to control erosion and turbidity, along with regrading and seeding/mulching of side slopes if needed after construction. The final step in constructing a transmission line is ROW restoration, which is the final clean-up of the ROW after construction is complete. Where necessary, this involves restoring areas that might have been disturbed during construction due to use of heavy vehicles. Restoration may also include stabilizing any potentially erodible areas or replacement of vegetation impacted during construction. FPL will conduct routine maintenance on the ROWs following construction. As is typical and customary for FPL transmission line construction, the transmission lines will require minimal maintenance. Vegetation on and adjacent to the 112 ROWs will be maintained to ensure the safe, reliable operation of the lines. In areas that are not in active agricultural or nursery use, FPL will manage vegetation on the ROW by a variety of methods, including trimming, mowing, and the use of approved growth regulators and herbicides, targeting species that are incompatible with the safe access and operation and maintenance of the transmission system. Where the transmission lines are located along a roadside, very little maintenance of the ROW will need to take place. FPL's management techniques will encourage a broad diversity of vegetation growth to remain on the ROW. FPL will control exotic vegetation within the ROWs in any certified corridor. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements i. Wetland and Ecological Impacts In selecting the preferred transmission line corridors, and in comparing the alternate corridors proposed by other parties with the FPL preferred corridors, FPL analyzed wetland ecology within all proposed transmission line corridors through a combination of formal wetland delineation in the field, field reconnaissance, review of aerial photography, and review of SFWMD land use/land cover data. FPL conducted a wetlands assessment of the transmission line corridors in accordance with the UMAM. FPL evaluated the amount of mitigation required using the acreage of wetland impact based on 113 a conceptual transmission line design and the average quality of affected wetlands. In addition to reducing impacts to wetlands through collocation with existing linear facilities and reducing the construction footprint of the transmission lines, FPL has submitted a wetland mitigation plan for the entire Project to all reviewing agencies. FPL proposes to mitigate wetland impacts associated with the transmission line portion of the Project through purchase of credits from the agency-approved Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and the Everglades Mitigation Bank. The service territory for the Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and Everglades Mitigation Bank covers the entirety of the Project area. FPL's proposed wetland mitigation plan for the transmission line impacts will offset the adverse effects, including functional loss, caused by the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in the certified corridors, and the transmission lines will not cause unmitigated secondary or cumulative impacts to wetlands or surface waters. FPL will use best management practices in constructing the proposed transmission lines to prevent, to the extent practicable, spills, erosion, dust generation, off-site 114 sedimentation, and pollution of waterways and storm drainage systems. No wastes will be discharged during location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines without being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. FPL will not discharge any wastewater, stormwater, or groundwater from a transmission line excavation into a storm sewer. In light of the measures proposed in the conditions of certification, construction of the proposed transmission lines will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. FPL's location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not result in the discharge of any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage to the public sewer system. After construction, during the period that any planted vegetation is being established and afterward during maintenance of its ROW, FPL will comply with all applicable non- procedural requirements for water conservation and environmental resource protection. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the proposed transmission 115 line corridors will not have a significant adverse effect on wildlife habitat or the abundance and diversity of wildlife within that corridor, including listed plant and animal species; will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife populations, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective; will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to avian or non-avian aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting and denning; and will not be inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall CERP objectives. ii. Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species As noted above, FPL has submitted to all reviewing agencies a comprehensive threatened and endangered species management plan for all listed species for the Project. This plan includes sufficient protection measures for the Florida panther, the American crocodile, and avian species, among other species, regarding the proposed transmission lines. There is little likelihood that panthers are present in the transmission line corridors. In general, Florida panthers are not adversely affected by the presence of transmission lines, structures, fill pads, and access roads 116 within their home ranges. These features actually have the potential to benefit panther conservation by providing new movement corridors; by providing elevated habitat features likely to provide refuges during periods of high water; and by enhancing white-tailed deer populations, the principal prey species of panthers, in the herbaceous wetland habitats adjacent to the transmission line access roads. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation and preservation of Florida panthers or their habitats; will not adversely impact the abundance of Florida panthers; will not adversely impact panther denning; will not impact travel corridors used by Florida panthers; and will not pose an actual or potential threat of adverse impacts to Florida panthers or their habitat, including secondary or cumulative impacts. 329. In the small geographic portion of the proposed corridors where the transmission lines intersect the designated American crocodile critical habitat, FPL has proposed conservation measures to prevent adverse impacts to American crocodiles. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to American crocodiles. FPL's proposed mitigation measures will far outweigh any impacts to American crocodile habitat. The 117 wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification, in Attachment 1, Section C.III, are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the American crocodile from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation or preservation of American crocodiles or their habitat; will not adversely impact American crocodile nesting; will not impact travel corridors used by American crocodiles; will not impact the abundance of American crocodiles; and will not have any potential or actual adverse impacts on American crocodiles, including secondary or cumulative impacts. FPL has proposed conservation measures to prevent adverse impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. FPL's proposed mitigation measures will far outweigh any impacts to Eastern indigo snake habitat. The wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the Eastern indigo snake from the location, construction, and operation and 118 maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact the conservation or preservation of Eastern indigo snakes or their habitat; will not impact the abundance of Eastern indigo snakes; and will not have any potential or actual adverse impacts on Eastern indigo snakes, including secondary or cumulative impacts. FPL has proposed conservation measures, including an Avian Protection Plan (APP) to prevent adverse impacts to avian species, including the wood stork, Everglade snail kite, and least tern. FWC has also proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to avian species. The wildlife protection measures proposed by FPL and the agreed upon conditions of certification are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to avian species from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact any listed avian species; will not impact the values of wetland or other surface 119 water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to avian species; will not have an actual or potential negative impact on avian species; will not adversely (including cumulatively) impact avian species or avian species conservation, including listed species, or their habitat; will not adversely impact nest locations or nesting behavior of avian species; will not cause adverse impacts to the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed avian species, including nesting locations or nesting behavior; and will not cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification and the mitigation and species protection plans will not result in the intentional death or injury of migratory birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not have any adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of fish or to fish habitat. FWC, SFWMD, and the County have proposed, and FPL has agreed to, conditions of certification to minimize impacts to species, including listed plant and wildlife species. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission 120 lines in any of the corridors proper for certification will not significantly adversely affect wildlife populations, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, and will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning. Public Health and Welfare FPL's proposed transmission lines will comply with applicable non-procedural pre-construction and construction requirements. The proposed transmission lines will comply with good engineering practices and safety standards for the design of such facilities. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will ensure electric system reliability and integrity for the electric customers served by the transmission lines. Reliable, safe, cost-effective electrical service is in the public interest and supports the general welfare of the community. FPL will dispose of transmission line construction debris in compliance with all applicable non-procedural state, county, and local requirements. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with 121 all applicable design codes, standards, and industry guidelines, as well as FPL's customary internal design practices, and will have sufficient safety standards to protect the public. This includes compliance with local government public works requirements. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non- procedural public ROW requirements. FPL will comply with all applicable limitations on parking of large trucks in areas zoned residential during construction of the proposed transmission lines. FPL will maintain traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines using a certified maintenance of traffic plan that complies with the DOT's Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for streets and highways, or other applicable non-procedural requirements relating to traffic of the local jurisdiction within which the traffic is being maintained. During construction of the proposed transmission lines, FPL will not locate any temporary office, trailer, portable toilets, equipment, or storage materials and supplies within any temporarily obstructed public roads or ROWs. Waste created by location, construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not be 122 allowed to accumulate on the ROW. All waste will be collected on a daily basis during construction and disposed of in accordance with applicable state, county, and local non- procedural requirements. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with all applicable noise regulations; will not have an adverse impact on air quality; will not result in harmful quantities of contaminants being released to any existing or potential drinking water resource; and will not result in the creation of depressions in which water can accumulate in a manner that would encourage the propagation of mosquitoes. The proposed transmission lines will comply fully with the applicable Department standards for EMF from transmission lines. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-814. There is nothing unusual about the levels of EMF from the proposed transmission lines. The EMF levels are within the range to which people are exposed from many sources in everyday environments at home, work, and in public locations. The EMF levels are also many times lower than the international standards for public exposures to EMF and do not pose a health risk to people living or working near the proposed transmission lines. The large body of scientific research on EMF does not provide a reliable scientific basis to conclude that exposure to 123 EMF causes any adverse health effects, including the development or promotion of cancer or neurodegenerative illness in children or adults. The testimony presented by several members of the public claiming cancer or other risks was either unsupported by actual scientific evidence or was based on epidemiological studies whose results were inconsistent and did not establish a causal relationship between EMF and any adverse health effects. Dr. Barredo and Dr. Bailey presented the only credible expert testimony on EMF and health. Based on their detailed expert evaluations of the body of relevant scientific research, the EMF will not have an adverse health effect on the populations living and working near the lines. The proposed transmission lines will not result in any new public access points to public lands. FPL's ROW maintenance will comply with applicable non-procedural requirements related to vegetation in proximity to electric facilities. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in compliance with the conditions of certification will not cause harmful interference with microwave communications in South Florida. Archaeological/Historical Considerations In 2009, FPL conducted a preliminary cultural resources survey of the linear facilities associated with the 124 Project, including the associated transmission line corridors. The assessment included a desktop analysis as well as a visual survey. In the context of evaluating the alternate corridors proposed by other parties, FPL updated the preliminary assessment and also evaluated the alternate corridors. The assessment was consistent with the typical practice in the cultural resources profession when evaluating corridors for linear facilities and did not include field surveys. Field surveys will be conducted after the final ROW locations are finalized. 355. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area within which the Project may directly or indirectly cause changes to the character or use of historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. FPL considered an APE of 100 feet from each side of the proposed transmission line corridors for direct effects to cultural resources and 500 feet from each side of the proposed transmission line corridors for indirect effects to historic resources. The DHR agreed with the APE FPL used in its assessment. The APE for the cultural resources survey to be conducted post-certification will be established in consultation with that agency and will vary depending upon the character of the surrounding built and natural environments and final design and locations of the transmission line structures. The survey 125 of the transmission line ROWs will identify, document, and evaluate any resources that are 50 years or older, both previously recorded and unrecorded, and will include coordination with local governments. Any historical resources that may have been discovered or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or DHR's Florida Master Site File in the intervening time between preparation of the preliminary cultural resources assessment and the full survey will be identified during the post-certification survey. FPL's proposed transmission lines will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements relating to the protection of archaeological and historic resources. FPL will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to historical and archaeological resources in all areas. The City of Miami expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the eastern corridors to historic resources within its boundaries, potential adverse effects on those resources, and the adequacy of FPL's assessment of those resources. The greater weight of the evidence does not support these concerns. Rather, the evidence shows that FPL's assessment was conducted in accordance with typical practice in the cultural resources profession, and that FPL will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to historical resources in all areas. Notably, the DHR concurs with FPL's recommendations. 126 Applicability of Local Government Comprehensive Plans, Zoning Codes, and/or Land Development Regulations Throughout this proceeding, the local governments have argued that FPL should be required to design its transmission lines to comply with local comprehensive plans and LDRs, such as height restrictions and locational constraints. At hearing, Department witnesses testified that the Department interprets the PPSA, and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no "applicable" local government comprehensive plans or LDRs for the proposed transmission lines and pipelines in this case. This interpretation of the PPSA is consistent with the plain language of sections 163.3164 and 380.04, is a logical and reasonable interpretation of the law, and should be accorded substantial deference. Moreover, the Department's interpretation of the PPSA was not shown to be contrary to the plain language in the statute or clearly erroneous. If local governments were permitted to regulate the design, height, size, or placement of transmission pole structures, FPL could be unable to implement transmission line designs that comply with necessary industry standards and safety codes, such as the NESC, with which transmission lines must comply; unable to provide service to a designated area or substation; or unable to acquire the necessary uninterrupted contiguous ROW needed between substations and designated service 127 areas. To validate these concerns, it was not necessary, as Coral Gables asserts, for FPL to analyze every zoning and comprehensive plan requirement that might apply, speculate on whether or how it would be applied by the local government, and then predict with specificity how the regulation would impact FPL's ability to build the transmission lines. For these reasons, transmission lines should not be subject to local comprehensive plans or LDRs, such as zoning codes. The Legislature has recognized this imperative by statutorily providing that transmission lines are not considered "development" for the purposes of local government comprehensive plans, LDRs, and zoning ordinances. See §§ 163.3164(14) and 403.50665, Fla. Stat. Local development or zoning regulations and comprehensive plan requirements that might impose constraints on the location, height, or type of transmission lines constructed do not apply to the proposed transmission lines. Economic Impact FPL conducted an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the proposed transmission lines on the municipalities located within the transmission line project areas. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines are anticipated to have little, if any, effect on the economy of the area or negative fiscal impact 128 on the municipalities located within the transmission line project areas. 363. The transmission lines will serve and protect the broad interests of the public by providing for a safe and reliable electrical system at a cost-effective price. Eastern Transmission Lines Typical Structures and Substation Proposed The following constitutes FPL's proposed eastern transmission lines: Clear Sky-Turkey Point transmission line: a 230-kV line from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Turkey Point substation on the Turkey Point plant property (Clear Sky-Turkey Point); Clear Sky-Davis-Miami transmission line: a 230-kV line running from the proposed Clear Sky substation to the existing Davis substation in southeast Miami-Dade County (Clear Sky-Davis), and another 230-kV line running from the Davis substation east and then north, predominately along U.S. Highway 1, to the existing Miami substation in downtown City of Miami just north of Miami River (Davis-Miami); FPL proposes to locate these transmission lines in the approximately 36.7 miles of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The entire construction process for the eastern transmission lines will take between 24 and 36 months. As part of this Project, FPL is proposing a new electrical substation, Clear Sky, on the Turkey Point Site in 129 southeastern Dade County. The Clear Sky substation will be connected to, and receive electricity from, proposed Units 6 and 7. That substation will occupy approximately 11.6 acres and will be the starting point for the two proposed 500-kV lines and the three proposed 230-kV lines associated with the Project. The substation site will be fenced and surrounded by a stormwater management area. The proposed Clear Sky substation, existing Turkey Point substation, existing Davis substation, and existing Miami substation are part of the proposed eastern transmission lines, although only the work at the Clear Sky substation is being certified in this proceeding. Work at the other three substations will be permitted separately, if needed. Zoning approval from the County for the construction of the Clear Sky substation as an "unusual use" has already been obtained. For a portion of the Davis-Miami transmission line, FPL proposes to replace an existing, concrete monopole 138-kV line with a double-circuit unguyed 230-kV line on a new concrete monopole designed to accommodate the two circuits, each with separate insulators. This practice is proposed for the approximately two-mile stretch of the FPL East Preferred Corridor along Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables. 130 FPL constructs concrete monopole transmission structures throughout its service area in urban, suburban, and rural settings similar to the structures proposed for the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Monopole construction of the type proposed within the FPL East Preferred Corridor, whether guyed or unguyed, follows its usual and customary practice for such lines. Wooden transmission structures are not FPL's customary design for new transmission lines. Where poles are being replaced in urban areas in the east study area, old wooden structures have often been replaced by concrete monopoles as the need arises. The typical height of the proposed 230-kV monopole structures in the FPL East Preferred Corridor is between 80 to 105 feet. (By stipulation, FPL has agreed that within Coral Gables, the poles will not exceed 98 feet in height or 4.1 feet in width.) This is similar to the height of other monopoles FPL has installed in its service area, including several in other parts of the County. While urban density is a factor in corridor selection, it is not determinative as to the siting of a transmission line corridor. FPL provided evidence of numerous 230-kV transmission lines of similar design to the transmission lines proposed for 131 the FPL East Preferred Corridor. These transmission lines are in similar urban areas of FPL's service territory, including areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. While sharply conflicting testimony on the issue was presented, the more persuasive evidence established that the transmission lines will be just one of many necessary urban features visible to the eye in the current urban landscape, such as street and traffic lights. Measures can be employed to minimize aesthetic impacts of the lines, such as landscaping to direct the eye away from the structures and adding new vertical elements to blend in with the pole. Numerous similar visible linear features exist in the U.S. Highway 1 multi-modal transportation corridor. The only location where the overhead installation of the proposed eastern transmission lines is not feasible is at the point where the Davis-Miami transmission line crosses the Miami River. An underground crossing of the Miami River is proposed for the Davis-Miami Segment. Corridor Selection Process for East Preferred Corridor FPL East Preferred Corridor 377. In the corridor selection process for the eastern transmission lines, FPL's multidisciplinary team used the same process described in Findings of Fact 269 through 290. 132 The east study area included the Clear Sky, Turkey Point, Davis, and Miami substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. Between the Turkey Point plant property and the Davis substation area, the study area focused on FPL's existing 330-foot-wide ROW that contains multiple existing 230- kV lines and has space available to accommodate the new Clear Sky-Davis transmission line. From there, the study area was expanded to include numerous available transmission lines, roadways, railways, and other linear features that could provide collocation opportunities to follow to the Miami substation. Much of the east study area is dominated by dense urban and suburban development. It contains several historical districts and sites and a major multi-modal transportation corridor. In addition to the qualitative criteria evaluated for all corridor segments, qualitative criteria for eastern transmission line routes included assessment of crossings for the Miami River, historical districts, the availability and use of Miami-Dade Metrorail and/or Miami-Dade Transit Busway (Busway) ROW, and landscaping. Land uses and constructability constraints were key considerations in the east. FPL's corridor selection process attempted to reflect a reasoned balancing of the need for the transmission lines 133 against the potential impact on both the public and the environment. After evaluation of all identified route alignments and significant consideration of public input throughout the community outreach program, FPL selected the East Preferred Route and delineated corridor boundaries for the route. Filing of Alternate Corridors During this process, one alternate corridor was proposed jointly by Coral Gables and Pinecrest, referred to as the Pinecrest/Coral Gables Alternate Corridor (PAC), for the portion of the FPL East Preferred Corridor from the area east of the Davis substation to the Miami substation. The PAC is described in more detail below. Eastern Transmission Line Corridors Proper for Certification FPL and the Department filed notices of acceptance of the PAC. The Department determined that both the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC met the criteria for certification. While both the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC are proper for certification, the multidisciplinary team recommended, and FPL is seeking certification of, the East Preferred Corridor and opposes certification of the PAC. 134 FPL East Preferred Corridor General/Constructability Through the corridor selection process described above, FPL selected the East Preferred Corridor and delineated corridor boundaries. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is of variable width. This flexibility allows FPL to accommodate localized conditions, respond to future development between the times of corridor selection and construction, take advantage of certain collocation opportunities, and avoid siting constraints or utilize existing or relocated FPL ROWs. For the east 230-kV transmission lines, the typical span length in the FPL East Preferred Corridor will range from approximately 200 to about 700 feet, depending on location- specific factors, ROW widths, and other design considerations. No new access roads or structure pads are anticipated to be needed in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The FPL East Preferred Corridor exits the Turkey Point plant property to the north and continues in a general north-south orientation following an existing FPL transmission line ROW. It follows this ROW west towards the Florida Turnpike, then northwestward to U.S. Highway 1, and then extends generally north to the Davis substation. The FPL East Preferred Corridor then continues generally east to the U.S. 1 corridor, then generally north following the U.S. Highway 1 corridor with 135 expansions around the downtown Kendall area and certain Metrorail stations, and terminating at the Miami substation immediately north of the Miami River in downtown City of Miami. In the FPL East Preferred Corridor, there is also a short proposed 230-kV transmission line between the proposed Clear Sky substation and the existing Turkey Point substation, both within the Turkey Point plant property. The Clear Sky-Turkey Point portion of the Corridor is approximately 0.4 miles long; the Clear Sky-Davis portion is approximately 19 miles long; and the Davis-Miami portion is approximately 17.7 miles long. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line in proximity to the Metrorail facility in compliance with the conditions of certification will not interfere with operation of the Metrorail. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line in proximity to the Metrorail facility in compliance with the conditions of certification will not exceed safety or industry limits applicable to the Metrorail facilities. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will not interfere with the use of U.S. Highway 1 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. 136 Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will not interfere with the possible future southward extension of the Metrorail within the 100-foot Busway ROW. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors will not cause obstructions to visibility. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Land Use The FPL East Preferred Corridor leaves the proposed Clear Sky substation and passes through Homestead Bayfront Park, heading north and west. It then passes through a largely agricultural area with existing transmission lines. Shortly before reaching the Davis substation, it crosses into low density residential land use. From the Davis substation, the East Preferred Corridor proceeds east along an existing FPL transmission line ROW until its intersection with U.S. Highway 1, then northeast along U.S. Highway 1 and the Busway before reaching the Kendall Urban Center or Dadeland area. U.S. Highway 1 is a principal arterial roadway with six traffic lanes. For most of this segment along the U.S. Highway 1/Busway ROW, the Corridor is approximately 200 feet wide, ranging in width from approximately 200 feet to 350 feet. The FPL East Preferred Corridor in this area is co-located with a wide multimodal transportation 137 corridor. In this segment, the northern tip of the Village of Palmetto Bay and the western edge of Pinecrest are on the eastern edge of the Corridor, with the remainder of the Corridor being in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. The land uses within this segment are primarily commercial, with two parks on the east side of the Corridor, and industrial, commercial, and single-family residential uses on the west side. There are a limited number of cross streets compared to the east side of the Corridor. In the area of the County-designated Kendall Urban Center, the FPL East Preferred Corridor widens to allow greater flexibility. In this segment, the Corridor is bounded by commercial and multi-family residential development. The Corridor here also includes ROWs for several existing linear features such as State Road 826 and the SFWMD's ROW along Snapper Creek. The next segment of the FPL East Preferred Corridor narrows to follow the U.S. Highway 1/Metrorail ROW and stretches northeast through South Miami and Coral Gables, and into the City of Miami. For this segment, the Corridor ranges between 150 feet to 300 feet in width. Within South Miami, there is fairly continuous commercial development along the east side of U.S. Highway 1, including the Shops at Sunset and other highway strip commercial use. Uses along the west side of the Corridor 138 in South Miami include some single-family residential, South Miami Hospital, City Hall, South Miami Metrorail Station, and industrial uses. This segment then crosses Southwest 57th Avenue (Red Road), entering Coral Gables. Within Coral Gables, in addition to the Metrorail guideway, the M-Path, and U.S. Highway 1, the Corridor expands to include the Ponce de Leon Boulevard ROW and an existing 138-kV transmission line. This area has, from west to east, the University of Miami (with a large campus extending to the west), some commercial, multi- family, and single-family development on the west side of Ponce de Leon Boulevard, and the Metrorail guideway between Ponce de Leon Boulevard and U.S. Highway 1, and commercial development east of U.S. Highway 1. Farther north within Coral Gables, adjacent to the Corridor is multi-family residential and commercial development, including the Village of Merrick Park (a shopping mall), and an industrial area. In the portion of the Corridor along U.S. Highway 1, which contains limited single- family development, those homes are generally oriented away from U.S. Highway 1. Upon entering the City of Miami, the Corridor widens to include the Coconut Grove substation at Douglas Road (Southwest 37th Avenue) and Bird Road (Southwest 40th Street). Commercial development exists on either side of Bird Road in this portion of the segment. The Corridor returns to the U.S. Highway 1/Metrorail ROW, with single-family residential land use 139 on the northwest offset by a frontage road, and commercial land uses bordering the southeast side, with residential farther beyond. The Corridor then widens again around the Coconut Grove and Vizcaya Metrorail stations. In the next segment, the Corridor enters downtown City of Miami before the subaqueous crossing of the Miami River. Land uses in this area include single family, multi-family residential, Simpson Park, and commercial. It also crosses the City of Miami-designated Coral Way scenic transportation corridor in the vicinity of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95). Industrial and commercial uses are also adjacent to the Miami River in this area. The eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors will be generally compatible with the communities' priorities and preferences as reflected in their comprehensive plans and LDRs. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Environment Most of the FPL East Preferred Corridor has been altered from its natural state. Surface waters are limited to canals, ditches, channelized waterways, and reservoirs. Closer to the Turkey Point Plant site, a variety of wetland communities of varying quality and types exist, including forested and herbaceous wetlands. Beyond this area of wetlands, wildlife habitats within the Corridor are generally lacking or absent in 140 the agricultural and urbanized uplands. Construction of the proposed transmission lines in this area would use existing transmission line and other ROWs, and existing access roads and structure pads where they are needed, limiting wetland and surface water impacts to less than one-half acre, requiring less than one-half credit of mitigation. 402. None of the lands within the Corridor contain native terrestrial ecological attributes in significant amounts. However, there is a small area of the Corridor that includes upland forest classified as NFC by the County within Simpson Park. There are also some NFCs adjacent to but not within the Corridor near the Davis substation. There is very little wildlife habitat value found north of Davis substation. South of the Davis substation, the native upland and wetland communities are limited and generally small. The presence of the existing transmission lines, adjacent agricultural operations, and other development means that existing wildlife communities have already adapted to these man-induced habitats in that area. 403. FPL will avoid and minimize impacts within the Simpson Park NFC and, to the extent practicable, will avoid placing any of the transmission lines within the NFC. FPL will only conduct minimum tree trimming, pruning, or topping of trees in the NFC to meet ANSI standards. High visibility markers will 141 be installed to protect trees in the NFC during construction. Exotic vegetation within the ROW in the NFC shall be controlled to the extent practicable. Impacts to this NFC or other NFCs due to placement of the proposed transmission lines in the Corridor are anticipated to be insignificant. 404. A portion of the Corridor, no more than 0.2 miles long immediately north of the Units 6 and 7 site, is within designated critical habitat for the American crocodile. The area of overlap is largely occupied by other proposed facilities, including the nuclear administration building, the construction and contractor parking area, and the training building. This area is largely void of vegetation and is primarily rock fill. As the Corridor progresses north beyond the area of designated critical habitat, it enters a highly urbanized area. No part of the Corridor is suitable for crocodile basking, nesting, or foraging. 405. American crocodiles are not commonly observed in the area of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 406. Eastern indigo snakes, classified as threatened by USFWS and FWC, are not commonly found in southern Florida and are not commonly observed in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Two recorded observations of Eastern indigo snakes occurred in the southern end of the Corridor in 2011. There is a moderate 142 likelihood of Eastern indigo snake occurrence within the Corridor south of the Davis substation. 407. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is entirely outside of the PFA and would not affect Florida panthers or their habitats. 408. The eastern transmission lines if constructed in either of the eastern corridors will not cause a flood hazard. FPL East Preferred Corridor: Traffic 409. There will be some temporary, short-term impacts to traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines within the FPL East Preferred Corridor, but no permanent or long-term impacts to traffic or traffic flow patterns will occur. Transmission line construction may require closure of one or more traffic lane segments among the six or four lanes within the Corridor, particularly in the area of U.S. Highway 1. To avoid closure of a high-volume traffic lane, construction in most segments of the Corridor would occur at night. 410. The Corridor is compatible with DOT and Miami-Dade Transit long-range plans. The PAC General/Constructability 411. The PAC begins east of the Davis substation, where the FPL East Preferred Corridor along Southwest 131st Street intersects with the existing ROW for the North-South segment of 143 the FPL Turkey Point-Flagami transmission lines in the Kendall area. From there, the PAC continues north along the existing transmission line ROW for approximately 10.15 miles to FPL's - Flagami substation. From the Flagami substation, the PAC continues east for approximately 11.2 miles to FPL's Miami substation. The total length of the PAC where it diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor is approximately 21.35 miles. 412. The Flagami-Miami (i.e., east-west) portion of the PAC mostly follows very narrow residential streets with typically only 50-foot wide ROWs. Except for a few areas with a ROW of 50 to 80 feet, however, the FPL East Preferred Corridor does not have this narrow configuration. 413. While there are several other utility lines in the PAC, those lines are not in FPL-controlled or owned ROWs. The public ROWs are typically only 50 feet wide along narrow residential streets. To add another transmission line to those pole locations would require reconstruction of the poles to allow for a double-circuit configuration. As noted above, where double circuits are installed on a pole, two sets of insulators are also required to be installed, one set for each circuit. This configuration in ROWs along narrow residential streets would require acquisition of private strip easements along the frontage of hundreds of residential and commercial lots, with sets of conductors overhanging front yards, or removal of on- 144 street parking, swales, or vegetation to place the poles in those spaces. In some cases, there are buildings with no setbacks, precluding placement of a double-circuit pole. The PAC: Land Use 414. As the PAC diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor, the first segment stretches northward through unincorporated Miami-Dade County along the existing ROW for the North-South segment of the FPL Turkey Point-Flagami Kendall transmission lines in the Kendall area toward the Flagler Street area. Land uses vary from residential to commercial and also include some municipal and multi-family residential areas. 415. The second segment of the PAC extends from west to east between Southwest 92nd Avenue and Southwest 61st Avenue. Originating in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, the existing public road ROWs in this area are generally 50 feet wide. The PAC also encompasses an existing 138-kV transmission line in this area. This segment begins with a mix of residential areas, including townhomes and estate-zoned areas, and transitions toward more intense residential uses. Progressing into the City of Miami, the PAC enters dense, older neighborhoods. The residential home setbacks are shallower and the ROWs include sidewalks, parking spaces, and driveway access areas, which limit room for additional facilities. In addition, underground utilities likely exist within the ROWs. Depending on the 145 alignment of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the PAC, construction may require demolition of a residence. While most ROW in this City of Miami area is approximately 60 feet wide, Flagler Street along the northern edge of the PAC has a 100-foot ROW and an existing 138-kV transmission line. Throughout this segment, the residential uses face onto the proposed corridor. 416. Farther east into the City of Miami, the third segment of the PAC extends from west to east between Northwest 61st Avenue and Northwest 26th Avenue. This segment begins with largely single-family residential areas and transitions to multi-family residential, with as many as 65 dwelling units per acre in certain areas. It also includes elementary and middle schools. ROWs are approximately 50 and 60 feet in width. 417. The next segment of the PAC extends from west to east from Northwest 26th Avenue to Southwest 7th Avenue and also contains areas of 65 dwelling units per acre. Depending on the alignment, two aerial crossings of State Road 836 (an elevated roadway) may be required, which could require taller poles. Farther east, there are no existing transmission lines available for collocation. The higher-density residential neighborhoods have limited setbacks and contain primarily 50-foot road ROWs, occupied with sidewalks, parking, and driveway access, and homes facing the roadway. ROWs are as narrow as 30 or 45 feet in certain areas. For Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, 146 transmission line structures may have to be placed in what are currently parking areas. In addition, buildings with zero-foot setbacks in certain areas present design constraints. 418. Southwest 7th Avenue and Southwest 2nd Avenue bound the final segment of the PAC. In this area, the PAC approaches José Martí Park. It then encompasses the Miami River and I-95 before ultimately connecting to FPL's existing Miami substation. The PAC: Environmental 419. From the proposed Clear Sky substation to the Davis substation area, the PAC coincides with the FPL East Preferred Corridor. As such, the land uses and vegetation within the PAC in this area are identical to those described for the first segment of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Similarly, wetland and surface water impacts throughout the PAC will be limited to less than one-half acre and would require mitigation of less than one-half credit. None of the lands within the PAC contain native wetland ecological attributes in significant amounts. 420. Wetlands and surface waters within the PAC are limited primarily to low quality, man-made ditches and canals that can be spanned. The construction of the proposed transmission lines would use existing transmission line ROW, existing access roads, and existing structure pads. Wetland and surface water impacts will be limited to less than one-half acre 147 and would require mitigation of less than one-half credit of mitigation. Where the PAC diverges from the FPL East Preferred Corridor, it traverses an existing transmission line ROW south of the Flagami substation and highly developed residential and commercial areas east of the Flagami substation that do not provide quality wildlife habitat. One federally-designated threatened plant species (Garber's Spurge) is recorded within the PAC. There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC with regard to the presence of or impacts to American crocodiles, Eastern indigo snake, Florida panther, avian species, or fish species or habitat. The PAC: Traffic There will be some temporary, short-term impacts to traffic during construction of the proposed transmission lines within the PAC, but no permanent impacts to traffic or traffic flow patterns will occur. Because the PAC largely consists of two-lane roadways with narrow ROWs, lane closure for construction would require flag personnel to direct one lane of traffic in two directions. Because traffic volume in that area is not significant, construction within the PAC can be conducted during the day, though construction in certain road segments should be 148 conducted during night hours to avoid significant traffic disruptions. e. Hardening or Improving Existing Transmission Lines Within the PAC Coral Gables and Pinecrest argue that FPL should abandon its FPL East Preferred Corridor in favor of the PAC, which already contains existing 138-kV transmission lines. Their witnesses assert that co-locating the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line with existing 138-kV transmission lines in the PAC between the Flagami and Miami substations would provide an opportunity to harden or improve existing substandard or wooden poles by relocating existing transmission lines onto new, double-circuit concrete poles constructed for the 230-kV transmission line, thereby increasing reliability. No credible evidence was presented that certification of the PAC would necessarily result in the hardening or improvement of existing lines there, once FPL considered all relevant factors for final design of the new Davis-Miami transmission line, beyond FPL's routine hardening or improvement of its transmission lines. Moreover, there is no credible evidence to rebut the testimony of FPL's transmission line engineer regarding the proposed design. In any event, a double- circuit configuration with one circuit on each side of the pole, 149 a configuration suggested by Coral Gables and Pinecrest, cannot be accommodated along many locations within the PAC. While the Davis-Flagami segment of the PAC contains sufficient room to co-locate with existing FPL transmission lines, it contains significant barriers to placing the new transmission line on new poles together with the existing FPL transmission lines. In this segment, the road ROWs do not have sufficient width to accommodate the new, larger poles proposed for the Davis-Miami transmission line. This segment primarily contains narrow, two-lane residential streets with limited space, where sidewalks, road-side parking areas, and improvements on private, residential lots present a conflict for these larger poles. Co-locating an existing transmission line with the new transmission line on a single, double-circuit pole is not technically feasible in many areas of the PAC due to space constraints. For example, where a single-circuit transmission line pole is currently located adjacent to buildings that are built to the edge of the street, replacement of that pole with a larger double-circuited pole may not be technically feasible. The new transmission line structure may need to be installed across the street, resulting in transmission lines along both sides of the street, or moved to another street entirely. 150 429. In addition, FPL routinely engages in hardening or improvement of its existing transmission lines as a standard and customary business practice, including replacing existing wooden structures with concrete monopoles as the need arises. Such hardening and improvement along the PAC will occur through FPL's normal course of hardening as pole replacement is needed. Eastern Transmission Line Construction and Design Standards Undergrounding 430. City of Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, and Pinecrest have urged the Siting Board to require undergrounding of the transmission line in their own jurisdictions and rely upon their local comprehensive plans and local regulations in support of their position. Although the County originally proposed undergrounding of the eastern transmission lines, the County and FPL have reached agreement on conditions for placement of the eastern transmission lines overhead in either of the eastern corridors. 431. Credible preliminary estimates indicate that undergrounding the Davis-Miami transmission line within the FPL East Preferred Corridor would cost approximately $13.3 to $18.5 million per mile. These numbers compare to a cost range of $1.5 to $2.5 million per mile for overhead facilities, with a cost differential of $10.8 to $17 million per mile. Thus, 151 underground construction in this area would be roughly nine times more expensive than overhead construction. 432. Extreme weather events do not require undergrounding transmission lines in the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 433. FPL generally uses underground design where overhead construction is not feasible or the requesting entity pays the incremental cost of underground construction. With the exception of the Miami River Crossing, no engineering constraints require the use of undergrounding. Miami River Crossing 434. Construction of the Davis-Miami 230-kV transmission line in any corridor proposed for the Davis-Miami transmission line will require an underground crossing of the Miami River. 435. In the area where the Davis-Miami transmission line crosses the Miami River, the Miami substation is bounded by the I-95 bridge west of Second Avenue and the Metrorail bridge to the east. These fixed bridges and their vertical clearances required for navigation prohibit the use of an overhead transmission line design into the Miami substation. Due to this engineering constraint, placement of the transmission line underground is the only technically feasible alternative. Accordingly, FPL proposes undergrounding the eastern transmission line at the Miami River Crossing. 152 436. A transition or termination structure will be required where the underground portion of the transmission line transitions to overhead. North of the Miami River, the termination structure will be within the Miami substation fence. South of the Miami River, the location of the transition structure has not been finally determined, but preliminarily its location has been identified as somewhere along Third Avenue on a private easement. 437. The proposed Miami River crossing is located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. This crossing requires an easement over sovereign submerged lands from the Board of Trustees, which was requested by FPL through this proceeding. FPL has existing underground transmission lines that cross the Miami River to the south of the Miami substation, with associated sovereign submerged lands easements. 438. The Miami River crossing can be constructed using horizontal directional drill technology. Construction of the Miami River crossing is a water-dependent activity. 439. The transmission line crossing of the Miami River is a "structure required for the installation or expansion of public utilities," constitutes "[r]easonable improvement for . . . public utility expansion," and is specifically allowed by the statute that created the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. § 258.397, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-18.006(3)(b)(iv)7. 153 Placement of the transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement will not disturb submerged land resources or result in unmitigated adverse impacts to sovereign lands. The underground transmission line will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable codes, standards, and industry guidelines. FPL will use best management practices in constructing the underground transmission line beneath the Miami River. The design, location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line beneath the Miami River will ensure electric system reliability and integrity for electric customers served by the transmission line. FPL owns the existing Miami substation, but must acquire any necessary private property interests for the transmission line easements north and south of the sovereign submerged lands at the Miami River. The Miami River crossing will be designed and constructed to avoid restriction or infringement on riparian rights of adjacent upland owners. No wetland vegetation will have to be removed, cut, or destroyed to place the transmission line in the sovereign submerged easement for crossing the Miami River. There will not be any impacts to the shoreline from placement of the transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement for 154 crossing the Miami River. In this area, the Miami River is within bulkheads and seawalls. Though temporary construction impacts will occur, the area affected by the underground installation will be restored soon after construction and there will not be any permanent impacts to property owners along the Miami River as a result of the transmission line crossing. Construction of the underground portion of the transmission line beneath the Miami River will not affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. During location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the underground portion of the transmission line, no wastes will be discharged without being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. Likewise, harmful quantities of contaminants will not be released to any existing or potential drinking water source. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the underground portion of the transmission line will not have an adverse impact on air quality and will not result in any new public access points to public lands. Placement of the underground transmission line in the sovereign submerged lands easement will not detract from or 155 interfere with propagation of fish and wildlife, or traditional recreational uses. Rather, it will minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat and other natural and cultural resources. Placement of the transmission line beneath the Miami River in the sovereign submerged lands easement is consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Management Plan. Placement of the transmission line beneath the Miami River in the sovereign submerged easement is clearly in the public interest. Maintenance of Hydrology/CERP Consistency FPL has submitted flowage easements to the County that provide for maintenance of existing flow across transmission corridors within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands CERP Project study boundaries and allowing improvements to sheet flow consistent with planned restoration projects in the area. These easements satisfy the requirements of Condition 17 of County Resolution Z-56-07. The eastern transmission lines in either of the eastern corridors are not inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall objectives of CERP. Economic Impacts The Davis-Miami transmission line in the FPL East Preferred Corridor will have no quantifiable effect on property 156 values of adjacent properties. The evidence supports a finding that transmission lines will not adversely affect non- residential property values. Also, the more persuasive evidence shows that the effect on residential property values will be de minimis and below the levels that could be quantified to a reasonable degree of certainty. Accordingly, the placement of the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line within the FPL East Preferred Corridor will have little, if any, effect on the economy of the area or the fiscal situation of the municipalities. 455. The analysis regarding the transmission line's impact on property values within and adjacent to the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC presented by Dr. Frishberg, a Coral Gables expert, was imprecise, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant to the extent it did not appropriately address the substantial amount of non-residential properties in both corridors. The analysis of Dr. Weisskoff, a public witness, was also flawed in several respects. For example, his analysis is based on a misrepresentation of the published literature, contained a substantial calculation error, and failed to take into account several important variables affecting property value impacts. Therefore, these witnesses' testimonies are not credited. 157 Clear Sky Substation 456. Construction of the Clear Sky substation expansion will require clearing and grubbing the expansion area. Turbidity screens and other erosion control devices and techniques will be used to minimize construction impacts to nearby wetlands and water bodies. The expanded substation yard area will be excavated, filled with clean fill that is trucked to the site, graded, and rolled to provide the necessary elevation. A new grounding grid will be constructed and a new security fence around the expansion area will be installed. Compliance with Design Standards 457. All of the transmission lines, including the Clear Sky substation, will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable design codes, standards, and industry guidelines, including NESC, the Department's EMF standards, and the industry standards adopted by ASCE, ASTM, ANSI, ACI, and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers. 6. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements for Eastern Transmission Facilities a. Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plans As noted above, local zoning regulations and comprehensive plan requirements are not applicable non- procedural requirements for transmission facilities. To the extent local ordinances have been incorporated into the 158 conditions of certification, FPL has committed to comply with them. Otherwise, the often competing zoning regulations of local jurisdiction are not applicable. b. Work in SFWMD Rights-of-Way FPL's Davis-Miami transmission line will cross several SFWMD canals and may use a portion of SFWMD ROW along the Snapper Creek Canal. There are no levees within the vicinity of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Davis-Miami transmission line will comply with the requirements for SFWMD ROW Occupancy Permits and, as such, will not interfere with the SFWMD's access, operations, or maintenance of the works of the district. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the eastern transmission lines in compliance with the conditions of certification will not interfere with the present or future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. This applies only to proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance known at the time of FPL's project design. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed eastern transmission lines will comply with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements, including 159 requirements of the Criteria Manual for Use of Works of the District. c. Other Non-Procedural Requirements The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will comply with applicable Department non-procedural environmental resource permitting criteria and other regulations. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in either of the eastern transmission line corridors will comply with the tree ordinances of the local governments in which the facilities will be located. The City of Miami raised concerns over impacts to tree canopy and the replacement of trees that must be removed within the final ROW within the City. A City witness testified that it was her preference that FPL do more than comply with the City of Miami's tree ordinance in siting and constructing the transmission line within the City. To this end, FPL will comply with the City's tree ordinance, and it will confer with local officials to identify areas of tree canopy that can be spanned or addressed by other engineering solutions, to relocate or replace trees that must be removed, or mitigate for impacts by paying into a tree fund. Within the City of Miami, the amount of tree removal in either of the eastern corridors will be 160 similar. The City also desires a condition of certification requiring FPL to not only comply with the City's tree ordinance, but also to submit a tree survey, a tree disposition plan, and a landscape plan to replace any trees prior to doing any work within the City of Miami, and to install transmission poles to avoid large, existing trees to the extent practicable. FPL has committed to a condition of certification to address each of the items. 465. If constructed within either the East Preferred Corridor or the PAC, the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local governments in which it will be located. These applicable non-procedural requirements include the requirements within the City of Miami, Coral Gables, South Miami, and the County that (1) FPL construct and maintain transmission lines in accordance with its customary practice; (2) FPL transmission lines not unreasonably interfere with traffic on public ROW or reasonable egress from and ingress to abutting property; (3) FPL transmission lines be located as close to the outer boundary of public ROW as practicable, or as agreed with the local government; and (4) FPL repair or restore any damage to public ROW caused by construction or maintenance of transmission lines. 466. During construction of the proposed Davis-Miami transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will not 161 excavate, dig up, or obstruct any public street or sidewalk in a manner that creates an obstruction for more than two adjacent blocks at a time. If any such obstruction is required, FPL will complete the work on one block before proceeding to work in the second block. 467. If any sidewalk must be reconstructed following construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will use only natural, uncolored Portland cement concrete for that sidewalk reconstruction. 468. If any road pavement must be repaired following installation of the proposed transmission line within the City of Miami, FPL will use paving of a long-life, hard-surfaced type with sufficient base to ensure lasting service and a minimum expense for maintenance, as chosen in consultation with the City's Public Works Department. Eastern Corridors Comparison: Least Adverse Impacts, Including Cost Comparison of Land Use Considerations 469. While the final ROW for the Davis-Miami transmission line will be identified post-certification during final design, preliminary alignments within the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor were identified to facilitate comparisons between the two corridors where they diverge. FPL analyzed three routes to compare the proposed eastern corridors: (1) a route within its 162 East Preferred Corridor (the EPC Alignment); (2) the alignment identified by Pinecrest and Coral Gables within the PAC (the PAC Alignment); and (3) an alignment identified by FPL's engineers that they believe constitutes a more technically feasible alignment within PAC than the PAC Alignment (the 2013 Alignment). 470. The PAC Alignment has 2,829 buildings within 200 feet of the alignment; the 2013 Alignment has 2,746. These figures reflect the density within the PAC. In contrast, the EPC Alignment has only 762 buildings within 200 feet of the alignment. The transmission line, if built within either of the PAC Alignments, would be in proximity to three times more buildings than the EPC Alignment. 471. The PAC Alignment would cross or abut 1,217 separate parcels; the 2013 Alignment would cross or abut 1,164. In contrast, the EPC Alignment would cross or abut only 363 separate parcels. The transmission line, if built within either of the PAC Alignments, would cross or abut three times more parcels than the EPC Alignment. 472. There are 15 schools within 200 feet of the PAC Alignment and 14 schools within 200 feet of the 2013 Alignment; there are eight schools within 200 feet of the EPC Alignment, including the University of Miami. 163 473. There are more residential uses and smaller lots along the PAC. In contrast, more commercial parcels of larger size are along the FPL East Preferred Corridor. 474. Along the PAC Alignment, the available road ROW space is generally only 50 feet in width, rendering it generally too narrow for the construction of the necessary double-circuit transmission line structures suggested by Pinecrest and Coral Gables without acquiring additional ROW space on adjacent private property, much of which is dense residential development on shallow, narrow lots. However, along the EPC Alignment, the available road/Metrorail ROW is generally 200 feet wide or wider, making it less likely that FPL will need additional ROW space on adjacent private property. Comparison of Engineering/Constructability Considerations 475. Where the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC diverge, both contain collocation opportunities. While the total length of existing FPL transmission lines for collocation along the PAC Alignments may be greater than the total length along the EPC Alignment, the Flagami-Miami segment of the PAC has significant barriers to implementing collocation with those existing FPL lines. 476. Besides the narrow ROWs along the PAC Alignments, there are many obstructions such as sidewalks, fences, porches, 164 and other improvements which constrain construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line as proposed by Pinecrest and Coral Gables. In contrast, along most of the EPC Alignment, the ROW has a larger amount of available open space with few obstructions. There is greater potential conflict with underground utilities along the PAC than the FPL East Preferred Corridor. This is due to the greater likelihood of underground utilities parallel to streets, perpendicular lateral lines to service the homes in the PAC, and limited flexibility to adjust pole locations to avoid such constraints. Proximity of the PAC to the Miami International Airport will require notification to the FAA and possibly the Miami-Dade Aviation Department for crane operations during construction. There are no airports near the FPL East Preferred Corridor for the Davis-Miami transmission line. The cost of constructing the Davis-Miami transmission line within the PAC Alignment, including the cost of acquiring the necessary ROWs, ranges from $83.1 million to $107.7 million; the cost of construction within the 2013 Alignment within the PAC ranges from $77.8 million to $100.6 million. In contrast, the cost of construction of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the EPC Alignment ranges from $50.7 million to $68.6 million. 165 Comparison of Environmental Considerations There are no material differences in environmental considerations between the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor. There is no material difference between the FPL East Proposed Corridor and the PAC from a wetlands impacts or wetlands mitigation perspective. Construction of a transmission line within either of the two corridors would not impact any significant amount of wetlands or surface waters. The FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC are similar with respect to the likely magnitude of effects on the abundance and diversity of wildlife resulting from construction of a transmission line. From the point the FPL East Preferred Corridor and PAC diverge, approximately two miles east of the Davis substation, they largely traverse similar areas of dense urban development to reach the Miami substation. Neither corridor traverses high quality wildlife habitat or has the potential to impact listed species. Therefore, no adverse effects upon wildlife abundance and diversity would be anticipated. FPL will minimize impacts to NFCs in the FPL East Preferred Corridor, avoiding impacts to the extent practicable, consistent with the NFC standards and requirements contained in chapter 24, MDC. The PAC does not cross a NFC. 166 There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC with regard to impacts to American crocodiles; both must cross the same 0.2-mile area. There is no difference between the FPL East Preferred and the PAC with regard to impacts to Eastern indigo snakes. Avian issues are minimal with both of the proposed corridors, and there is no significant difference between the two corridors. From the standpoint of impacts to Florida panthers and their habitat, there is no difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC because both corridors traverse urbanized, developed areas of the County outside of the PFA, and panthers are not likely to occur in those areas. Comparison of Traffic Impacts No material difference exists between the traffic impacts anticipated in the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC. Both the PAC and the FPL East Preferred Corridor will involve moderate to significant disruption of traffic during the temporary construction activities. Construction in the FPL East Preferred Corridor requires lane closure in a higher-volume roadway (U.S. Highway 1) and would be limited during peak traffic hours. Construction in the PAC would impact lower- volume roadways and would not be limited to nighttime hours, but 167 would require flag personnel to direct one lane of traffic in two directions. Archaeological and Historic Sites There is no material difference between the FPL East Preferred Corridor and the PAC in terms of impacts to archaeological or historic resources. Location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification in either of the eastern transmission line corridors will not adversely impact archaeological or historic structures, sites, or resources, given the level of disturbance and alteration in both corridors. Summary Because of significant constructability issues and land use constraints within the PAC and in light of the relative costs for placement of the Davis-Miami transmission line within the two eastern corridors proper for certification, the FPL East Preferred Corridor represents the corridor which, on balance, has the least adverse impacts, including costs, considering the criteria in section 403.509(3). Western Transmission Lines Typical Structures and Substation Proposed 491. The following constitute FPL's proposed western transmission lines associated with the Project: 168 From the proposed on-Site Clear Sky substation, FPL is proposing two 500-kV lines extending west and then north to the existing Levee substation. The total length of this alignment of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West Preferred Corridor is approximately 43.6 miles. From the proposed Clear Sky substation, FPL is also proposing to extend a 230-kV transmission line to the west and then north to the existing Pennsuco substation. This line is proposed to be constructed in the same ROW as the previously described 500-kV lines, but will bypass the Levee substation and continue to the Pennsuco substation. From the Levee substation area to the Pennsuco substation, FPL has an existing multi-circuit transmission line ROW. The section of the proposed Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line between Levee and Pennsuco will be placed within this existing ROW. This 230-kV-only portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West Preferred Corridor is approximately 8.4 miles long. Also as part of the western corridors, there are three access-only corridor laterals to be used only for vehicular access to the certified transmission lines. If the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is certified and used for the placement of the western transmission lines, one of the access-only corridor laterals extends from the northwest corner of Government Lot 4 to Northwest 137th Avenue. It is 200 feet wide with 100 feet extending on each side of the north section line of government Lots 3 and 4. The second access-only corridor lateral for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 extends south from the northwest corner of government Lot 4 to the north bank of the C- 4 Canal. It is 200 feet wide with 100 feet extending on each side of the west section line of Government Lot 4. From that point, it narrows to 100 feet in width and extends 169 to the west to include the bridge over the C-4 Canal at the entrance to the Trail Glades Sport Shooting Range. The third access-only corridor lateral extends from Krome Avenue to the L-31N ROW along the theoretical extension of Kendall Drive and is 200 feet in width. In addition, FPL will use the existing SFWMD access roadways on the L-31N levee and east of the L-31N canal within the SFWMD ROW, other public roadways, and newly constructed access roads within the corridor boundaries for access to transmission structures within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 south of Tamiami Trail. If the FPL West Preferred Corridor is certified and used for placement of the western transmission lines, two access-only corridor laterals are also proposed. The Tamiami Trail Access Corridor is just north of Tamiami Trail where the FPL West Preferred Corridor crosses the road. This access corridor is a rectangle that adjoins the FPL West Preferred Corridor, is approximately 0.25 mile long and 370 feet wide, and includes the existing SFWMD levee access roadway and bridge associated with the L-29 canal. The Krome Avenue Access Corridor is proposed along the L-30 canal ROW and includes Krome Avenue from the point where the FPL West Preferred Corridor exits Water Conservation Area 3-B and turns east towards the Levee substation. This access corridor extends approximately five miles due north along SFWMD ROW, is approximately 600 feet wide, and includes the existing levee access roadway and bridge associated with the L-30 canal, as well as Krome Avenue. The total length of the western transmission lines is approximately 52 miles. 492. Construction of the proposed on-site Clear Sky substation is addressed above. The existing Levee substation is 170 a transmission substation with multiple existing 500- and 230-kV transmission lines connected to it. The substation property encompasses approximately 65 acres. The property currently includes the fenced area of substation equipment, stormwater retention areas, wetland mitigation areas, compacted access/ patrol roads, and undeveloped areas. The fenced area of the existing Levee substation must be expanded approximately 130 feet to the north along the entire length of the fence (approximately 800 feet) to accommodate installation of transformers, breakers, and switchgear, and the connection of the two proposed 500-kV transmission lines being extended from the proposed Clear Sky substation at the Turkey Point site. The proposed expansion of the fenced area of the substation is approximately 2.3 acres. The expansion area is within the geographic boundaries of the County's "unusual use" approval for the existing substation. Zoning approval from the County for the expansion of the Levee substation as an unusual use has already been obtained. 493. All transmission facilities, including the Clear Sky substation and Levee substation expansion, will comply with applicable design standards. 171 Corridor Selection: FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 FPL's Existing Transmission Line ROW, Turkey Point to Levee Substation 494. In the 1960s and early 1970s, FPL acquired a ROW between the Turkey Point plant property and the Levee substation for placement of transmission lines. The existing ROW is wide enough to accommodate the proposed new transmission lines; it already contains an existing transmission line along most of its length south of the Everglades National Park. 495. Approximately 7.4 miles of this ROW was encompassed by the addition of the Everglades National Park Expansion Area (Expansion Area) to the Everglades National Park in 1989. Subsequent to the expansion, the National Park Service (NPS) and several other land-owning agencies in the area negotiated with FPL to exchange FPL's currently owned transmission line ROW in the Expansion Area for a combination of easements and property that would provide a continuous transmission ROW between the Turkey Point plant property and the Levee substation, and provided for a slight adjustment of the eastern boundary of the Everglades National Park so the relocated ROW would be entirely outside the Everglades National Park. Collectively, these efforts are referred to as the "Land Exchange." The NPCA is actively opposing the Land Exchange. 172 If the Land Exchange is consummated, a total of approximately 12 miles of FPL's existing ROW is proposed for relocation. The Land Exchange has been authorized by federal legislation and is undergoing final environmental review by the NPS. In 2011, the NPS began developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to review the impact of the proposed Land Exchange, which is a required review for such a federal action. The current schedule estimates the Draft EIS should be available in late 2013 with the Final EIS due to occur in the fall of 2014, although those dates could change. Thirty days after issuance of the Final EIS, the Record of Decision should be available. Once finalized, the relocated ROW that will result from the Land Exchange will be within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and portions of it will be within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. The existing transmission line ROW that FPL has owned since the 1960s and early 1970s in the area of the Land Exchange is identified in its application as the FPL West Secondary Corridor. However, the FPL West Secondary Corridor has been withdrawn from consideration by FPL. FPL desires to execute the Land Exchange and utilize a portion of those land rights for siting either the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. 173 b. West Preferred Corridor Selection In the corridor selection process for the western transmission lines, the multidisciplinary team used the same process described in Findings of Fact 269 through 290 to evaluate potential corridors for the western transmission The west study area included the Clear Sky, Levee, and Pennsuco substations and existing FPL transmission ROWs and other linear features that occur between these substations. Much of the west study area is dominated by low- density residential development, agricultural and nursery operations, conservation lands, and mining activities. There are relatively few existing linear features that provide collocation opportunities. Each of the routes identified by the multidisciplinary team during the corridor selection process was evaluated in detail according to the quantitative and qualitative process described above. FPL's corridor selection process took into account planned development in the corridor areas, while avoiding environmentally sensitive areas to the extent practicable and reflected a balancing of engineering, environmental, and land use considerations against the need for the Project. After evaluation of all identified route alignments and consideration of public and agency input throughout the 174 community outreach program, FPL selected the West Preferred Route and delineated corridor boundaries for the route. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is of variable width, being wider in certain areas to give FPL flexibility in delineating the ROW within the corridor so as to accommodate localized conditions or take advantage of certain opportunities like following a property boundary, and narrower in other areas to avoid siting constraints, such as development or an environmentally sensitive area, or to utilize existing or relocated FPL ROWs, while maintaining a continuous route. c. Filing of Alternate Corridors During the certification process, four alternate western transmission line corridors were proposed for consideration in addition to the western corridors included by FPL in its application. MDLPA presented three alternate corridors and NPCA presented one, each to replace all or a portion of the West Preferred Corridor between approximately Southwest 120th Street and the Levee substation. MDLPA No. 2 is encompassed within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and is discussed in detail below, together with the FPL West Preferred Corridor. MDLPA No. 2 was developed after further discussions with the Everglades National Park and representatives of SFWMD and NPCA about the goal of reducing the potential impact on the Everglades National Park. The West 175 Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 achieves the combined goal of lessening potential impacts on the Pennsuco Wetlands and the Everglades National Park, while avoiding more urban uses to the east. It includes a segment of the FPL West Preferred Corridor, but also includes enough real estate east of the L-31N canal to potentially accommodate the full ROW where that proves to be a practical option for FPL and the rock mining companies. 507. The Pennsuco Wetlands, designated by the County as environmental protection lands, are a two-mile wide, approximately nine-mile long wetland between the Water Conservation Area 3B/Krome Avenue and rock mining lands known as the Lake Belt mining area. The Pennsuco Wetlands have long been a target of acquisition and restoration by various government agencies. Rock miners are still funding the ongoing acquisition and restoration of the wetlands as part of their wetland mitigation for mining wetlands within the Lake Belt mining area. About 80 percent of the Pennsuco Wetlands area has been acquired, and most of it has been restored. 508. MDLPA No. 1 was the first alternate corridor for the western transmission lines proposed by MDLPA and constitutes only a modest adjustment to the FPL West Preferred Corridor. MDLPA proposed its alternate corridor to avoid the FPL West Preferred Corridor's central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands. MDLPA No. 1 stays as close to the FPL West Preferred Corridor as 176 possible but crosses the Pennsuco Wetlands two miles farther south and eliminates much of the construction in Water Conservation Area 3B. MDLPA No. 3 was developed after discussion between the MDLPA and other interested parties, including NPCA. The goal was to develop a corridor with less impact west of the L-31N canal. However, the mining companies were not willing to propose a corridor with impacts on private property south of the parcel owned by CEMEX. Instead, MDLPA proposed a deviation from the FPL West Preferred Corridor which would move the corridor to the east to Krome Avenue on property owned by CEMEX and Kendall Krome Properties and Investments. NPCA filed one alternate corridor to be considered for portions of FPL's West Preferred Corridor, with a primary goal to eliminate potential impacts to conservation lands (primarily the Everglades National Park) and to wetlands. NPCA's corridor selection involved no analysis within the Everglades National Park itself. Potential impacts to future urban development in the Urban Expansion Area (UEA) of the County or encumbrances that might hinder use of NPCA's corridor were not considered in the selection process. NPCA's route selection team did not include a land use planner or a transmission line engineer. NPCA did not hold any publicly noticed open houses or workshops to solicit input from residents 177 and other stakeholders in the area before selecting its proposed corridor. Similarly, the number of government-owned parcels with encumbrances crossed by the proposed corridor was not considered. NPCA assumed parcels would likely be made available, despite a lack of confirmation through any final action or documentation. The County supports this corridor. d. Western Transmission Line Corridors Proper for Certification FPL and the Department filed notices of acceptance of the alternate corridors proposed by MDLPA and NPCA as proper for certification. The Department determined that all of the western alternate corridors met the criteria for certification. Consistent with its practice, the Department did not do a comparison of impacts among the different western alternate corridors. Each of the alternate corridors was evaluated by FPL's multidisciplinary team using the same quantitative and qualitative factors used to select the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Due to the withdrawal of the FPL West Secondary Corridor, only five western transmission line corridors are proper for certification as that term is used in sections 403.503(11) and 403.522(10). 178 514. FPL is seeking certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor, with the FPL West Preferred Corridor to be utilized only if an appropriate ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. Both corridors are approximately 52 miles in length. 3. Corridor Descriptions 515. The western transmission line corridors can be divided into four separate geographic sections. Moving from south to north, these are referred to as the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, the U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th Section, the Southwest 120th-Levee Section (also known as the West Divergence Area), and the Levee-Pennsuco Section. The western transmission line corridors are co-existent in the Turkey Point- Highway 1, U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th, and Levee- Pennsuco Sections. They diverge only in the West Divergence Area. Sections Common to All Western Corridors 516. The Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, common to all of the corridors, begins at the proposed Clear Sky substation on Turkey Point plant property and continues west for approximately ten miles, co-located with an existing transmission ROW, to approximately U.S. Highway 1. The next section common to all western corridors, U.S. Highway 1- 179 Southwest 120th Section, heads west and then north from U.S. Highway 1 to approximately Southwest 120th Street, just south of the Everglades National Park. The final section common to all western corridors is the section where the western corridors reconverge in the Pennsuco Wetlands north of Tamiami Trail and just west of the Levee substation, to the Pennsuco substation, the Levee-Pennsuco Section. Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 517. This Section of the western corridors coincides with FPL ROW containing existing transmission lines and access roads. Land uses are predominantly wetlands. Adjacent land uses already exist along this Section in a compatible manner with transmission line facilities. The proposed western transmission lines would be compatible with the land uses in this area. 518. The Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section consists of a variety of wetland habitats, including areas of mangrove wetlands in the vicinity of the L-31E canal, freshwater marshes dominated by sawgrass, occasional tree islands, as well as some areas dominated by nuisance and exotic species. Construction of the western transmission lines within this Section would result in no more than 59 acres of wetland impact, and likely less than that, based on the measures FPL has agreed to take to eliminate and reduce wetland impacts. The majority of wetlands within the 180 transmission line ROW would remain undisturbed, and the loss of wetland functions would be fully mitigated. Plants and wildlife found in the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section common to all western corridors are those adapted to wetland cover types such as wading birds, raptors, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as small mammals and occasional deer. Very few upland habitats exist, and the Section comprises an existing FPL transmission line easement, including an access road, structures, and structure pads. U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th Street This Section of the western corridors coincides with FPL ROW containing existing transmission lines and access roads. Adjacent land uses have therefore adapted to the presence of transmission lines and have remained stable over time. Land uses are predominantly agricultural with some residential, and the northern end of this Section transitions to open lands. The western transmission lines would be compatible with the land uses in this area. The Section is primarily upland in nature and dominated by agricultural land uses, primarily tree nurseries. Other agricultural uses in this area include row crops and citrus. This Section traverses portions of two areas designated by the County as NFCs, the Sunny Palms Pineland and Kings Highway Pineland. These NFCs could also be home to various 181 species of state-listed plants. Wildlife found in this Section includes common reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals that are habituated to human-induced habitats. Wetland resources within this area of the corridors are limited to small areas of freshwater marsh, ditches, and canals. Construction of the transmission lines within this area will incur minimal wetland impacts, estimated to be less than one acre of relatively low- quality wetlands. iii. Levee-Pennsuco North of the West Divergence Area, in the Levee- Pennsuco Section, all of the western corridors travel along an existing multi-circuit transmission line ROW through unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Doral, and Medley, passing alongside agricultural, industrial, and multi-family residential uses. The Section comprises active rock mining facilities and contains very little undisturbed wildlife habitat. Rock quarries may contain some habitat for aquatic species, but very little native upland habitat exists. Wildlife usage is limited to common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals found in the County. From the Florida Turnpike to the Pennsuco substation, the corridors are dominated by FPL's existing transmission lines with scattered uplands and herbaceous wetlands on the existing transmission line ROW. Adjacent land uses include residential, 182 commercial, and industrial uses in Doral. No unique wildlife usage is expected in any of this Section due to the fact the existing right-of-way has been in place and maintained for many years. Wildlife species have become accustomed to those habitats. 524. Construction of the transmission line between the Levee and Pennsuco substations will use the existing transmission line roads and structure pads to the greatest extent practicable, limiting estimated wetland impacts to approximately one acre. 525. Land uses for the western alternate corridors are identical to the land uses in the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 in the Turkey Point- U.S. Highway 1, U.S. Highway 1-Southwest 120th, and the Levee- Pennsuco Sections, as these Sections are common to all the corridors. West Divergence Area: FPL West Preferred and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 526. The West Divergence Area extends from the southernmost point where the first alternate corridor diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor to the Levee substation. This Section generally encompasses an area that will be entirely east of the Everglades National Park following the Land Exchange and includes the L-31N and L-30 levees/canals and eastward to 183 encompass the Krome Avenue area and Bird Drive Basin. It then runs northward to a point just west of the Levee substation where all the western corridors reconverge. 527. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor turns due east at Southwest 120th Street towards the L-31N levee. Moving north from approximately Southwest 120th Street to Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor straddles the L-31N canal and runs adjacent to the Krome Detention Center. After crossing Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor then proceeds along the L-30 levee, passing the Miccosukee Casino property, and eventually parallels Krome Avenue to the north to a point just west of the Levee substation. The FPL West Preferred Corridor then proceeds due east across the Pennsuco Wetlands into the Levee substation. 528. Within the West Divergence Area, the ecological conditions differ among the various corridors. In this portion of the Corridor, freshwater marshes (sawgrass) dominate. These freshwater marshes provide suitable foraging habitat for a variety of wading birds, and support a variety of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Some tree islands also occur within the Southwest 120th-Levee Section of the Corridor and may provide suitable nesting habitats for wading birds, some of which are listed. No wading bird colonies exist within the Corridor, but there are two colonies within 0.5 mile of its 184 boundaries. These colonies have historically contained wood storks and listed wading birds during some nesting seasons. Additionally, the FPL West Preferred Corridor includes some historical nesting sites and marginally suitable foraging habitat for the endangered Everglade snail kite, particularly in the area north of Tamiami Trail. In any of the western corridors proper for certification, throughout the West Divergence Area, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species is low. 529. In the West Divergence Area, the wetland quality in the Corridor tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80 using UMAM. Placing the ROW in the FPL West Preferred Corridor would impact no more than 137 wetland acres, given FPL's flexibility to site the ROW within the Corridor and position the transmission line structures to avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable. 530. In the northern portion of the West Divergence Area, the wildlife habitats within the Corridor consist primarily of sawgrass marsh with scattered tree islands on the west side of the L-31N levee and Bird Drive Basin to the east, with scattered herbaceous marsh and tree islands. The Corridor itself is primarily co-located along disturbed areas including an existing levee and canal heading to the Levee substation. 185 531. Through much of the West Divergence Area, both the FPL West Preferred Corridor and the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 straddle the L-31N levee, which represents a seam between the Everglades National Park to the west, and residential and agricultural uses to the east. Some of the lands are in transition and include agricultural lands, a few large single family estates (one unit per five acres), and open lands, with more urban development to the east. Farther north along L-31N levee, the land uses to the east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor and the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are previously-disturbed uses, rail, and predominantly rock mining. Farther north, but south of Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor continues to run along a seam between conservation uses to the west and more developed uses, including the Krome Detention Center, to the east. North of Tamiami Trail, the FPL West Preferred Corridor straddles the L-30 levee and runs between the conservation lands in Water Conservation Area 3B and the Miccosukee Casino property and then Krome Avenue further north. The Corridor then turns east on existing ROW through the environmental protection lands of the Pennsuco Wetlands, and then through rock mining land uses to the Levee substation. 532. Existing tall structures in the vicinity of the FPL West Preferred Corridor include the Miccosukee Casino and the 186 Krome Detention Center water tower, as well as power poles and radio towers. iii. West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 533. In the West Divergence Area, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 begins approximately one mile south of a hypothetical extension of Kendall Drive and extends to the Levee substation. Where it overlaps the FPL West Preferred Corridor along the L-31N levee, the Corridor widens eastward of the L-31N levee to encompass rock mining lands. It then diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor for approximately 13 miles, turning east at a point north of a hypothetical extension of 18th Street running just south of the Krome Detention Center. It then turns north at a point east of Krome Avenue, crossing Tamiami Trail and continuing north along the Dade-Broward Levee until it reaches the FPL West Preferred Corridor alignment; the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 then continues east until it reaches the Levee substation. 534. For most of the distance along the L-31N levee, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 includes, but is wider than, the FPL West Preferred Corridor. This configuration provides enough room on both sides of the canal for placement of the proposed western transmission lines, with some flexibility to potentially locate all or part of the transmission lines on the rock-mining lands and other private and public property to the 187 east. The Corridor includes sufficient real property east of the L-31N Canal to accommodate the full transmission line ROW in some areas, if that proves to be a practical option for FPL and the rock mining companies. 535. Where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 overlaps the FPL West Preferred Corridor in the West Divergence Area, such as along the L-31N Canal, the ecological conditions are the same, with conservation uses (the Everglades National Park) to the west and predominantly mining and rail uses to the east. However, the widened area of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 immediately to the east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor includes primarily previously-disturbed rail and mining operations, as well as shrub and brushland, and remnant upland and wetland habitats. 536. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 diverges from the FPL West Preferred Corridor by turning eastward along a hypothetical extension of Southwest 18th Street, at the northern boundary of the rock mining overlay west of Krome Avenue. In this area, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 passes south of the Krome Detention Center, then runs eastward through the Bird Drive Basin overlay, consisting of open lands, wetlands, and conservation lands. The adjacent land uses in that area are open lands, wetlands, and conservation lands. In the Bird Drive Basin the land use is mixed ownership of governmental and 188 private parcels. The width of the corridor in this location provides flexibility to minimize crossings of private property in the Bird Drive Basin. 537. Where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 crosses wetlands within the Bird Drive Basin and, north of Tamiami Trail, the eastern edge of the Pennsuco Wetlands, the wildlife habitats generally consist of herbaceous marsh (sawgrass), wet prairie, shrub/brushland, and tree islands (primarily melaleuca). This area is used by wetland-dependent wildlife, such as wading birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammal, and deer. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is, however, located farther than the FPL West Preferred Corridor from known locations of wood stork colonies located along and north of Tamiami Trail. At the point where it turns north and for the remainder of its length until it reaches the Levee substation, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is very wide. This allows maximum flexibility in aligning the corridor so as to avoid obstacles and minimize impacts. 538. The Bird Drive Basin is a County regulatory zoning overlay that consists primarily of wetlands, although in many cases they are low-quality herbaceous wetlands with scattered tree islands (primarily melaleuca). It is located east of the rock mining zoning overlay and Krome Avenue from approximately Southwest 88th Street to Southwest 8th Street (Tamiami Trail). 189 Wetlands in the Bird Drive Basin and the east side of the Pennsuco Wetlands are generally lower in quality compared to wetlands located further to the west, due to increased proliferation of nuisance and exotic species of vegetation. Wetland quality within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80, and siting the ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would impact no more than 122 wetland acres. The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is an area designated by the County in the CDMP for existing urban uses, while the UEA, adjacent to the UDB, is designated by the County for anticipated future urban development after 2015, if there is a need based on population growth. Corridors farthest from these areas are more desirable from the standpoint of potential conflict with residential and urban land uses, although all would be compatible from a land use perspective. Both the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor are entirely west of the area designated by the County as the UEA and even farther west of the area designated as the UDB. There is no urban development near the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. The western transmission lines in any of these corridors would be compatible and consistent with the adjacent 190 land uses, including the Everglades National Park, and would serve the broad interests of the public. c. West Divergence Area: Other Western Alternate Corridors Vegetation/wildlife habitats within the West Divergence Area of MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor have a mixture of agricultural areas, uplands, and wetlands. Land is more disturbed and wetlands more degraded the farther east one heads, as compared to the areas closer to the Everglades National Park. Wildlife usage is more limited to the east than to the west as a result of the land disturbances. Wetland quality in MDLPA No. 1 tends to average between 0.70 and 0.80 using UMAM; MDLPA No. 3 wetlands were of somewhat lower quality in spots, averaging between 0.60 and 0.80. The NPCA Corridor, located farthest east, had the lowest quality wetlands, averaging between 0.60 and 0.70. In the West Divergence Area, the acres of wetlands potentially impacted by each alternate corridor, and therefore the amount of mitigation required to offset the impacts, also tends to decrease to the east and increase to the west. MDLPA No. 1 would impact no more than 199 acres of wetlands. In contrast, MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor, located the farthest east, would impact 165 and 152 acres of wetlands, respectively. 191 546. Wildlife species usage in the West Divergence Area of the alternate corridors consists of common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of the region. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in certain portions of the alternate corridors. 547. Within the West Divergence Area, the alternate corridors cross agricultural lands, open lands, rock mining, residential parcels, and wetlands. MDLPA No. 1 548. In the north portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 1 deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor for approximately four miles between Tamiami Trail and the Levee substation, turning east north of Tamiami Trail. It crosses the Pennsuco Wetlands approximately two miles farther south than the FPL West Preferred Corridor and is coexistent with the FPL West Preferred Corridor for its remainder, generally following the L- 31N levee and canal. Except in the area north of Tamiami Trail to the Levee substation, MDLPA No. 1 is identical to the FPL West Preferred Corridor. 549. The ecological conditions in the south and center portions of the West Divergence Area of MDLPA No. 1 are the same as the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. Like the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, it 192 travels along the same seam between land uses along the L-31N levee and canal and adjacent to/within active rock mining areas. 550. Within MDLPA No. 1, uplands in the north portion of the West Divergence Area consist primarily of roads and levees. The wetlands are primarily sawgrass marsh with melaleuca- dominated tree islands. Wildlife species usage consists of common amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of the region. No known listed species occurrences were identified, but it is expected that wading birds would use the area for foraging. The northern part of MDLPA No. 1 in the West Divergence Area is within 1,500 feet of one wading bird colony containing wood storks along Tamiami Trail. MDLPA No. 3 551. MDLPA No. 3 follows a more easterly pattern in the West Divergence Area than the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. or the FPL West Preferred Corridor. It deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 for approximately 13 miles between Southwest 120th Street and the Levee substation. It turns east approximately one-half mile south of the theoretical extension of Kendall Drive, then north along Krome Avenue, then through the Bird Drive Basin and eastern Pennsuco Wetlands to the Levee substation. 552. In the south portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 3 follows the West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2 and FPL West 193 Preferred Corridors until it turns east along Southwest 100th Street, through residential, agricultural, and open/mining land uses. 553. In the south portion of the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 3 includes agricultural and rock mining areas as well as sawgrass marsh, native wetland hardwoods, and exotic wetland hardwoods. Wildlife habitat in this area is very limited. 554. The wildlife habitats within the central portion of MDLPA No. 3 in the West Divergence Area consist of agricultural areas adjacent to Krome Avenue and lower quality wetlands east of Krome Avenue. These areas include wetlands consisting primarily of freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and tree islands (many of which contain melaleuca). 555. The north portion of MDLPA No. 3 in the West Divergence Area crosses wetland habitat within the Bird Drive Basin and Pennsuco Wetlands. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in this area although no breeding colonies are known in this area. In the Bird Drive Basin, there is a mixture of some low-quality exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie wetlands; the corridors cross Tamiami Trail, and then enter the Pennsuco Wetlands in an area where there is a mixture of exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie. All of the corridors converge just to the west of the Levee substation. 194 556. The center and north portions of MDLPA No. 3 and NPCA Corridor in the West Divergence Area are generally overlapping. From the intersection of Southwest 100th Street and Southwest 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue, MDLPA No. 3 and NPCA Corridor move north following Krome Avenue/Southwest 177th Avenue and angle northeastward near Southwest 72nd Street to run through environmental preservation/wetlands, open lands, and rock mining lands, and near to residential lands. They are both located within the Bird Drive Basin in this area. From the Bird Drive Basin area, the corridors travel northward generally along the Dade-Broward Levee alignment to the Levee substation. A portion of MDLPA No. 3 is located within the County-designated North Trail Basin. The two corridors are both wide at this location, angling to the east through Bird Drive Basin wetlands to the Dade-Broward Levee alignment. In this area, they also generally overlap the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, which is the widest choice of corridors in this area. 557. The two corridors both cross the UEA and are the closest corridors to the UDB. They also cross the property owned by Limonar, which has yet-to-be finalized plans for future residential and mixed-use development of its 485-acre tract. NPCA Corridor 558. The NPCA Corridor deviates from the FPL West Preferred Corridor near Southwest 120th Street to the Levee 195 substation for approximately 15 miles. It turns eastward in the Southwest 120th Street area to Krome Avenue, where it turns northward along Krome Avenue, generally following MDLPA No. 3 to a point just west of the Levee substation, where the alternate corridors all converge. 559. The south boundary of the West Divergence Area is defined by the southern boundary of the NPCA Corridor. It turns eastward and encompasses an area on the south side of Southwest 120th Street, including land outside the Everglades National Park and south of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Between Southwest 194th Avenue and Southwest 197th Avenue, the NPCA Corridor jogs northward to be within the FPL West Preferred Corridor. It then turns north to run for a short distance along the L-31N levee, and then eastward again along Southwest 112th Street, where it turns northward again at Southwest 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue. Like MDLPA No. 1 and MDLPA No. 3, the NPCA Corridor runs through predominantly agricultural areas/rock mining areas along Krome Avenue as well as the Bird Drive Basin overlay and the North Trail Basin overlay. 560. As noted above, in the central portion, the NPCA Corridor overlaps MDLPA No. 3 and thus has the same adjacent land uses. It also crosses the UEA as well as the property owned by Limonar, which has plans, although not yet final, for future residential and mixed-use development of this property. 196 561. The NPCA Corridor has similar ecology as MDLPA No. 3 in the southernmost part of the West Divergence Area but traverses more agricultural areas. 562. The center portion of the NPCA Corridor in the West Divergence Area, like MDLPA No. 3, consists of agricultural areas and wetlands, providing suitable habitat for a variety of common wading birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. 563. From an ecological perspective, the northern part of the NPCA Corridor within the West Divergence Area is also the same as MDLPA No. 3. Both traverse wetland habitat within the Bird Drive Basin, the North Trail Basin, and the Pennsuco Wetlands. Some listed wading birds would be expected to forage in this area although no breeding colonies are known for this area. In the Bird Drive Basin, there is a mixture of some low- quality exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie wetlands. The corridors cross Tamiami Trail, and then enter the Pennsuco Wetlands in an area where there is a mixture of exotic wetland hardwoods, sawgrass marsh, and wet prairie. All of the corridors converge just to the west of the Levee substation. 564. Wetlands to the east of the L-31N levee within the Bird Drive Basin and the Pennsuco Wetlands, in which MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor traverse, are somewhat lower in quality 197 compared to wetlands located west of the L-31N canal, in which MDLPA No. 1 traverses. 565. In the north portion of the West Divergence Area, the West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 1, and MDLPA No. 3 narrow as they approach the Levee substation, limiting the crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands and adjacent land uses, while the NPCA Corridor remains wide from north of the North Trail Basin to the Levee substation. 4. Western Transmission Line Construction and Design Standards 566. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines will comply with all applicable design standards. They will be located, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with all applicable non-procedural regulatory standards; these standards are reflected in the Conditions of Certification, and FPL has committed to implementing those conditions. The entire construction process for the western transmission lines will take between four to five years. 567. Existing transmission lines and access roads in the certified corridor will first be assessed to determine whether they are suitable for construction and ongoing operation and maintenance activities for the proposed western transmission lines. If determined to be suitable, these features will be 198 used, which will minimize the need for new road construction in the area that could potentially impact wetlands or surface hydrology. 568. In the past, FPL has used the SFWMD's existing levees for access onto other projects and may seek to use these levees as access roads for this Project, which could further minimize the need for new access roads. 569. Where new access roads and structure pads are necessary, they will be constructed with clean fill material and unpaved. Access road and pad elevations will be established after a review of available drainage basin data, seasonal water elevations, and flow patterns. The final grade elevation of any necessary access roads and structure pads will be sufficient to ensure emergency access to provide at least 12 inches of clearance over seasonal or mean high-water levels or over controlled water levels in areas where water levels are regulated. The roads and pads will have two-to-one side slopes, which allows for a stable side slope. An 18-foot top width of the road is proposed to allow for large vehicular use during construction and maintenance. A variation on this width will occur in the southern portion of the corridor that is common to all of the western corridors proper for certification where the main plant construction temporary access road will be built over the location of the future permanent transmission line access 199 road. This wider plant access will also be used temporarily for transmission access. Once the plant construction is complete, the temporary additional width will be removed. 570. Where practicable, access roads and structure pads will be constructed outside of wetlands. Culverts will be installed under the access roads and structure pads as needed to maintain pre-construction flows. Culverts will be covered with at least two feet of clean fill to prevent them from being crushed by vehicles. 571. FPL will use sedimentation control devices to control erosion and turbidity, and will utilize stable, compacted fill material, along with seeding and mulching of side slopes, to minimize the potential for impacts to wetlands. 572. Transmission line construction includes material hauling, spotting, and structure erection. If multiple-piece structures are used for the western transmission lines (tubular steel poles installed on concrete caisson foundations), the augured holes will be approximately nine feet in diameter to accommodate the installation of concrete caisson foundations. 573. For the western 500-kV transmission lines, the typical span length will be approximately 1,000 feet between structures. For the west 230-kV transmission line, the typical span length from Clear Sky to the Levee substation area will be approximately 500 feet, and from the Levee substation area to 200 the Pennsuco substation, the typical span length will range from approximately 250 to 750 feet, following the alignment of the existing 230-kV transmission lines in that ROW. 574. Span lengths vary for several reasons. Sometimes a pole location is adjusted to avoid a tree canopy, wetland, or archaeological or historical site, or to coincide with property lines or the location of existing distribution poles that will be replaced. They can also be adjusted to accommodate the crossing of highways, water bodies, or other linear features. 575. The typical ROW width identified in the application to accommodate the three western transmission lines between the Clear Sky and Levee substations is approximately 330 feet, which for a majority of the length of the corridor comprises FPL's existing transmission line ROW. Between the Levee and Pennsuco substations the ROW will be approximately 170 feet, and the 230- kV transmission line will be mostly constructed within existing FPL transmission line ROWs, with the exception of the upland easement requested in a mining area. 576. FPL establishes a transmission line ROW through multiple means, such as the purchase of easement rights over affected parcels, property in fee simple, and for public ROW, the acquisition of longitudinal use permits and licenses for crossing permits. 201 577. Where FPL is not constrained to a 330-foot ROW, it may use its traditional 500-kV H-frame unguyed structures using a horizontal configuration. Use of such structures would allow greater span lengths between structures, potentially minimizing wetland impacts. 578. All of the western alternate corridors, including the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, cross property owned by state and federal agencies in the West Divergence Area east of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. FPL may not have the eminent domain authority to condemn all of the necessary rights in those government parcels. 579. No party presented evidence suggesting that undergrounding for any portion of the western transmission lines was appropriate for the proposed western transmission lines or that undergrounding was feasible for the western 500-kV transmission lines. 580. Construction of the Levee substation expansion will require clearing and grubbing the expansion area. Turbidity screens and other erosion control devices and techniques will be used to minimize construction impacts to nearby wetlands and water bodies. The expanded substation yard area will be excavated, filled with clean fill, graded, and rolled to match the existing substation yard elevation. The existing grounding 202 grid will be expanded and a new security fence around the expansion area will be installed. 581. After the substation expansion area is prepared, concrete caisson foundations will be installed for the new equipment using drilling rigs and large cranes. Once the foundations are complete, the new bus system, circuit breakers, switches, and other associated equipment will be installed. Applicable Non-Procedural Requirements Wetlands 582. The corridor selection process appropriately eliminated and reduced impacts to wetlands and waters of the state to the extent practicable, as required by applicable rules. First, FPL has eliminated consideration of the FPL West Secondary Corridor for this Project completely, despite having owned the ROW within this corridor for over 40 years. Second, assuming the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 can be feasibly and timely obtained, FPL's preference for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 over the FPL West Preferred Corridor constitutes a substantial additional wetland impact elimination measure by moving a significant length of the lines in the West Divergence Area to the east side of the L-30 and L-31N levees and avoiding a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands. Third, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are co-located with existing disturbed 203 ROWs, with existing linear facilities and using existing access roads and infrastructure where available. The need for new access roads will be minimized in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, due to the ability to use existing access. 583. Additional minimization of impacts will be incorporated throughout the entire certified corridor during final transmission line design. Locating the transmission lines within corridors allows flexibility in routing and additional wetland avoidance/minimization opportunities such as adjusting the location of structure pads and access roads, and/or adjusting the span lengths between structures. 584. No significant adverse effect on the abundance and diversity of wildlife is anticipated as a result of construction in any of the corridors proper for certification. Pre-clearing listed species surveys will be conducted. Most herbaceous and low-growing wetland vegetation will not need to be cleared. Construction practices in wetlands will retain the vegetative root mat in areas not filled, thereby minimizing impacts to wetland vegetation. 585. Impacts will be rectified or mitigated to the extent practicable by restoring wetlands within the ROW that are not directly impacted by structure or pad installation. Also, FPL has committed to controlling exotic vegetation within the entire ROW (both wetlands and uplands). Any remaining unavoidable 204 impacts will be fully compensated through the Hole-in-the-Donut Mitigation Bank and the Everglades Mitigation Bank. These measures satisfy the state Environmental Resource Permit criteria and the County code criteria relative to wetland impacts. Wetlands to the east of the L-31N levee within the Bird Drive Basin (where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and NPCA Corridor are located) are lower in quality compared to wetlands located west of the L-31N levee (where the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are located). They also experience more shallow inundation compared to wetlands to the west of L-31N levee, reducing the amount of wetland fill required to elevate proposed roads and transmission structure pads and the amount of mitigation required for the wetland impacts. Construction, operation, location, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective. Restrictive clearing techniques will be employed in forested wetlands and sensitive pine rockland communities. NPCA offered testimony regarding federal law and international treaties to underscore the importance of the Everglades National Park wetlands, including designation of part 205 of present-day Everglades National Park as a Wilderness Area (excluding the East Everglades addition) in 1978, designation of Everglades National Park as a world heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 1979, and inclusion of Everglades National Park among the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance in 1987. However, all of these designations predated Congressional authorization of the Land Exchange. 591. In addition, the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, cited by NPCA witnesses, predated the negotiations and agreements, subsequently authorized by Congress, for the Land Exchange. Avian Species 592. The western corridors were analyzed for their potential to impact avian species, including wading birds and the endangered wood stork and Everglade snail kite, since they are known to occur in the area. 593. There are no known current nesting sites for listed avian species within any of the western corridors, but there are wading bird colonies in the vicinity of the FPL West Preferred Corridor in the area of Tamiami Trail. 594. The USFWS has recommended primary and secondary protection zones with specific management restrictions in order 206 to minimize wood stork colony disturbance. Such recommended management restrictions for wood storks and their colonies would not prohibit placement of the proposed transmission lines in the FPL West Preferred Corridor or West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. 595. The wood stork is known to nest in four colonies both south and north of Tamiami Trail and west of the FPL West Preferred Corridor. These colonies have been well documented for years and are known as the Tamiami East 1 and 2, Tamiami West, and 3B Mud East colonies. The NPCA Corridor and MDLPA No. are the farthest from these colonies. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 fall within 1,500 feet of one of these colonies. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is located east of all of these colonies, and the closest colony (Tamiami East 1) is approximately one mile away from the closest corridor boundary. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 falls outside the recommended primary (500 to 1,500 feet) and secondary (2,500 feet) management zones for the wading bird colonies published by the USFWS. No known listed species have been recorded in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, or NPCA Corridor, but it could be expected that listed species would utilize portions of those corridors. 596. The primary and secondary management zones for these colonies are flexible and much smaller management zones may be 207 applied, as was done for the Tamiami Trail Modifications: Next Steps Project near the West Preferred Corridor. Three wood stork nesting colonies are located along Tamiami Trail to the west of the western corridors. One colony (3B-Mud East) is located farther north, to the west of L-30 levee. The FPL West Preferred Corridor crosses only portions of the secondary management zones for the Tamiami East 1 and 3B-Mud East colonies. None of the other western corridors cross either a primary or secondary management zone of a wood stork colony. 597. None of the Everglade snail kite's critical habitat areas, as designated by the USFWS, are crossed by any of the western corridors. The closest critical habitat area is over ten miles to the west, and not "in close proximity," as suggested by NPCA. 598. Although some parties contend otherwise, the record establishes there will be no adverse impacts on avian species, including listed species such as the wood stork and Everglade snail kite. In all of the corridors proper for certification FPL will implement design features to protect avian species. These include: (1) wide spacing of the energized conductors to avoid birds touching two conductors simultaneously, which is the manner in which many avian electrocutions on power lines occur; perch discouragers on every pole; and (3) bird flight 208 diverters on all of the spans on the overhead or ground wires within one-half mile of any wood stork colonies. 599. FPL has agreed to comply with very specific wood stork and Everglade snail kite conditions of certification proposed by FWC. These are sufficient to protect the species. 600. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to aquatic or wetland-dependent listed avian species for enabling existing nesting by these species because the upland areas to be affected are of low value to wetland-dependent species. 601. FPL's APP outlines specific design and construction standards for distribution and transmission lines, substations, and other avian mortality reduction methods. These standards are designed to avoid and minimize potential bird impact issues such as electrocutions and collisions, as well as avian enhancement activities that can provide benefits to birds from FPL structures and activities. These steps should resolve the concerns expressed by NPCA at hearing. 602. The APP also provides FPL managers and field personnel with a single, accessible information resource describing avian protection background issues, relevant bird species, potential impact issues, applicable federal, state, and 209 local regulatory context, key resources and contacts for bird issue responses, and FPL responsibilities. 603. The APP also outlines specific training, response, reporting, and quality control protocols to ensure that FPL personnel are adequately prepared for responding to potential bird impact issues, focusing on bird mortality, injury, or nesting incidents, and on key potentially affected listed bird species, as well as personnel safety procedures to be implemented during responses to bird impact situations. 604. In light of these measures to be implemented, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that avian species in the region are unlikely to suffer electrocution from or collision with the transmission lines. 605. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely impact wood storks. There will be no loss of nesting habitat as a result of the proposed transmission lines, any loss of wood stork foraging habitat will be fully mitigated, and there will be minimal to negligible exposure of wood storks to risk of electrocution as a result of the western transmission line corridors. There will be only a small risk of a wood stork collision with the transmission lines because their large wings enable them to fly slowly with higher maneuverability. Any risk will be further minimized by use of 210 flight diverters. While it is assumed juvenile wood storks are poorer flyers than adults and may be more susceptible to collisions, there has never been a documented case of a juvenile wood stork colliding with a transmission line. The period of exposure of young wood storks to hazards around the colony is very short, as they leave the colony within about 48 hours after fledging. 606. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact Everglade snail kites. While the Everglade snail kite is known to occasionally forage within parts of some of the western transmission line corridors, the area currently lacks apple snails, which are the Everglade snail kite's primary food source. If apple snails were to return, however, Everglade snail kites could also return. Everglade snail kite foraging and nesting behavior is compatible with transmission facilities and habitats under transmission lines, so no impacts to Everglade snail kites are expected. By virtue of their flight morphology and behavior, Everglade snail kites are not likely to be exposed to any risk of electrocution or collision mortality from the transmission lines. 607. With respect to all other listed avian species, habitat loss will be minimal to negligible because they will be 211 restricted to a minor loss of foraging habitat for some wetland- dependent species with no significant adverse effect on the population, and this habitat loss will be fully mitigated. There is no risk of electrocution from the proposed transmission lines, as the separation of energized parts exceeds the maximum wingspan or bill tip to foot length of all listed bird species potentially occurring within the area. While some listed species will be exposed to risk of collision with the lines, this risk will be relatively small and is not likely to affect any populations. 608. In light of the APP and other protection measures described above, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission corridors proper for certification will be consistent and in compliance with FWC regulations related to the protection of threatened and endangered avian species, as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. More strict measures than those imposed by the FWC, or described in the APP, are not necessary. 609. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance and diversity of any listed avian 212 species because all wetland impacts will be mitigated consistent with applicable regulations and the approved mitigation plan. No adverse impact to the conservation of birds or their habitats, including endangered and threatened species, is expected. Impacts on birds, including listed species and their habitats, have been avoided and minimized through the siting of the corridors and design of the transmission lines. The risks to avian species are small and all impacts will be fully mitigated. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not cause adverse secondary impacts to avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in the western transmission line corridors will not adversely impact the population of any threatened or endangered avian species. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification will not prevent the preservation of avian species. Through the use of reasonable and available methods, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors 213 proper for certification will minimize any adverse effects on avian species and their habitats. FPL has committed to taking a variety of steps to minimize any potential adverse impacts on avian species and their habitats including the siting of corridors, avian-protection design features and construction standards, and mitigation. 615. From an avian perspective, FPL's mitigation will fully compensate for any functions that may be lost on environmentally sensitive lands as a result of the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines. 616. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of avian species, including listed avian species and their habitat. Non-Avian Wildlife Species 617. Impacts of location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines on non-avian wildlife were also evaluated and specifically included evaluations of potential impacts to the Florida panther, Eastern indigo snake, and the American crocodile, since they are listed species known to occur in the area. 618. In all of the corridors within the west study area, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species, 214 including listed species, is low. Care was taken in the corridor routing to avoid and minimize proximity to known listed species locations. Listed species pre-clearing and construction surveys will be conducted. Prior to conducting surveys, FPL will coordinate with the FWC and USFWS to obtain and follow the current survey protocols, as memorialized in the FWC-recommended conditions of certification to which FPL has agreed to comply in any of the western corridors. 619. The ecological value of the uplands to wetland- dependent listed species for nesting and denning will not be adversely affected by location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors. 620. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission line corridors will not have an adverse effect on the abundance and diversity of wildlife, including listed species, because all corridors offer flexibility in locating the ROW to avoid site-specific listed species locations, all corridors will be required to comply with conditions of certification requiring pre-clearing and construction surveys, and all wetland impacts will be mitigated. 621. Construction of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification, or any 215 portion thereof, will not have a significant adverse effect on fish habitat or the abundance or diversity of fish. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife populations, including endangered and threatened species, or their habitats; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective; and will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands to non-avian aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species for nesting and denning. Construction, operation, location, and maintenance will comply with all of the conditions proposed by FWC and all agency substantive requirements. In light of the proposed protective measures and the proposed mitigation, the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors will not cause adverse secondary impacts to fish and wildlife; will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity; and will not adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters from a wildlife perspective. 216 Panthers The proposed western transmission line corridors are within the extreme southeastern area of the range of the Florida panther in south Florida. All western corridors fall partially within the panther primary zone and partially within the panther secondary zone. Florida panthers have been recorded in the area of the proposed western transmission line corridors. There is, however, a very low likelihood that panthers would actually occur in the area during construction. There are positive benefits that accrue to Florida panthers and their habitat and prey associated with the placement of transmission lines within panther habitats. Therefore, the transmission lines will not result in the loss of panther habitat or adverse impacts to the panther. FPL has proposed protection measures for Florida panthers in the unlikely event they would occur in the transmission line ROWs, including training of construction personnel and unannounced inspections. FPL has also agreed to FWC-proposed protection measures for Florida panthers. Those protection measures are sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to Florida panthers from the location, construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated with the proposed western transmission lines. 217 628. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of Florida panthers. Eastern Indigo Snakes 629. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed in the western corridors. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will comply with all applicable non-procedural requirements related to protection of Eastern indigo snakes. Hydrologic Considerations 630. New access roads, structure pads, and stormwater discharges during construction in any of the western corridors proper for certification have the potential to impact surficial hydrology. NPCA contends that FPL's current proposal to construct culverts in its preferred corridors will stop sheet flow, the proposed roads and structure pads will disrupt water flow, and this will adversely affect the hydrological resources of the Everglades National Park. For the following reasons, these concerns are not well-founded. 631. Where new access roads are needed or upgrades are required to accommodate construction vehicles, those access roads will be unpaved and constructed using clean fill. Culverts will be included in wetland areas to maintain channel 218 flow and overland flow. Culverts are also expected to be used under structure pads where required to maintain existing surface flows. These culverts would help to equalize water volume and maintain pool equilibrium. 632. The spacing, diameter, and length of the culverts for access roads and structure pads will be based on hydrological studies that will be conducted post-certification, where final project elements are reasonably expected to impact surface or groundwater. Any culverts will comply with applicable conditions of certification. A combination of different culvert sizes is expected to be used. The design will be dictated depending on where the corridor is located and the amount of water that will need to be managed, among many different criteria. Typically, culverts installed in wetlands are designed so the bottom of the culvert will match the wetland floor elevation. 633. The proposed western transmission lines will comply with applicable agency non-procedural requirements, including requirements of the County, SFWMD, and Department, as well as SFWMD ROW Occupancy Permit Criteria. In particular, the conceptual design specified by FPL in its application will maintain surface water flows and will not result in ponding or flooding. 219 The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines will comply with applicable Department non-procedural environmental resource permitting criteria and other non-procedural requirements. Based upon the conceptual design specified by FPL in its application, the design of the roads and structure pads will incorporate drainage features such as culverts to allow the free flow of water. The function of culverts is to allow water to flow freely without impeding natural systems. The design used for the western transmission lines will ensure that culverts maintain equilibrium of water on both sides of roads and structure pads. FPL will also implement and maintain erosion and sediment control devices and best management practices such as silt fences, hay bales, erosion control blankets, and turbidity screens. FPL proposes to conduct hydrologic studies if the final project elements are reasonably expected to impact surface or ground water to ensure that any impacts associated with hydrology, water quality, and water supply will be avoided and minimized. FPL has committed to a flowage easement that would maintain existing sheet water and allow for future improvement 220 of surface water flows across the transmission line ROW located within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands CERP Project study area boundaries, which traverse the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 section of the western transmission corridors. 639. FPL has proposed specific design measures to protect surficial hydrology of the Wink Eye Slough and the Northeast Shark River Slough. These sloughs are unique environmental features. The Wink Eye Slough traverses the west corridors in the Turkey Point-U.S. Highway 1 Section, common to all the west corridors. The eastern edge of the Northeast Shark River Slough is within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 in the L-31N levee portion of the West Divergence Area. The predominant hydrologic flow of the Northeast Shark River Slough occurs west of the L-31N levee. FPL will design the transmission line access roads and structure pads to avoid sheet flow impacts to these sloughs, considering design alternatives such as culverts, stabilized at-grade roads, geoswales, or other techniques to maintain the sheet flow in compliance with applicable non-procedural requirements. CERP 640. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines in any of the western corridors proper for certification are not 221 inconsistent with CERP Projects or the overall objectives of CERP. FPL demonstrated that the western transmission line structures and access roads will be designed and constructed in any of the western corridors in such a manner as to maintain surface flows and sheet flow, and no flood hazards will be created as a result of the transmission lines or access roads. Access roads will be properly culverted and appropriately constructed so as to maintain drainage and manage water quality and will not interfere with sheet flow or the higher water levels anticipated as a result of CERP implementation. The transmission line structures and access roads will not negatively impact the quality, quantity, or timing of the distribution of water. Given these considerations, a contention that the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 or back-up West Preferred Corridor will negatively affect the CERP Modified Water Deliveries Project, or specific goals and objectives of the CERP Yellow Book (the blueprint for Everglades restoration), is rejected. FPL has submitted flowage easements to the County for review in accordance with Condition 17 of County Resolution Z- 56-07. 222 East Everglades Area of Critical Environmental Concern The County has a zoning overlay district known as the East Everglades Area of Critical Environmental Concern (EEACEC) that comprises approximately 242 square miles, part of which is within the Everglades National Park. See ch. 33B, MDC. A portion of the corridor common to all western corridors crosses the EEACEC south of Southwest 120th Street. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and portions of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 1 follow the extreme eastern edge of the EEACEC where they travel along the L-31N levee. The EEACEC's northern boundary is Tamiami Trail. The remaining alternate corridors are not located within the EEACEC in this area. For parcels within the EEACEC zoning overlay district, additional restrictions apply to development to ensure, singly or cumulatively, no adverse effects on the hydrologic or ecologic integrity of the east Everglades. See ch. 33B, MDC. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, these EEACEC restrictions do not apply to transmission lines. Notwithstanding the inapplicability of these restrictions, the evidence establishes that the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in corridors traversing the EEACEC in 223 compliance with the agreed-upon conditions of certification will maintain existing flows and water quality and will not have an adverse impact on natural flow of water or cause a change in water quality or quantity in the adjacent Everglades National Park. 646. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any portion of the EEACEC likewise would not have an adverse impact on wetland flora and fauna within the adjacent Everglades National Park or cause material injury to wetland ecology on adjoining lands or on portions of the ROW not proposed for placement of the transmission lines. For example, FPL has committed to employ best management practices during construction to avoid sedimentation and undertake exotic vegetation control within the ROW. Bird Drive Everglades Wetland Basin and North Trail Basin 647. The County has two environmental districts within portions of the proposed western transmission line corridors, which have been adopted in chapter 24, MDC. The Bird Drive Everglades Wetland Basin (Bird Drive Basin) is located south of Tamiami Trail and east of Krome Avenue. The North Trail Basin is located north of Tamiami Trail and approximately two miles east of Krome Avenue. 224 648. Sections 24-48.20 and 24-48.21 require that all work within the Bird Drive Basin or the North Trail Basin must be consistent with the Land Management Plan to ensure the maintenance of biological resources in that area. Those provisions call for minimizing impacts to flood drainage; minimizing impacts to water storage capacity and Biscayne Aquifer recharge; and maintaining desirable biological values, or mitigating for loss of such values. 649. A portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MLDPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor traverse the Bird Drive Basin and North Trail Basin. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 traverses a short distance of the northern portion of the Bird Drive Basin and the westernmost edge of the North Trail Basin. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor traverse a significant portion of the Bird Drive Basin and the western edge of the North Trail Basin. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are not located within the Bird Drive or North Trail Basins. 650. The western transmission lines will not cause impacts to flood drainage, will minimize impacts to water storage capacity and Biscayne Aquifer recharge, and will allow the areas to maintain desirable biological values. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in any portion of the Bird Drive Basin or 225 North Trail Basin will not cause any unmitigated impacts to wetlands. The placement of the western transmission lines in any of the western corridors within the Bird Drive Basin and North Trail Basin will be compatible with the County's land management plans for those areas. Natural Forest Communities Two NFCs are located in the section of the western corridors between U.S. Highway 1 and Southwest 120th Street, a section that is common to all the western corridors. In accordance with Condition 20 of County Resolution Z-56-07, FPL will minimize impacts to NFCs in the western corridors consistent with the NFC standards and requirements of chapter 24, MDC. FPL has agreed to a stipulation and associated conditions with the County to not place any structures within the edge of the Sunny Palms NFC, which is included in the western transmission line corridors. For the Kings Highway Pinelands NFC, FPL already has an existing easement and transmission line crossing in this area. Additional vegetation clearing and construction for the certified facilities will occur only in accordance with the stipulated conditions applicable to NFCs. 226 Use of SFWMD ROW, Crossings, and Levees FPL's proposed western transmission lines will cross several SFWMD canals and may use a portion of SFWMD ROW linearly along the L-31N and L-30 levees. The proposed western transmission lines also involve the crossing of SFWMD bridges. Crossings of SFWMD canals and crossing or use of SFWMD levees and bridges will be required for all western corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor traverses or runs longitudinally with the following SFWMD facilities: L-31E canal, C-113 canal, C-103 (Mowry) canal, C-102 (Princeton) canal, L-31N canal, C-1W (Black Creek) canal, C-4 (Tamiami) canal, L-29 Borrow Enlargement, and L-30N canal. The FPL West Preferred Corridor or West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 may use SFWMD levees L-31N, L-30, and L-29 for access during construction, operation, and maintenance. MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor may also require the crossing of several SFWMD facilities including canals and levees. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not interfere with the present construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. While parallel runs have a potential for interfering with the District's operation and maintenance of its system, it is possible to accommodate transmission lines with site-specific 227 configurations. Transmission lines have been successfully designed and constructed within SFWMD ROW previously. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines will not interfere with proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of the works or lands of the SFWMD that are crossed. This applies only to proposed future construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance known at the time of FPL's project design. The proposed transmission lines within SFWMD lands will not result in damage from soil erosion. Structural integrity of bridges crossed by vehicular traffic will be certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Before FPL's use of levees for construction and maintenance access, FPL will coordinate with the SFWMD Right-of- Way Department to develop a plan for compatible use of these facilities. Any improvements within the associated canal ROWs will maintain the structural integrity of the levee(s) at a level as good as or better than the conditions in existence immediately prior to commencement of FPL's work activities. All activity within SFWMD ROWs will be conducted consistent with applicable SFWMD non-procedural requirements and 228 will be consistent with the development and regulation of dams (or levees) and other works to provide water storage for beneficial purposes. 662. The western transmission lines will not adversely affect the levees or other works crossed or paralleled by the transmission lines; unduly burden SFWMD interests; contribute to damage from floods, soil erosion, or excessive drainage; affect disease-carrying vectors and pests so as to impact public health and welfare; or have adverse effects on human health or waters of the state. 663. SFWMD has stipulated to the use of its ROWs in whichever corridor is ultimately approved for certification, provided the Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1 to this Recommended Order are met. 664. FPL has agreed to accept the conditions of certification offered by SFWMD, and FPL has demonstrated that the conditions offered by SFWMD relating to ROW occupancy permits will be met. Upland Easement 665. The 230-kV segment of the western transmission lines that is common to all western corridors proper for certification includes an approximately four-acre parcel of state-owned uplands. The parcel is adjacent to an existing FPL transmission line ROW through previously mined areas east of Levee substation 229 and northwest of the intersection of Doral Boulevard and the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike. The area is currently subject to a commercial mining lease and is a limerock mine. FPL has requested that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to issue an upland easement for this approximately four-acre parcel through this proceeding. 666. The upland easement over this narrow strip is required for the Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line in order to comply with EMF standards and to accommodate conductor swing out in high winds. No construction will occur within the upland easement. 667. The narrow strip of uplands for which FPL is seeking an easement from the state is between two rock mine pits and currently used as a berm access road by mining operations. It has limited value to wildlife. All of the western corridors must use this same segment. 668. FPL will undertake all activities on the upland easement in accordance with best management practices. Placement of the proposed transmission line in the area of the requested upland easement over state lands will not have adverse impacts on conservation, the environment, natural resources, wetlands, or fish and wildlife values. 669. If the easement is not obtained, FPL could still construct the proposed line, but that would involve 230 reconstructing two of the existing transmission lines to make adequate space within FPL's existing ROW, and it may be very difficult to get the extended transmission line outages that would be required to reconstruct those facilities. 670. Grant of the easement is not contrary to the public interest, as the area is already subject to a commercial mining lease and is a limestone mine. There is a clear public need for the Project, and there are no reasonable alternative locations. The public does not use the area to be covered by the upland easement. General Considerations 671. The evidence establishes that the structural integrity of bridges, dams, or levees will not be affected by construction or operation of the western transmission lines; the lines will not cause damage from soil erosion; they will not cause or contribute to flood damage or excessive drainage; they will not affect disease-carrying vectors and pests so as to impact public health and welfare; and they will not have other adverse effects on human health or water resources. 672. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the western transmission lines in accordance with the conditions of certification will comply with applicable noise regulations and will not have an adverse impact on air quality. 231 The western transmission lines will comply fully with the applicable Department standards for EMF from transmission lines. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western transmission line corridors proper for certification will not adversely impact archaeological or historic structures, sites, or resources. There is no material difference between the western transmission line corridors proper for certification in terms of impacts to cultural resources and archaeological and historic sites. All of the western corridors provide sufficient access to the proposed transmission lines, either via existing public roads, existing FPL access roads, or through the use of access corridors to ensure suitable access. All of the alternate corridors east of the L-31N and L-30 levees provide flexibility for access because there will be multiple opportunities for access on public roadways along those routes. There will be no adverse traffic impacts from construction of the proposed transmission lines in any of the western corridors. The western corridors are compatible with DOT and Miami-Dade Transit long-range plans. If constructed within any of the corridors proper for certification, the proposed western transmission lines will 232 comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the local governments in which they will be located. These applicable non-procedural requirements include the requirements of Florida City, Doral, Medley, and the County that FPL: (1) construct and maintain transmission lines in accordance with FPL's customary practice; (2) ensure that its transmission lines do not unreasonably interfere with traffic on public ROW or reasonable egress from and ingress to abutting property; (3) ensure that transmission lines be located as close to the outer boundary of public ROW as practicable, or as agreed with the local government; and (4) repair or restore any damage to public ROW caused by construction or maintenance of transmission lines. 678. Impacts to wildlife habitat and listed species in any of the western corridors will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. All of the western transmission line corridors proper for certification are appropriate for placement of the proposed western transmission lines from a wildlife perspective. 679. The evidence establishes that all of the five western corridors proper for certification meet the criteria for certification set forth in section 403.509(3). 7. Corridor Comparison: Least Adverse Impacts Including Costs 680. As found above, the multidisciplinary team evaluated the various proposed western transmission line corridors based 233 on a theoretical centerline of the transmission lines through the middle of each corridor, with the centerline adjusted as needed to avoid certain obstacles. The comparative evaluation also assumed use of a ROW obtained through the implementation of the Land Exchange. For the NPCA Corridor, FPL evaluated both the alignment as proposed by NPCA and an adjusted centerline based on FPL's expertise as more feasible than that proposed by NPCA, to allow for a more equitable comparison. Environmental Comparisons 681. Within the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor would impact a maximum of 137 wetland acres, although these figures will likely be significantly reduced through FPL's final transmission line design process. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would impact no more than 122 wetland acres. The wetland ecology in both corridors is generally similar, as is the estimated acreage of wetland impact. Wetland quality in both corridors ranges between 0.70 and 0.80 as measured by UMAM. 682. Within the West Divergence Area, MDLPA No. 1 and MDLPA No. 3 would impact up to 138 or 104 wetland acres, respectively, and those wetlands range in quality from 0.70-0.80 (MDLPA No. 1) to 0.60-0.80 (MDLPA No. 3). 234 683. Using either centerline alignment, the NPCA Corridor would impact up to 91 wetland acres, ranging in quality from 0.60 to 0.70. 684. Construction of the proposed transmission lines within the NPCA Corridor would traverse lower quality wetlands and require a smaller amount of mitigation to offset unavoidable wetland impacts, as compared to the other proposed western corridors. 685. In the certification analysis required by section 403.509, wetland impacts are only one factor of a multi-faceted analysis. Determination of the appropriate corridor for certification is a balancing of the criteria, and impacts to wetlands or other natural resources are not the only factors in the analysis. See § 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. 686. From a surficial hydrology perspective, there is no material difference between any of the western corridors proper for certification, because each corridor can be engineered to maintain sheet flow and other surface water flow. However, the amount of engineering that would be required to maintain sheet flow in each area and the level of complexity involved differs between the corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor, MDLPA No. 1, and West Consensus/MDLPA No. 2 would require equivalent levels of surficial hydrology engineering. MDLPA No. 3 and the 235 NPCA Corridor would involve the least surficial hydrology engineering. 687. The potential for adverse unmitigated impacts to listed species is equally low within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, and lower in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor. 688. From the perspective of PHUs, the NPCA Corridor would require the least panther mitigation credits (7), followed by MDLPA No. 3 (76), West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 (207), MDPLA No. 1 (288), and FPL West Preferred Corridor (374). While PHUs are one metric for comparing potential habitat impacts, there is no material difference in any of the western corridors from a Florida panther perspective. Florida panthers are not adversely affected by, and may even benefit from, the presence of transmission lines. 689. There is no material difference among the western corridors with respect to potential impacts to American crocodiles or Eastern indigo snakes or their habitats. 690. The presence of the Everglades National Park was considered in the comparison of the alternate corridors and in the selection of the FPL West Preferred Corridor because it potentially harbors more listed wildlife species and is the subject of various government-funded restoration projects. 236 691. From a wildlife habitat standpoint, the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are about equivalent, with West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor ranked as somewhat more desirable. However, in all of the western corridors proper for certification, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species, including listed species, is low, given the pre-clearing listed species surveys and construction methods to be employed that serve to avoid and minimize impacts, as discussed above. FPL's wildlife experts do not see a significant difference in impact between the corridors from a wildlife perspective, and FWC recommends the identical wildlife conditions of certification for all western transmission line corridors. 692. In the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, the potential for adverse impacts to any wildlife species is low. In any of the other proposed western alternate transmission line corridors, that potential is lower. Land Use Comparison 693. The proposed western transmission lines in any of the western corridors will be compatible with adjacent land uses and consistent with the communities' priorities and preferences as reflected in the comprehensive plans and land development regulations. However, it is desirable from a land use perspective to be further from residential and urban land uses. 237 694. FPL balanced proximity to both existing and planned urban development/adjacent land use considerations, engineering considerations, and environmental considerations/effect on environmentally sensitive areas in comparing the western transmission line corridors and attempted to achieve the best balance of all of those considerations in selecting its preferred corridors. The presence of the Everglades National Park was one factor in the analysis. In contrast, NPCA and the County reviewed and considered primarily environmental impacts in proposing and comparing the various western corridors or assessing corridor impacts. 695. FPL assessed the visibility of the proposed transmission line structures from various vantage points. NPCA did no comparative visual impact analysis, including no assessment of visual impacts to Everglades National Park visitors. The County assessed only whether the proposed lines would be visible from Management Area 1, also known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area. 696. The west transmission line structures placed in any of the western corridors proper for certification would not be visible to visitors at the Everglades National Park Shark Valley Visitor's Center Observation Tower, which is approximately 16.7 miles west of the L-31N levee. At an airboat vantage point within Everglades National Park approximately 3.44 miles west of 238 the L-31N levee, existing structures in the area, such as the Miccosukee Indian Casino and numerous radio and cell towers, are visible, but the proposed transmission lines in the closest corridor proper for certification (the FPL West Preferred Corridor) would be barely visible on the horizon. 697. Transmission lines are not uncommon in rural areas. The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed western transmission lines in the west alternate corridors will not cause significant adverse effects to scenic or recreational values. 698. In the West Divergence Area, the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the farthest away from any urban or residential areas, minimizing potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses. The greater the distance a residence is from a transmission line, the likelihood of the visibility of that transmission line is reduced. Along the L-31N levee/Land Exchange area, there are three buildings within 500 feet of the FPL West Preferred Corridor centerline, one of which is residential. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is predominantly within existing ROWs or runs along existing linear features and would require crossing 49 individual parcels or lots throughout its length. 699. Regarding the number of buildings within 500 feet of the corridor centerline for the various corridor alignments, the 239 MDLPA No. 1 centerline has three buildings, one of which is residential; the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 centerline and the MDLPA No. 3 centerline each have nine buildings, two and four of which are residential, respectively; the NPCA Corridor recommended centerline has five buildings, all of which are residential; and the NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline has seven buildings, six of which are residential. The two NPCA Corridor centerline route alignments considered by FPL are close to urban areas. MDPLA No. 1 centerline would require FPL to cross 45 separate parcels, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 centerline would require crossing of 63 parcels, although some of these private parcels are owned by mining companies who may be amenable to land donations if the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 is certified. MDLPA No. 3 centerline, the NPCA Corridor recommended centerline, and the NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline would require the crossing of 96, 108, and 104 individual parcels, respectively. The higher the number of parcels to be crossed, the higher the acquisition costs will be. 700. In considering the number of buildings in proximity and the number of parcels crossed, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, FPL West Preferred Corridor, and MDLPA No. 1 rank equally. MDLPA No. 3 and both of the NPCA Corridor centerline alignments ranked as the least desirable when considering these two land use factors. 240 701. MDLPA No. 1, like the FPL West Preferred Corridor, follows along existing levees for a good portion of its length (11.1 miles); West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3 follow 8.3 and 4.8 miles of linear features, respectively, while the two NPCA Corridor route alignments would follow 7.1 or 5.9 miles of such features, respectively. The ability to collocate with existing linear features is important from a land planning perspective, as linear features serve as a seam between land uses and avoid or minimize potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, in addition to minimizing impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. There is also an efficiency to be gained by collocating in an existing utility ROW in terms of maintenance. 702. Accordingly, MDLPA No. 1 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor rank as the "most desirable" in terms of the ability to co-locate the new transmission lines with existing linear features in the landscape and thereby minimize potential adverse land use impacts. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 Corridor and the remainder of the proposed western transmission line alternate corridors ranked as less desirable for this aspect, although in no case would the transmission lines change the land uses within the corridor. 703. FPL's multidisciplinary team expressly considered whether and how much of a corridor was located in conservation 241 lands, and in particular, the Everglades National Park. The FPL West Preferred Corridor does not traverse the wetlands comprising the Bird Drive Basin or the North Trail Basin. In contrast, the other western transmission line alternate corridors impact either Bird Drive Basin or North Trail Basin wetlands, with MDLPA No. 1 impacting 0.11 acres, West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 impacting 2.27 acres, and MDLPA No. 3 and the two NPCA Corridor alignments impacting between 4.81 and 5.92 acres of wetlands, respectively, in these basins. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, MDLPA No. 3, and NPCA Corridor avoid most or all of the Pennsuco Wetlands. None of the corridors traverse the Everglades National Park. 704. The FPL West Preferred Corridor is located primarily along the L-31N levee, which represents a seam between conservation uses of the Everglades National Park and more developed land uses to the east. Around 4.8 miles will be located in conservation lands. MDLPA No. 1 also has 4.8 miles in conservation lands, and MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor alignments range between 3.8 and 4.1 miles in such lands. In contrast, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 has only 2.8 miles of its length in conservation lands. 705. The Land Exchange would give FPL fee simple or easement rights over a contiguous ROW within the West Preferred Corridor as well as portions of MDLPA No. 1 and West Consensus 242 Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. Those rights are contingent on the Land Exchange occurring. This would leave no ROW to be acquired over government-owned parcels in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. If the Land Exchange occurs, MDLPA No. 1 would cross six government-owned parcels, while the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3 cross 27 and 49 government-owned parcels, respectively. The NPCA Corridor proposed alignment would cross 74 governmental parcels; the adjusted centerline alignment drawn by FPL in the NPCA Corridor would only cross 47 such parcels. Thus, the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the most desirable from this standpoint. MDLPA No. 1 is slightly less desirable, and the remaining western transmission line alternate corridors, which require substantially more government land crossings, are the least desirable since it is often significantly more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to acquire ROWs across government-owned parcels, and FPL may not have eminent domain authority to acquire those parcels if the agencies are not willing sellers. 706. Land uses within the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1 are canals and embankments and rock mining, the most desirable uses from a land use perspective. Land uses within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are rock mining and lands with regulatory overlays, somewhat less desirable due to the regulatory overlays. Lands within MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA 243 Corridor are residential, agriculture, wellheads, and lands with regulatory overlays, which are less desirable land uses than those within the other three corridors. 707. The FPL West Preferred Corridor, MDLPA No. 1, and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 do not encroach on the UEA and are furthest from the UDB; thus, they are all equally the least likely of the western corridors to interfere with residential land uses. They run predominantly along seams between less developed, conservation lands to the west and transitional uses and more urban development to the east. They therefore avoid conflicts with more dense urban development. 708. MDLPA No. 3 and both NPCA Corridor alignments encroach on the UEA and are closest to the UDB. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor also cross the property of Limonar, a property owner with plans for future development that is opposed to the placement of transmission lines on its property. Also, placing a corridor over the UEA property would reduce the size of the UEA which has been identified by the CDMP that is available for urban development. 709. The mining companies prefer the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. It has the least interference with their uses and mining. It is on property where there is a lot of industrial activity associated with active rock mining, a heavy industry. In contrast, the mining companies are unsure of the 244 effect of MDLPA No. 3 on their ability to mine the eastern part of their property. There is a potential with the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 that the mining companies may be willing to donate their property for the transmission line ROW, thus offsetting the added cost of ROW acquisition in this corridor. However, the mining companies are not willing to do so for MDLPA No. 3. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is wide enough to provide flexibility in siting the proposed transmission lines so that both the 500-kV and 230-kV lines could potentially be located on mining property land in significant portions of that corridor. However, there are some features such as the rock processing plant and shipping area near the quarry that could limit or preclude siting of the proposed transmission lines, requiring the lines to be placed in other portions of the corridor in this area. MDLPA's goal for MDLPA No. 1 was simply to minimize potential impacts to the Pennsuco Wetlands; for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and MDLPA No. 3, the goal was both to minimize impacts on Everglades National Park and on Pennsuco Wetlands. The benefits of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 include avoiding a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands and completely removing the proposed transmission lines from Water Conservation Area 3B. This 245 corridor is also further removed from known wood stork colonies along and north of Tamiami Trail, and is farther east of potential Everglade snail kite foraging habitat within the Everglades National Park. Although the western transmission lines would not interfere with surface flows in any of the corridors, MDLPA believes use of the West Consensus Corridor/ MDLPA No. 2 would be less likely to interfere with any attempts to restore flow inside the eastern part of Everglades National Park and also removes any potential future conflict inside Water Conservation Area 3B, if any. Engineering Comparisons i. Traffic There is no material difference with regard to traffic impacts between any of the western corridors proper for certification. There is minimal to no risk of conflict with traffic or with future roadway expansion or road widening projects in the FPL West Preferred Corridor or MDLPA No. 1. The remaining western corridors present some risk of potential conflict with the proposed expansions of Krome Avenue near Kendall Drive and the State Road 836 Southwest Extension, but it is recognized that conflicts with these projects are highly speculative at this stage. 246 Construction and Maintenance Access In the West Divergence Area, while all of the western corridors provide reasonable access for construction and maintenance, access along the FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 may be limited to one-way traffic. ROW Acquisition For the West Preferred Corridor, FPL has executed agreements in place from all of the landowners involved in the Land Exchange area for conveyance of land clear of encumbrances. Already authorized by Congress, significant investment and commitment has been made to this exchange. It would also encompass portions of the West Consensus Corridor/MDPLA No. 2, MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor. From an engineering/constructability standpoint, the difficulty or ease in acquiring the necessary property interest in the land underlying the corridors is a significant consideration. Following implementation of the Land Exchange, the FPL West Preferred Corridor would be highly desirable from a property acquisition standpoint, as FPL would own all of the necessary property interests for placement of the western transmission lines in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. The remaining corridors are less desirable from this perspective, as FPL would need to acquire permanent easements over numerous 247 government parcels within any of the alternate corridors. Since FPL does not have eminent domain authority over all government lands, its ability to acquire the necessary easements over government parcels is uncertain. Additionally, consistent with past practice, FPL would seek a ROW over lands owned by the SFWMD, which would lessen this concern for the other western transmission line alternate corridors, and in particular, MDLPA No. 1 and the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2, both of which also incorporate the L-31N and L-30 levees. If the Land Exchange is timely implemented, no further ROW acquisition will be required for the West Preferred Corridor. A small portion of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 will also use properties obtained through the Land Exchange. Between the point where the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 turns east from the SFWMD L-31N ROW and the point where it converges with the FPL West Preferred Corridor west of the Levee substation, FPL will need to establish a new ROW for the western transmission lines. Some of the government parcels in the area where the western alternate corridors diverge from the FPL West Preferred Corridor were purchased with federal funds or other grants that limit the uses of the property. These encumbrances may be overcome if FPL purchases substitute land for the encumbered parcels. But removal of the encumbrances held by federal 248 agencies would require action or review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It is not known how much time or cost would be required to clear these encumbrances. These uncertainties are the reason FPL is seeking certification of the FPL West Preferred Corridor as a back-up to the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2. d. Cost Comparisons The FPL West Preferred Corridor would cost approximately $229.4 million to construct. MDLPA No. 1 would cost approximately $282.5 million, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 would cost around $273.2 million. The NPCA Corridor adjusted centerline alignment would cost approximately $262.15 million. MDLPA No. 3 and the NPCA Corridor centerline would cost approximately $298.25 million and $313.7 million, respectively. Conflicting testimony was presented on the cost of the NPCA Corridor ROW. Testimony by NPCA indicated that a transmission line ROW could be acquired within its alternate corridor for approximately $23.3 million. However, the methodology used to prepare this estimate has not been credited. FPL submitted an appraisal consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that showed the cost for FPL to acquire a transmission line ROW in the NPCA Corridor would be approximately $84 million. This estimate includes the cost of 249 the property, any damages to remainder parcels (severance damages), title work, survey work, legal fees, and appraisal fees, but does not include the cost to acquire and substitute lands for parcels within the transmission line ROW with federal encumbrances. Determination of the costs associated with exchanging substitute lands to clear encumbrances on government- owned parcels is not possible until a final ROW for the western transmission lines is identified and negotiations completed on the substitute lands to be accepted. Summary: Least Adverse Impacts, Including Cost Given these considerations, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 has the least adverse impact, including costs, only if a ROW within that corridor can be acquired in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. If a ROW within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost, then the FPL West Preferred Corridor has the least adverse impact, including costs. While the FPL West Preferred Corridor is the least expensive and preferable from a land use perspective, including being farthest from urban uses that might potentially conflict with the transmission line, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is subject to an agreement limiting acquisition costs to no more than ten percent above the total projected costs of the FPL West Preferred Corridor, rendering the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA 250 No. 2 the second least expensive. In addition, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is sufficiently wide to allow flexibility to site the ROW within the Corridor in a manner to minimize conflicts. Neither the FPL West Preferred Corridor nor West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 encroaches on land designated as UEA. The FPL West Preferred Corridor includes a central crossing of the Pennsuco Wetlands, while the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 avoids such a crossing. From a cost and adjacent land use standpoint, the West Preferred Corridor is somewhat preferable to the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and significantly preferable to the remaining western transmission line alternate corridors. From an environmental standpoint, the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is somewhat preferable to the FPL West Preferred Corridor and MDLPA No. 1, but less preferable than the NPCA Corridor. The West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 is fairly equivalent to MDLPA No. 1 from an adjacent land use standpoint, but has the added advantages of allowing the placement of transmission lines farther from Everglades National Park and is less expensive than MDLPA No. 1. Also, the West Consensus Corridor/MDPLA No. 2 is less expensive than MDLPA No. 3 or the NPCA Corridor, and is significantly preferable in terms of adjacent land uses and ROW acquisition to these western transmission line alternate corridors. The FPL West Preferred Corridor and West Consensus 251 Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 are roughly equivalent and both represent, on balance, the corridors with the least adverse impacts, considering the factors set forth in section 403.509(3), including costs. 722. Certification of the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 and the FPL West Preferred Corridor, as conditioned, serves the broad interests of the public by ensuring reliable electric service at a reasonable cost. Conditions of Certification Agreed Upon Conditions of Certification 723. In constructing, operating, and maintaining the Project, including the Plant and its associated non-transmission facilities and transmission lines, FPL has agreed to comply with the Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1 to this Recommended Order. 724. FPL has provided reasonable assurances that the Project, including the Plant and its associated non-transmission facilities and transmission lines, can be constructed in compliance with the agreed-upon Conditions of Certification in Attachment 1. 725. The Department has proposed and FPL has agreed that the conditions in Attachment 1 are appropriate or necessary. They are therefore authorized. 252 726. The only condition relative to the plant and non- transmission line portion of the Project remaining in dispute is addressed in the "Road Right-of-Way Dedications" section above. That condition is not authorized. Other transmission line conditions of certification proposed by local governments remaining in dispute are discussed below. Disputed Conditions of Certification – Transmission Lines Miami-Dade County 727. The County submitted its Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines associated with the Project to the Department's Siting Coordination Office, pursuant to sections 403.5064(4), 403.507(2), and 403.526(2). The Agency Report proposed 73 conditions of certification relating to the FPL transmission line corridors. 728. The County and FPL reached agreement on conditions to resolve the concerns in the Agency Report enumerated in General Conditions 1-5, 7-25, 27-29, and 32; East Conditions 1-17, 19, 20(b), 21, and 22; and West Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 5(c), 6-8, and 10-18 (with the exception of certain conditions to be applied in the West Corridor Divergence Area). The County and FPL have not reached agreement on proposed General Conditions 6, 26, 30, and 31; East Conditions 18 and 20; West Conditions 4, 5, and 9; the unnumbered conditions on page 59 of the Agency 253 Report; and the conditions to be applied in the West Corridor Divergence Area (General Conditions 14-23 and West Conditions 6- 8, 11-13, and 16-18). Those conditions remain in dispute between the two parties. 729. FPL will comply with the conditions included in Sections C.VII.A through C.VII.5 of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with the County. 730. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of the County's proposed conditions of certification, noting that section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4) require that agency recommendations for conditions of certification be limited to those within the proposing agency's jurisdiction and authorized by a specific statute, rule, or ordinance. All of the conditions that remain in dispute between FPL and the County were rejected by the Department in Appendix I to the PAR. 731. Proposed General Condition 6 relating to air quality is rejected because it is based on provisions of state regulations, the County's comprehensive plan, which is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and section 24- 7(6), MDC, establishing that the County Department of Environmental Resources Management has the authority to render assistance to persons operating equipment which may cause air pollution. The state regulations do not provide a proper basis 254 for a County condition and the comprehensive plan is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Further, FPL established that the proposed transmission lines will not cause air pollution if constructed in compliance with the conditions of certification in Attachment 1. Thus, General Condition 6 is rejected. 732. For the reasons cited previously, proposed General Condition 26 (ROW dedication) is rejected. 733. Proposed General Condition 30 seeks to require FPL to compensate the County for its review of the application. The bases for this condition are sections 403.511(4) and 403.531(4), which allow local governments to charge "appropriate fees." These provisions, however, relate to post-certification reviews, and not review of the application. Thus, proposed General Condition 30 is rejected. 734. Proposed General Condition 31 seeks to require FPL to work with the County and the SFRPC to provide electric vehicle charging stations at County parking lots and other locations. However, the County offered no evidence to support this condition. Thus, proposed General Condition 31 is rejected. 735. Proposed East Condition 18 relates to conditions based on the land use designations of certain areas. These conditions are based on comprehensive plan provisions that are 255 not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and are hereby rejected. 736. Proposed East Condition 20 relates to impacts within BNP. FPL is in the midst of federal government agency review of the Project, in which the United States Department of the Interior, representing BNP, is participating. Thus, any conditions regarding activities within BNP will be addressed in that federal process. The County cites only comprehensive plan provisions, which are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, as bases for this condition. Further, it provided no evidence to even suggest that the proposed transmission lines will create negative impacts within BNP. Thus, proposed East Condition 20 is rejected. 737. Proposed West Conditions 4, 5, and 9 propose to restrict transmission lines based on land use designations and are based entirely on the comprehensive plan. Because the comprehensive plan is not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, these three conditions are rejected. 738. On page 59 of the Agency Report are listed five conditions of certification proposing to preclude the location of transmission lines in certain areas, including most of the West Corridor Divergence Area, based on the East Everglades Area Zoning Overlay District found in chapter 33B, MDC. Those zoning provisions are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines 256 and are not a proper basis for these proposed conditions. Other agencies, including the Department, SFWMD, and FWC, have proposed conditions that will require FPL to avoid and minimize impacts to the environmental resources in that area, and FPL has established that the transmission lines can be constructed, operated, and located to avoid and minimize impacts to the environmental resources in that area. Thus, these proposed conditions are rejected. Further, although the Department did not originally recommend the proposed conditions relating to wetlands protection and wildlife in its PAR, FPL is willing to accept those conditions in the West Corridor Divergence Area. These conditions are found in Attachment 1, §§ C.VII, I, J, and P. 739. The County has also proposed conditions for the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 that are similar to or the same as the conditions in the FPL West Preferred Corridor. Conditions 1 through 6 are based on the County zoning code and comprehensive plan, are not applicable to the proposed transmission lines, and are rejected. Further, FPL has established that the proposed transmission lines in the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 will not adversely impact the environmental resources in the West Corridor Divergence Area. Even so, FPL is willing to accept the County-proposed conditions relating to wetlands protection and wildlife in the West 257 Divergence Area. Those conditions have been included in Attachment 1. 740. Proposed Condition VII of County Exhibit 11, relating to alternate corridor access roads, tree islands, and Trail Glades Park, has been partially incorporated by the Department into the Conditions of Certification. FPL has agreed to comply with those conditions recognizing that "tree islands" are defined in section 24-5, MDC, as "a vegetative community located within freshwater wetlands whose dominant vegetation components consist of native hardwood trees and shrubs." Although the County proposed expanded versions of those conditions, those expanded versions are rejected because the County failed to present credible evidence to support those requirements. 741. Because PAC, MDLPA No. 1, MDLPA No. 3, and the NPCA Corridor are not recommended for certification, the County- proposed conditions for those corridors are rejected. 2. City of Miami 742. The City of Miami's Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposes conditions 5.1 through 5.15 to address its regulatory and other concerns related to the proposed transmission line. It also recommends denial of the proposed transmission line certification. 743. The City of Miami and FPL have reached an agreement on conditions to resolve the City's concerns set forth in 258 conditions 5.1, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 on the FPL Corridors, and conditions 5.1, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 on the Alternate Corridors. The stipulation acknowledged that the City of Miami's proposed conditions 5.2 (undergrounding), 5.4 (zoning), 5.5 (landscaping), 5.6 (EMF), and 5.10 (scenic transportation corridor) for the FPL East Preferred Corridor and 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 for the PAC remain in dispute between the two parties. FPL will comply with the conditions included in sections C.X.A. and C.X.C through C.X.G. of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with the City of Miami. 744. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of the City of Miami's proposed conditions because section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4) require that agency recommendations for conditions of certification be limited to those within the proposing agency's jurisdiction and authorized by a specific statute, rule, or ordinance. However, the Department included condition 5.10, as proposed by the City of Miami. 745. FPL will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of proposed condition 5.10 regarding the City of Miami's Scenic Transportation Corridor starting at Southwest 13th Street and continuing along Coral Way, as reflected in section C.X.B of Attachment 1. FPL also agrees that the 259 condition should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within the East Preferred Corridor. This scenic transportation corridor is not located within the PAC, and is not relevant for that corridor. 746. FPL will comply with the applicable non-procedural requirements of the City of Miami's ordinances to protect and minimize impacts to trees in the construction and placement of the transmission line, and to replace or mitigate for any damage to, or removal of trees in, the construction and placement of the transmission line. To address the City of Miami's concerns regarding trees in proposed condition 5.5, FPL agrees that the condition in section II.A of Attachment 2 should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within either of the east corridors proper for certification. 747. The City of Miami contends that FPL should exceed the applicable requirements of its ordinances to protect against tree impacts and/or replace trees damaged or removed as a result of the transmission line. However, such requirements are undefined, exceed the scope of the ordinances, and are rejected. See § 403.507(3)(c), Fla. Stat. 748. The City of Miami also proposed conditions 5.2 and 5.4 requiring underground construction of the transmission line in either of the east corridors. Those conditions are rejected 260 for the reasons previously discussed and in the Conclusions of Law. 749. The City of Miami proposed condition 5.6 regarding EMFs in both east corridors. However, it failed to offer into evidence this section of its two Agency Reports. The City's proposed condition is rejected because that topic is exclusively regulated by the Department; FPL has demonstrated that it will comply with the relevant, applicable Department standards; and the City of Miami presented no credible evidence to rebut that showing. 750. The City of Miami proposed condition 5.9 regarding historic resource preservation in both east corridors. On this issue, FPL established that it will comply with the applicable City of Miami non-procedural requirements through the conditions proposed in Attachment 2, section II.B. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. Accordingly, condition 5.9 is rejected, and the condition proposed in Attachment 2, section II.B. is accepted. 3. City of Coral Gables Coral Gables' Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposed conditions A-Q relating to the FPL East Preferred Corridor. Coral Gables and FPL have reached an agreement on conditions to resolve Coral Gables' concerns set forth in 261 conditions A.5, C.1, D, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, F, G, H.1, H.2, I., J.1, J.2, K, L, M.1, M.2, M.3, N, O, and P in the Agency Report. However, they have not reached agreement on proposed conditions A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, A.6, B, C.2, and Q. Those conditions remain in dispute between the two parties. FPL will comply with the conditions included in sections C.VIII.A. through C.VIII.P. of Attachment 1, which reflect the conditions stipulated with Coral Gables. The Department's PAR for the transmission line portion of the application did not include some of Coral Gables' proposed conditions because they fail to meet the requirements of section 403.507(3)(c) and rule 62-17.133(4). All of the conditions that remain in dispute between FPL and Coral Gables were rejected by the Department in Appendix I to the PAR. Proposed conditions A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 relate to aesthetic impacts of the proposed transmission line and are based on the zoning code and comprehensive plan. They are not applicable to the East Preferred Corridor and are rejected. Proposed condition A.6 seeks to require FPL to compensate Coral Gables for alleged "economic impacts" of the East Preferred Corridor. As discussed above, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the East Preferred Corridor will not cause negative economic impact to Coral Gables or properties within the City. Further, there is no ordinance 262 applicable to the proposed transmission lines that provides a basis for this condition. The proposed condition is rejected. 757. Proposed condition B seeks to require FPL to follow state laws regarding eminent domain in the acquisition of property rights for the proposed transmission line. However, FPL is already required to comply with state laws and regulations in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line, including in the acquisition of property rights. Further, Coral Gables cites no ordinance as a basis for this condition. Condition B is rejected. 758. Proposed condition C.2 seeks to require FPL to build the transmission line underground within the City, at FPL's expense. Coral Gables cites only its zoning code and comprehensive plan in support of the condition, which are not applicable to the proposed transmission line. For the reasons discussed above, this condition is rejected. 759. Finally, proposed condition Q, paragraphs 1 and 2, seek to require FPL to indemnify the City for any work done by FPL within the City. FPL is committed to comply with applicable ordinances requiring such indemnification and to comply with Condition C.VIII.P in Attachment 1 addressing this subject. Thus, no additional condition is required. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 3, seeks to require FPL to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations. FPL has committed to do so. 263 Thus, this condition is not required. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 4, seeks to require FPL to provide Coral Gables with any terms, benefits, or concessions or agreements provided to any other local government. Coral Gables has provided no applicable ordinance or other authority as a basis for this condition, and it is hereby rejected. Proposed condition Q, paragraph 5, adopts the recommendations and reports of the SFWMD, SFRPC, and the County. The issues of concern to those entities, as they relate to the FPL East Preferred Corridor, have been resolved to the satisfaction of those three agencies. Further, Coral Gables has identified no applicable non- procedural ordinance providing a regulatory basis for this condition. Accordingly, these proposed conditions are rejected. 4. Village of Pinecrest 760. Pinecrest's Agency Report on the proposed transmission lines proposed conditions A.1 through D.8 to address its regulatory and other concerns related to the proposed transmission line. It also recommended denial of the proposed transmission line certification. 761. The Department included proposed conditions C.3 (nuisances) and C.4 (emergency management) in the PAR. FPL will comply with those conditions, now found in section C.XII.A and C.XII.B of Attachment 1. 264 762. In addition, to address Pinecrest's concerns reflected in conditions A.2 (solid waste), A.3 (noise), B.1 (location of the transmission line within Pinecrest), B.3 (trees), D.2 (obstructions of visibility), D.5 (trees), D.6 (trees), and D.8 (ROW restoration), FPL agrees that the conditions in section III.A. through III.F. of Attachment 2 should be imposed on the construction of the transmission line within the East Preferred Corridor. FPL is willing to comply with these conditions and has demonstrated its ability to do so. 763. Proposed condition B.2 seeks to require that FPL coordinate with appropriate authorities to accommodate expansion plans for the Busway and Metrorail along U.S. Highway 1. FPL has coordinated with DOT, MDX, and Miami Dade Transit and reached agreement with those agencies on conditions of certification addressing future facilities. Thus, FPL has satisfied this requirement and there is no need for inclusion of the proposed condition in this Recommended Order. 764. For reasons previously stated, proposed condition C.1, which seeks to require FPL to construct the transmission line underground, is rejected. 765. Proposed conditions C.2 (pole placement information), D.1 (historical resources), D.3 (appearance of structures), D.4 (compliance with comprehensive plan), and D.7 (signs) seek to require FPL to comply with chapter 30 of Pinecrest's LDRs and 265 its comprehensive plan. These conditions are rejected for the reasons previously found. 5. Cities of Doral and South Miami 766. Doral and South Miami also proposed conditions of certification beyond those included by the Department in Attachment 1. However, these cities provided no evidence or legal argument to support these conditions, and they are rejected. Public Testimony and Comments 767. Six sessions on four separate days were held to allow members of the public to testify or offer comments on the Project. In addition, a number of written comments or letters were submitted by mail. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the Project. 768. Members of the public who testified in favor of the Project commented on the economic benefits of the Project and specifically focused on the potential for job creation. Many members of the public also commented that they believe nuclear power is safe and clean and that this Project will allow South Florida to sustainably meet its future energy needs. Several members of the public testified that FPL is a good corporate citizen and environmental steward. 769. The individuals who testified in opposition to the Project raised a wide range of concerns, such as economic 266 impacts, property values, health-related and aesthetic impacts of the proposed transmission lines, as well as safety and environmental impacts of various features of the Project. 770. Some members of the public expressed concerns that the Project is not needed and should be deferred in favor of other energy alternatives. Several individuals testified that they believe the PSC's determination of need is out of date and should be reconsidered. A few members of the public testified that they are concerned that the power to be generated by the new nuclear units is actually intended for other areas of Florida. As to these concerns, the PSC has made its determination that the Project is needed to meet the needs of FPL's customers, based in part on the PSC's consideration of renewable and other energy resources. The PSC's need determination remains in legal effect. The PSC annually reviews the Project's costs. 771. Several members of the public expressed concerns related to radiological safety of the nuclear units. However, issues related to radiological safety are exclusively considered by the NRC and are beyond the scope of this proceeding. 772. Some members of the public expressed concerns about the safety of new nuclear units at the Turkey Point location in the event of a natural disaster, questioning sea level rise projections and storm surge and high winds during hurricanes. 267 Another member of the public testified regarding concerns related to the use of deep well injection. FPL considered reasonable sea level rise and storm surge projections in the design of the proposed nuclear units. Regarding the deep well injection, the evidence reflects that the Boulder Zone, which will receive the injection of Project wastewaters can adequately confine the planned volumes of wastewater. Underground injection has been extensively used in Florida. 773. Some members of the public testified that they are concerned about impacts to the Biscayne Aquifer, specifically expressing concerns about saltwater intrusion and other contaminants entering the water supply. A few members questioned how well isolated the proposed radial collector well laterals below Biscayne Bay will be from the Biscayne Aquifer. Others expressed concerns about conflicting water uses potentially increasing water costs. One individual testified that he believed that the APT was not adequate. FPL conducted an appropriate APT, in accordance with accepted professional procedures, at the site of the proposed radial collector wells as part of the extensive groundwater modeling of those wells. That modeling and other evaluations demonstrated that the operation of the radial collector wells would not cause saltwater intrusion or cause contamination or other adverse impacts to groundwater or drinking water sources. Under the 268 conditions of certification and an agreement with the County, FPL will use reclaimed water from the County as the primary source of cooling water and will use the radial collector wells only when reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quantity or quality. FPL's use of reclaimed water is a beneficial and cost-effective means of maximizing the use of reclaimed water and helps the County meet its reclaimed water compliance requirements. 774. A few members of the public are concerned about potential negative environmental impacts to Biscayne Bay. The evidence shows that the Project will not have negative effects on Biscayne Bay. Construction in upland areas near the Bay for the radial collector wells and the barge unloading area will utilize measures to prevent adverse impacts from runoff that might reach the Bay. The radial collector well laterals will be drilled beneath the Bay without any dredging in the Bay itself. Operation of the radial collector wells will not adversely affect the water quality including salinity, or the ecological resources including fisheries in the Bay, and the radial collector wells will be closely monitored to ensure there are no adverse impacts. 775. Members of the public testified both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed transmission lines. Several of the individuals who testified in opposition were only opposed to 269 the FPL East Preferred Corridor and supported the Project if the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest is certified instead. Similarly, several individuals were only opposed to the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest and support the Project with certification of the FPL East Preferred Corridor. The FPL East Preferred Corridor is the corridor with the least adverse impacts, including costs, when considering and balancing the statutory criteria in section 403.509(3). 776. Several individuals testified about negative aesthetic impacts or blight that may be caused by the installation of transmission lines within their communities. Several also stated that they were concerned about negative impacts to quality of life. Specific aesthetic concerns included the height and diameter of the transmission line poles as well as the sway of the transmission lines. A few individuals were concerned about maintaining the historic aesthetic of Coral Gables. The greater weight of the evidence offered with respect to quality of life impacts from the transmission lines did not support these concerns as expressed by the public. Aesthetic and economic impacts have been addressed, and the height and diameter of the transmission line poles was established as customary for FPL. FPL complies with local tree ordinances, including tree replacement planting where 270 appropriate. Landscaping and trees can help to minimize any aesthetic impacts. The final transmission line alignment will take into account approved and proposed development to be constructed in the area. The testimony established that while transmission lines in urban settings may involve aesthetic impacts, those aesthetic impacts from placing transmission lines such as within any of the eastern corridors would be minimal, and the transmission lines would be just one of many urbanized vertical elements in the landscape. Any aesthetic impacts from the proposed transmission lines would be no different in kind from those normally experienced every day in settings like those proposed for the transmission lines. Additionally, FPL is not required to comply with zoning ordinances relating to aesthetics because they are not applicable non-procedural requirements with which FPL is required to demonstrate compliance in the siting of transmission lines. 777. A few members of the public testified that they are concerned that the tree canopy and other landscaping will be negatively affected by the proposed transmission lines. FPL will comply with numerous conditions regarding NFCs and tree pruning/maintenance that will avoid adverse impacts on tree canopy. Additionally, FPL restores the landscaping in the ROW following construction in compliance with applicable regulations. 271 Members of the public expressed concerns about negative economic impacts that may be caused by the installation of transmission lines within their communities, including potential reductions in property values and the potential for a negative impact on the economic development of the areas surrounding the proposed FPL East Preferred Corridor. While the evidence was conflicting on this point, the more persuasive evidence demonstrated that the economic effects on the property values of residential or commercial properties adjacent to the transmission lines would be nominal. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the proposed transmission lines and associated poles are not in compliance with local codes and ordinances. A few members of the public expressed concerns about "humming" noises caused by the transmission lines. The transmission lines meet all applicable non-procedural requirements, including noise standards. Local zoning codes and LDRs are not applicable non- procedural requirements with which a transmission line is required to comply. Nevertheless, FPL has agreed to conditions of certification that incorporate, to the extent practicable, the desires and concerns of the local governments through which the transmission lines pass. Several members of the public expressed concerns that the proposed transmission lines will have negative impacts on 272 multi-modal transportation uses within FPL's East Preferred Corridor. On this issue, the evidence established that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines in proximity to the Metrorail facility or the U.S. Highway 1 multi-modal corridor will not interfere with the operation of the Metrorail. Multi-modal uses will not be affected. A few members of the public expressed concerns about safety and health risks that they believe are associated with high-voltage transmission lines. The evidence established and the parties stipulated that the transmission lines will not have adverse effects on human health. In addition, the design and construction of the transmission line structures conforms to NESC requirements adopted by the PSC to protect public safety. No competent evidence was presented that proximity to transmission lines like the type proposed would cause adverse health effects. Also, there was no competent evidence of adverse health impacts associated with these lines. A few members of the public expressed concerns about interference that could be caused by the transmission lines, specifically referencing EMF and interference with radio communications. The evidence established that there will be no interference with radio or microwave communications. Some members of the public testified that they believe the proposed transmission lines should be or are 273 required to be placed underground. FPL is proposing underground construction only where an overhead design is not feasible; overhead design is feasible in all locations except when crossing the Miami River. 784. Several members of the public expressed concerns that some existing transmission lines are in poor condition and will never be improved if the FPL East Preferred Corridor is certified. The evidence established that FPL replaces inadequate or outdated transmission lines and poles on an as- needed basis; the certification of the East Preferred Corridor would not change this practice. 785. Several members of the public testified that they are concerned about allowing certification of transmission line corridors prior to the issuance of a license for the nuclear units by the NRC or a commitment to build the nuclear units by FPL. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the NRC proceeding need not be completed prior to the issuance of the site certification under the PPSA, including for the transmission lines. 786. Several members of the public expressed concerns about potential negative environmental and aesthetic impacts to Everglades National Park from the transmission lines. Several individuals were concerned about impacts to wading bird colonies. A few individuals expressed a concern about directing 274 freshwater away from the federal Everglades restoration program. A few other individuals expressed concerns about the proposed Land Exchange. FPL has minimized the impacts to the Everglades National Park by withdrawing its request to certify the West Secondary Corridor, which would have bisected the Everglades National Park. The evidence established that construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission lines will not be inconsistent with Everglades restoration. Issues related to the Land Exchange involving the western corridors will be addressed by the United States Department of Interior. The evidence established that the transmission lines in the western corridors would not have adverse impacts to wading bird colonies. 787. Finally, one member of the public testified that traffic during construction within FPL's East Preferred Corridor is a concern. The evidence established that traffic impacts between both the East Preferred Corridor and the alternate corridor proposed by Coral Gables and Pinecrest are comparable, and these impacts only occur during the short time frame of construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant final certification to Florida Power & Light Company under chapter 403 for the location, construction, and operation of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Project, representing a 2,200 MW nuclear generating facility, and including associated electrical transmission lines and other associated linear facilities, as described in the Site Certification Application and in the evidence presented at the certification hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification appended hereto. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board certify one of the corridors proper for certification for the eastern transmission lines and the western transmission lines. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board certify the following transmission line corridors pursuant to section 403.509: 326 East Preferred Corridor; West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2; and West Preferred Corridor as a back-up if an adequate right- of-way within the West Consensus Corridor/MDLPA No. 2 cannot be secured in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant Florida Power & Light Company a variance from section 24-43.1(6), MDC, to allow use of the on-site package sanitary treatment plant and other on-site cooling water and wastewater treatment and disposal in lieu of connecting the Project to a public sanitary sewer line for treatment and disposal of these waters by the County. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board direct the Board of Trustees to grant to Florida Power & Light Company three separate easements over state-owned lands, including: (1) submerged lands owned by the State of Florida located within Biscayne Bay for the installation of the laterals associated with a radial collector well system to supply back-up cooling water; (2) submerged lands owned by the State of Florida located within the Miami River for the installation of a subaqueous 230- kV electrical transmission line; and (3) an approximate four- acre parcel of state-owned uplands along the western certified 327 corridor to allow the construction of a 230-kV electrical transmission line. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D.R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 328 Toni L. Sturtevant, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Frederick L. Aschauer, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Michael S. Tammaro, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard, No. LAW/JB Juno Beach, Florida 33408-2657 Curtis Renner, Esquire Watson & Renner Suite 350 1400 16th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036-2227 Elizabeth M. Hernandez, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131-1700 William C. Garner, Esquire Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3008 Victoria Mendez, Esquire City Attorney 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Dennis A. Kerbel, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1930 329 Sara E. Fain, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Suite 246 1172 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33146-2918 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7721 Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. Federal Tower 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 921 Pompano Beach, Florida 33062-7520 Jason A. Totoiu, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Post Office Box 2693 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-2693 Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-7273 Patrick T. DiPietro, Esquire Patrick T. DiPietro Law LLC 8083 Northwest 66th Street Miami, Florida 33166-2729 Kerri L. Barsh, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4400 Miami, Florida 33131-2176 Ruth A. Holmes, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Ronald S. Lieberman, Esquire 10625 Southwest 100th Street Miami, Florida 33176-2732 330 Michael Rosenberg, President Kendall Federation of Homeowner Associations, Inc. 12900 Southwest 84th Street Miami, Florida 33183-4320 Anthony J. Pinzino, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Francine T. Steelman, Esquire Miami-Dade Expressway Authority 3790 Northwest 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142-6812 Craig E. Leen, Esquire City Attorney City of Coral Gables 405 Biltmore Way Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5717 Jennifer Brubaker Crawford, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Kimberly C. Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308-4311 Mitchell A. Bierman, Esquire Weiss, Serota, Helfman, Pastoriza, Cole & Boniske, P.L. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6045 331 Thomas F. Pepe, Esquire Pepe & Nemire, P.A. 1450 Madruga Avenue, Suite 202 Coral Gables, Florida 33146-3163 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-4236 Jeff P. H. Cazeau, Esquire Kleiner & Cazeau, P.L. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134-3061 Steven T. Williams, Esquire Monroe County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1026 Key West, Florida 33041-0226 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6545 Matthew J. Pearl, Esquire Weiss, Serota, Helfman, Pastoriza, Cole & Boniske, P.L. 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1949 Michelle M. Niemeyer, Esquire Archer Bay, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33130-1721
The Issue Whether the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Siting Board should approve (on appropriate conditions) or deny petitioners' application for a certificate authorizing construction and operation of the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, an electrical power plant?
Findings Of Fact As far as the evidence showed, petitioners never analyzed the costs of a natural gas facility as compared to those of a coal-fired facility. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, natural gas is not commercially available in the quantities necessary to fire the plant. If fueled by natural gas, instead of by coal as proposed, the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project would require 50 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, on a firm basis. Natural Gas Availability The Florida Gas Transmission system, a branch of which (the "Brooker lateral") serves People's Gas System, the only local distribution company in Jacksonville, (RT.60) has no transmission capacity not already fully allocated to existing users. Among Florida Gas Transmission Company's customers are other power plants, including some operated by Jacksonville Electric Authority. Florida has "roughly 6,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that is primarily gas fired . . . [and] another 5,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that uses natural gas as a secondary fuel." RT.62. It would take more than "the entire capacity of the Florida Gas Transmission system to move . . . the fuel required to generate . . . 6,000 megawatts." Id. Jacksonville Electric Authority buys natural gas on an interruptible basis, because it has been unable to obtain a commitment to a constant or "firm" supply. The Florida Gas Transmission Company has plans to expand its transmission capacity by 100 million cubic feet a day to a total of 925 million cubic feet a day in 1991 or early 1992. But allocation of the increase -- an issue in obtaining approval from the FERC -- has already been accomplished, and the expansion will make no firm capacity available to new users. Talk of another expansion has already begun, but so far the company has done little more than collect questionnaires (which suggest demand for double the existing service.) At one time, liquefied natural gas came from Algeria to Elba Island near Savannah, Georgia, by ship. A 20- inch pipeline connects the terminal with the Sonat system on the mainland. But no Sonat pipeline comes within some 150 miles of Jacksonville, and shipments of liquefied natural gas to Elba Island ceased with the decline of oil prices after the mid-l970s. At present, the Florida Gas Transmission Company has a monopoly in Jacksonville and peninsular Florida. But `a system. in southern Georgia "called Mobile Bay" (RT.77) has plans to extend a 12-inch pipeline from an existing line near Live Oak to Jacksonville. With respect to some or all of this planned capacity, "certain commitments have been made." RT.59. Under pressure, the proposed 12-inch pipeline could transmit over 40 million cubic feet of natural gas a day, but only if that much gas reached Live Oak, and "the South Georgia system is constrained during certain parts of the year," RT.59, as it is. From the fact that a pipeline is to be constructed to bring less natural gas to Jacksonville than would be required to fuel the Cedar Bay project it might be inferred that the project itself would justify construction of a pipeline. But the opinion of petitioners' expert, Mr. Van Meter that natural gas is not an available or reasonable fuel for the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (RT.65, 74, 79) -- and would not have been even if natural gas had been planned for earlier -- went unrebutted. Likewise unrebutted was the testimony of another of petitioners' experts that, from an economic standpoint, "Base load power plants['] most desirable fuels would be coal and nuclear." RT. 103. Construction Dewatering The applicants have modified their dewatering plan, and now propose new construction techniques for the railcar unloading facility; sequential installation of underground pipes; sequential excavation of pump pits; and an advanced effluent treatment system. (RT. 147, 149-52, 171-76, 178, 185-92; AES Ex. 4R) A cofferdam or groundwater barrier encircling the railcar unloading area would drastically reduce the amount of groundwater seeping into the excavation during construction. (RT. 173; AES Ex. 4R, 7R). Sheet piling is to be driven into perimeter trenches filled with bentonite cement. (RT. 174-75; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 8R). Using a jet grouting technique, a five- to ten-foot thick seal would be created underneath the planned excavation. (RT. 175-76; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 9R). Steel tie-back rods would strengthen the cofferdam, and a pump would move seepage to the surface from a sump designed to collect groundwater seeping through the cofferdam and up through the grout into the excavation. (RT. 176-77; AES Ex. 4R, 7R) The modified construction techniques now proposed would reduce maximum groundwater drawdown outside the cofferdam from approximately the 30 feet below grade originally contemplated to a currently anticipated level of approximately 5.5 feet below grade. (RT. 279; AES Ex. 10R). Excavations to install circulating water piping and to create pits to house runoff pumps would be scheduled to keep down the volume of dewatering effluent at any given time. (RT. 178-79, AES Ex. 4R) Installing a cofferdam, jetting in grauting, and sequencing construction, as now proposed, would reduce dewatering effluent flows from the 1000 to 2000 gallons per minute originally contemplated to no more than 200 gallons per minute. (RT. 180, 185; AES Ex. 4R, pp. 1 and 2) In another modification, the applicants now propose an advanced treatment system to improve the quality of (a diminished quantity of) dewatering effluent, prior to its introduction into Seminole Kraft's cooling water system. The proposed treatment system would employ as many as five treatment technologies, if needed, to ensure that cooling water system discharges to the St. Johns River containing dewatering effluent would meet Class III water quality standards. Equipment necessary to bring each technology to bear would be on site and available for use before dewatering began. (RT. 151, 185, 193, 196; AES Ex. 4R) Mixing dewatering effluent with lime would remove dissolved metals from solution. Then a clarifier would precipitate and separate solids. These first two stages of the treatment process now proposed comprise the whole of the treatment process originally proposed. (RT. 149-50, 185-68; AES Ex. 4R) Additional treatment, as needed, would include sand filtering, to eliminate the need for any turbidity mixing zone (RT. 151, 190, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); using a carbon filter to remove organic compounds (and some heavy metals), obviating the need for a phenol mixing zone (RT. 190-191, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); and, finally, selective ion exchange, to provide additional metals removal, if needed. (RT. 151, 191, 201-02; AES Ex. 4R) The applicants are to ascertain and report the quality of effluent as long as dewatering takes place. They must use a composite sampling method once a week for the first month. Thereafter they may use a single "grab" sample, but must continue assessing effluent quality once a week until dewatering ceases. The proposed monitoring program must be capable of detecting whether water quality standards are being met. (RT. 166, 195, 321-22; AES Ex. 4R). The applicants' modified dewatering plan is an environmental improvement over the previous plan and would ensure compliance with water quality standards. (RT. 193, 196, 261) DER has recommended and the applicants have agreed to accept modified Conditions III.A.12. (Construction dewatering), III.A.13 (Mixing Zones), and III.A.14. (Variances to Water Quality Standards). (RT. 152; AES Ex. SR as modified by the Joint Recommended Order filed November 1990). Based upon the applicants' modified dewatering plan, a reasonable allocation of water for construction dewatering is a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed .288 million gallons. Modified Condition V.D. is reasonable and the applicants accept its terms. (RT. 254, 294-295; SJRWMD Ex. IR) Water for Cooling Purposes The applicants now propose to use either reclaimed water or river water for cooling, to the extent practicable, in an effort to avoid using groundwater as the permanent, primary source of cooling water. September drought conditions caused record low readings for the Floridan aquifer at 23 monitoring wells in the northern part of the St. Johns River Water Management "District, including wells in Duval County." RT. 248. The original proposal called for withdrawing four million gallons of water a day from the Floridan aquifer for cooling, when power generation begins. Under the modified proposal, groundwater would still be used as makeup for the steam or power generation system, as service water, and for potable purposes, but (except in emergencies) not for cooling, assuming the applicants obtain the regulatory approval they would be obliged to seek. The applicants have agreed to accept modified Condition XXV (Use of Water for Cooling Purposes). (RT. 155-158, 204-208; AES Ex. 6R, 12R, 13R) Condition IV.C. has been modified to reflect the reduced withdrawal of groundwater that would be necessary if groundwater is not used for cooling. For the next seven years, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for non- cooling uses of no more than 530.7 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of no more than 1.45 million gallons represent amounts that are considered reasonably necessary and efficient. Unless the City of Jacksonville has agreed, on or before December 1, 1990, to supply reclaimed water for cooling, the applicants will redesign the cooling system so that river water can be used for cooling. Salt in the Broward and St. Johns rivers requires the use of highly corrosion-resistant materials for certain system components. Constructing these system components with such materials would enable the cooling system to use river water, reclaimed water from the City, or Seminole Kraft wastewater. (RT. 155-56, 159-60, 216-17; AES Ex. 6R). If river water is used, existing Seminole Kraft intake and discharge structures would be utilized. In order to reduce ill effects on aquatic organisms, the applicants would install screening and filter systems upstream of the pumps. Brackish river water must be changed or "cycled" more often than groundwater, lest evaporation cause scaling that would clog the system. The volume of river water required for cooling tower makeup is estimated at approximately 14 million gallons per day. Because cooling with river water would require more water, the applicants propose to increase piping and valve sizes for the cooling system. (RT. 155-57, 168, 215-16, 219-20; AES Ex. 6R) Modified Condition XXV specifies a procedure for amending site certification to require use of one of two primary cooling water sources: reclaimed water from the City or surface water from the Broward or St. Johns rivers. The applicants have agreed to apply within six months for modifications concerning design and operation of the plant cooling system. The application must contain information necessary to demonstrate that operation of the cooling system without using groundwater as the primary cooling water source would comply with all relevant non-procedural agency standards or qualify for a variance. The application must also detail the reasons for selection of one requested source over other possible sources. There would be no delegation to DER's Secretary for determinations under Condition XXV. Final authority to render determinations under Condition XXV would remain with the Siting Board. (RT. 207, 269; SJRWMD Ex. 2R) As drafted by the parties, modified proposed Condition xxv provides that groundwater may be utilized for cooling only in the event that neither river water nor reclaimed water from the City of Jacksonville obtains necessary environmental approvals of the preferred primary cooling sources are denied on the grounds of unavailability, or environmental or economic impracticability, as set forth in the condition. (RT. 207, 228-30; AES Ex. 12R) The applicants modified cooling system plans and modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties, are designed to ensure that the cooling system will use either river water or reclaimed water, to the extent it is economically and environmentally practicable. Use of either of these sources for this proposed cooling facility is viewed by the SJRWMD as equally appropriate to fulfill its conservation and reuse standards and the state water policy, which require consumptive users to utilize, to the extent practicable, the lowest quality water suitable for the proposed use. (RT. 242-43, 299-300) The applicants have stipulated that it is economically feasible and practicable for them to pay $.18-1/2 per thousand gallons for reclaimed water without phosphorous treatment or $.22 per thousand gallons for treated reclaimed water, unless expenditures have already been made to construct the cooling system to utilize river water. They also stipulated that the river water cooling option is economically feasible and practicable, if the facility is authorized to operate with the same type of cooling tower discharge operation variances granted to the St. Johns River Power Park. (RT. 206, 218, 245, 295j AES Ex. 12R) The St. Johns River Power Park, a power plant in Duval County which was certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, utilizes river water for cooling tower makeup and discharges its cooling tower blowdown into the St. Johns River. When river water is used for cooling, evaporation increases concentrations of pollutants already in the river. The St. Johns River Power Park's certification conditions include variances from Class III water quality standards which allow the facility to operate its cooling system with river water. These variances have been granted for two-year periods, with the permittee being required to obtain variance renewals every two years in order to continue operation of the cooling system. (RT. 206, 218-19, 288-89). Salt drift as well as concentrations of pollutants in the blowdown are being assessed. RT. 284. Use of Seminole Kraft's current wastewater is not mentioned in modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties. By the time the Cedar Bay cogeneration facility needs cooling water, the Seminole Kraft plant may have become a cardboard recycling facility, which would discharge a different and potentially more useful wastewater than is currently being discharged by Seminole Kraft. The precise quality of any such future effluent cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty at this time. (RT. 222-23, 238-43) But the applicants should "evaluate the practicability under [SJRWMD] rules of utilizing Seminole Kraft wastewater . . . [using] the best information . . . available," (RT. 243) during the post- certification proceeding new Condition XXV calls for, at least if reclaimed water is unavailable from the City of Jacksonville. If a primary source of cooling water other than groundwater proves unavailable or environmentally or economically impractical, as set out in modified Condition XXV, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for all facility uses not to exceed 1,990 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed seven million gallons are reasonable for a period of seven years. (RT. 211,12, 296-97; AES Ex. 14R) In the event groundwater became the primary cooling source, proposed Condition xxv would require the applicants to implement their groundwater mitigation plan. (RT. 207, 229-30; AES Ex. 12R). Under this plan, the applicants would fund a free- flowing well inventory in Duval County. Additionally, they would provide a contribution of $380,000 per year for plugging free- flowing wells to reduce discharges from these wells by seven million gallons a day, if discharges of such magnitude are found. Thereafter, the applicants' annual contributions, which are to continue as long as groundwater is used for cooling, would fund a water conservation and reuse grants program in Duval County. The plan represents not only a water conservation measure but also serves as an economic incentive to the applicants to pursue necessary approvals for use of another primary cooling water source. Overall Evaluation Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. testified without contradiction that the project as now proposed "would produce minimal adverse effects on human health . . . the environment the ecology of the land and its wildlife . . . [and] the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life." RT.277. He also testified that the applicants' proposal would comply "with relevant agency standards." (RT.273) (although the evidence showed variances would be needed for cooling tower blowdown, at least if reclaimed water is not used.) Mr. Oven explained that he used permitting agencies' "criteria as a measuring stick to show compliance and to try to produce the minimal adverse impacts as allowed by regulatory policy." RT.274. Like Mr. Oven, Stephen Smallwood, Director of DER's Division of Air Resources Management interprets "minimal" as used in the Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act to mean "minimal with respect to the standards of the agencies." DER's Exhibit No. 2R, P. 11. Otherwise, he explained, "[Y]ou'd have to perhaps conclude . . . that you couldn't license any coal-fired units [. T]hey'd either all have to be natural-gas fired or . . . nuclear or . . . solar." Id. DER staff concluded that the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for the project and the environmental impacts associated with the project. On this basis, DER recommended that the project be certified subject to recommended conditions of certification.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Siting Board grant the site certification application filed by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corporation, as amended, subject to the agreed conditions of certification attached to the recommended order as an appendix, and on condition that the facility use reclaimed wastewater as cooling tower make-up within seven years of beginning operation. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION When a condition is intended to refer to both AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project or the abbreviation "CBCP" or the term "permittees" will be used. Where a condition applies only to AES Cedar Bay, Inc. the term "AES Cedar Bay, Inc." or the abbreviation "AESCB" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that AESCB is the intended responsible party, will be used. Similarly, where a condition applies only to Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Seminole Kraft Corp." or the abbreviation "SK" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that SK is the intended responsible party, will be used. The Department of Environmental Regulation may be referred to as DER or the Department. BESD represents the City of Jacksonville, Bio-Environmental Services Division. SJRWMD represents the St. Johns River Water Management District. GENERAL The construction and operation of CBCP shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of at least the following regulations of the Department Chapters 17-2, 17-3, 17-4, 17-5, 17-6, 17-7, 17-12, 17-21, 17-22, 17-25 and 17-610, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) or their successors as they are renumbered. AIR The construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, F.A.C. In addition to the foregoing, AESCB shall comply with the following condition of certification as indicated. Emission Limitations for AES Boilers Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB) The maximum coal charging rate of each CFB shall neither exceed 104,000 lbs/hr, 39,000 tons per month (30 consecutive days, nor 390,000 tons per year (TPY). This reflects a combined total of 312,000 lbs/hr, 117,000 tons per month, and 1,170,000 TPY for all three CFBs. The maximum wood waste (primarily bark) charging rate to the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs each shall neither exceed 15,653 lbs/hr, nor 63,760 TPY. This reflects a combined total of 31,306 lbs/hr, and 127,521 TPY for the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs. The No. 3 CFB will not utilize woodwaste, nor will it be equipped with wood waste handling and firing equipment. The maximum heat input to each CFB shall not exceed 1063 MMBtu/hr. This reflects a combined total of 3189 MMBtu/hr for all three units. The sulfur content of the coal shall not exceed 1.7% by weight on an annual basis. The sulfur content shall not exceed 3.3% by weight on a shipment (train load) basis. Auxiliary fuel burners shall be fueled only with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil or natural gas shall be used only for startups. The maximum annual oil usage shall not exceed 160,000 gals/year, nor shall the maximum annual natural gas usage exceed 22.4 MMCF per year. The maximum heat input from the fuel oil or gas shall not exceed 1120 MMBtu/hr for the CFBs. The CFBs shall be fueled only with the fuels permitted in Conditions 1a., 1b and 1e above. Other fuels or wastes shall not be burned without prior specific written approval of the Secretary of DER pursuant to condition XXI, Modification of Conditions. The CFBs may operate continuously, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. Coal Fired Boiler Controls The emissions from each CFB shall be controlled using the following systems: Limestone injection, for control of sulfur dioxide. Baghouse, for control of particulate. Flue gas emissions from each CFB shall not exceed the following: Pollutant lbs/MMBtu Emission lbs/hr Limitations TPY TPY for 3 CFBs CO 0.19 202 823 2468 NOx 0.29 308.3 1256 3767 SO2 0.60(3-hr avg.) 637.8 -- -- 0.31(12 MRA) 329.5 1338 4015 VOC 0.016 17.0 69 208 PM 0.020 21.3 87 260 PM10 0.020 21.3 86 257 H2SO4mist 0.024 25.5 103 308 Fluorides 0.086 91.4 374 1122 Lead 0.007 7.4 30 91 Mercury 0.00026 0.276 1.13 3.4 Beryllium 0.00011 0.117 0.5 1.5 Note: TPY represents a 93% capacity factor. MRA refers to a twelve month rolling average. Visible emissions (VE) shall not exceed 20% capacity (6 min. average), except for one 6 minute period per hour when VE shall not exceed 27% capacity. Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by EPA reference method tests included in the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 and listed in Condition No. 7 of this permit or be equivalent methods after prior DER approval. The CFBs are subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da; except that where requirements within this certification are more restrictive, the requirements of this certification shall apply. Compliance Tests for each CFB Initial compliance tests for PM/PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, lead, fluorides, mercury, beryllium and H2SO4 mist shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f). Annual compliance tests shall be performed for PM. SO2, NOx, commencing no later than 12 months from the initial test. Initial and annual visible emissions compliance tests shall be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(b) and (e). The compliance tests shall be conducted between 90-100% of the maximum licensed capacity and firing rate of each permitted fuel. The following test methods and procedures of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 or other DER approved methods with prior DER approval shall be used for compliance testing: Method 1 for selection of sample site and sample traverses. Method 2 for determining stack gas flow rate. Method 3 or 3A for gas analysis for calculation of percent O2 and CO2. Method 4 for determining stack gas moisture content to convert the flow rate from actual standard cubic feet to dry standard cubic feet. Method 5 or Method 17 for particulate matter. Method 6, 6C, or 8 for SO2. Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, or 7E for nitrogen oxides. Method 8 for sulfuric acid mist. Method 9 for visible emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11. Method 10 for CO. Method 12 for lead. Method 13B for fluorides. Method 25A for VOCs. Method 101A for mercury. Method 104 for beryllium. Continuous Emission Monitoring for each CFB AESCB shall use Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMS) to determine compliance. CEMS for opacity, SO2, NOx, CO, and O2 or CO2, shall be installed, calibrated, maintained and operated for each unit, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a and 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. Each continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall meet performance specifications of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B. CEMS data shall be recorded and reported in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60. A record shall be kept for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. A malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions. The procedures under 40 CFR 60.13 shall be followed for installation, evaluation and operation of all CEMS Opacity monitoring system data shall be reduced to 6-minute averages, based on 36 or more data points, and gaseous CEMS data shall be reduced to 1-hour averages, based on 4 or more data points, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h). For purposes of reports required under this certification, excess emissions are defined as any calculated average emission concentration, as determined pursuant to Condition No. 10 herein, which exceeds the applicable emission limit in Condition No. 3. Operations Monitoring for each CFB Devices shall be installed to continuously monitor and record steam production, and flue gas temperature at the exit of the control equipment. The furnace heat load shall be maintained between 70% and 100% of the design rated capacity during normal operations. The coal, bark, natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil usage shall be recorded on a 24-hr (daily) basis for each CFB. Reporting for each CFB A minimum of thirty (30) days prior notification of compliance test shall be given to DER's N.E. District office and to the BESD (Bio-Environmental Services Division) office, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The results of compliance test shall be submitted to the BESD office within 45 days after completion of the test. The owner or operator shall submit excess emission reports to BESD, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The report shall include the following: The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and the date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions (60.7(c)(1)). Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the furnace boiler system. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known) and the corrective action taken or preventive measured adopted (60.7(c)(2)). The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks, and the nature of the system repairs of adjustments (60.7(c)(3)). When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report (60.7(c)(4)). The owner or operator shall maintain a file of all measurements, including continuous monitoring systems performance evaluations; monitoring systems or monitoring device calibration; checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required by this permit recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection (60.7(d)). Annual and quarterly reports shall be submitted to BESD as per F.A.C. Rule 17-2.700(7). Any change in the method of operation, fuels utilized, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation. AES - Material Handling and Treatment The material handling and treatment operations may be continuous, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. The material handling/usage rates shall not exceed the following: Handling/Usage Rate Material TPM TPY Coal 117,000 1,170,000 Limestone 27,000 320,000 Fly Ash 28,000 336,000 Bed Ash 8,000 88,000 Note: TPM is tons per month based on 30 consecutive days, TPY is tons per year. The VOC emissions from the maximum No. 2 fuel oil utilization rate of 240 gals/hr, 2,100,000 gals/year for the limestone dryers; and 8000 gals/hr, 160,000 gals/year for the three boilers are not expected to be significant. The maximum emissions from the material handling and treatment area, where baghouses are used as controls for specific sources, shall not exceed those listed below (based on AP-42 factors): Particulate Emissions Source lbs/hr TPY Coal Rail Unloading Coal Belt Feeder neg neg neg neg Coal Crusher 0.41 1.78 Coal Belt Transfer neg neg Coal Silo neg neg Limestone Crusher 0.06 0.28 Limestone Hopper 0.01 0.03 Fly Ash Bin 0.02 0.10 Bed Ash Hopper 0.06 0.25 Ash Silo 0.06 0.25 Common Feed Hopper 0.03 0.13 Ash Unloader 0.01 0.06 The emissions from the above listed sources and the limestone dryers are subject to the particulate emission limitation requirement of 0.03 gr/dscf. However, neither DER nor BESD will require particulate tests in accordance with EPA Method 5 unless the VE limit of 5% opacity is exceeded for a given source, or unless DER or BESD, based on other information, has reason to believe the particulate emission limits are being violated. Visible Emissions (VE) shall not exceed 5% opacity from any source in the material handling and treatment area, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2. The maximum emissions from each of the limestone dryers while using oil shall not exceed the following (based on AP-42 factors, Table 1, 3-1, Industrial Distillate, 10/86): Pollutant lbs/hr Estimated TPY Limitations TPY for 2 dryers PM/PM10 0.25 1.1 2.2 SO2 5.00 21.9 43.8 CO 0.60 2.6 5.2 NOx 2.40 10.5 21.0 VOC 0.05 0.2 0.4 Visible emissions from the dryers shall not exceed 5% opacity. If natural gas is used, emissions limits shall be determined by factors contained in AP-42 Table 1. 4-1, Industrial 10/86. The maximum No. 2 fuel oil firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 120 gals/hr, or 1,050,000 gals/year. This reflects a combined total fuel oil firing rate of 240 gals/hr, and 2,100,000 gals/year, for the two dryers. The maximum natural gas firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 16,800 CF per hour, or 147 MMCF per year. Initial and annual Visible Emission compliance tests for all the emission points in the material handling and treatment area, including but not limited to the sources specified in this permit, shall be conducted in accordance with the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR 60, using EPA Method 9. Compliance test reports shall be submitted to BESD within 45 days of test completion in accordance with Chapter 17- 2.700(7) of the Florida Administrative Code. Any changes in the method of operation, raw materials processed, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation (BAR). Requirements for the Permittees Beginning one month after certification, AESCB shall submit to BESD and DER's BAR, a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of major equipment, including copies of technical data pertaining to the selected emission control devices. These data should include, but not be limited to, guaranteed efficiency and emission rates, and major design parameters such as air/cloth ratio and flow rate. The Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of any such device. Such disapproval shall be issued within 30 days of receipt of the technical data. The permittees shall report any delays in construction and completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by more than 90 days to the BESD office. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions during construction, such as coating of roads and construction sites used by contractors, regrassing or watering areas of disturbed soils, will be taken by the permittees. Fuel shall not be burned in any unit unless the control devices are operating properly, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da. The maximum sulfur content of the No. 2 fuel oil utilized in the CFBs and the two unit limestone dryers shall not exceed 0.3 percent by weight. Samples shall be taken of each fuel oil shipment received and shall be analyzed for sulfur content and heating value. Records of the analysis shall be kept a minimum of two years to be available for DER and BESD inspection. Coal fired in the CFBs shall have a sulfur content not to exceed 3.3 percent by weight. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a. AESCB shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel used and copies of fuel analysis containing information on sulfur content and heating values. The permittees shall provide stack sampling facilities as required by Rule 17-2.700(4) F.A.C. Prior to commercial operation of each source, the permittees shall each submit to the BAR a standardized plan or procedure that will allow that permittee to monitor emission control equipment efficiency and enable the permittee to return malfunctioning equipment to proper operation as expeditiously as possible. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions This certification and any individual air permits issued subsequent to the final order of the Board certifying the power plant site under 403.509, F.S., shall require, that the following Seminole Kraft Corporation sources be permanently shut down and made incapable of operation, and shall turn in their operation permits to the Division of Air Resources Management's Bureau of Air Regulation, at the time of submittal of performance test results for AES's CFBs: the No. 1 PB (power boiler), the No. 2 PB, shall be specifically informed in writing within thirty days after each individual shut down of the above reference equipment. This requirement shall operate as a joint and individual requirement to assure common control for purpose of ensuring that all commitments relied on are in fact fulfilled. WATER DISCHARGES Any discharges into any waters of the State during construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-3, and 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, and 40 CFR, Part 423, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, except as provided herein. Also, AESCB shall comply with the following conditions of certification: Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water For discharges made from the AESCB power plant the following conditions shall apply: Receiving Body of Water (RBW) - The receiving body of water has been determined by the Department to be those waters of the St. Johns River or Broward River and any other waters affected which are considered to be waters of the State within the definition of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Point of Discharge (POD) - The point of discharge has been determined by the Department to be where the effluent physically enters the waters of the State in the St. Johns River via the SKC discharge outfall 001, which is the existing main outfall from the paper mill emergency overflow to the Broward River. Thermal Mixing Zones - The instantaneous zone of thermal mixing for the AESCB cooling system shall not exceed an area of 0.25 acres. The temperature at the point of discharge into the St. Johns River shall not be greater than 95 degrees F. The temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing zone shall not exceed the limitations of Section 17-3.05(1)(d), F.A.C. Cooling tower blowdown shall not exceed 95 degrees F as a 24-hour average, nor 96 degrees F as an instantaneous maximum. Chemical Wastes from AESCB - All discharges of low volume wastes (demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage, labs drains, and similar wastes) and chemical metal cleaning wastes shall comply with Chapter 17-6, F.A.C. at OSN 006 and 007 respectively. If violations of Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. occur, corrective action shall be taken by AESCB. These wastewaters shall be directed to an adequately sized and constructed treatment facility. pH - The pH of the combined discharges shall be such that the pH will fall within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at the POD to the St. Johns River and shall not exceed 6.5 to 8.5 at the boundary of a 0.25 acre mixing zone. Polychlorinated Bipheny Compounds - There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated bipheny compounds. Cooling Tower Blowdown - AESCB's discharge from Outfall Serial Number 002 - Cooling Tower Blowdown shall be limited and monitored as specified below: a. Parameter Discharge Limit Monitoring Frequency Requirement Type Discharge Flow (mgd) Report 1/day Totalizer Discharge Temp (F) Instantaneous Maximum Continuous Recorder Total Residual Instantaneous Continuous Recorder Oxidants Maximum-.05 mg/l Time of Total 120 minutes Continuous Recorder Residual Oxidant per day Discharge (TR) Iron Instantaneous 1/week grab Maximum-0.5 mg/l pH 6-9 1/week grab There shall be no detectable discharge of the 125 priority pollutants contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance. Notice of any proposed use of compounds containing priority pollutants shall be made to the DER Northeast District Office not later than 180 days prior to proposed use. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at OSN 002 prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Seminole Kraft Corporation (SKC) shall shut down the mill's once thru cooling system upon completion of the initial compliance tests on the AESCB boilers conducted pursuant to Condition II.A.7. SKC shall inform the DER NE District Office of the shutdown and surrender all applicable operating permits for that facility. Combined Low Volume Wastes shall be monitored at OSN 006 with weekly grab samples. Discharge limitations are as follows: Daily Max Daily Avg Oil and Grease 20.0 mg/l 15.0 Copper-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Iron-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Flow Report N/A Heavy Metals Report (See Below) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0* standard units and shall be monitored once per shift, unless more frequent monitoring is necessary to quantify types of nonchemical metal cleaning waste discharged. Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. Heavy metal analysis shall include total copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc. *Limits applicable only to periods in which nonchemical metal cleaning waste is being discharged via this OSN. Length of composite samples shall be during the periods (s) of nonchemical metal cleaning waste generation and discharge and shall be adequate to quantify differences in sources of waste generated (air preheater vs. boiler fireside, etc.). Chemical Metal Cleaning AESCB's discharge from outfall serial number 007 - metal cleaning wastes discharged to the Seminole Kraft treatment system. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: a. Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Max Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - 1/batch Pump log Copper, Total 1.0 mg/l 1/ grab Iron, Total Batches 1.0 mg/l Report 1/ 1/batch grab logs Chemical metal-cleaning wastes shall mean process equipment cleaning including, but not limited to, boiler tubes cleaning. Waste treated and discharged via this OSN shall not include any stream for which an effluent guideline has not been established (40 CFR Part 423) for total copper and total iron at the above levels. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirement specified above shall be taken at the discharge from the metal-cleaning waste treatment facility(s) prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Storm Water Runoff - During construction and operation discharge from the storm water runoff collection system from a storm event less than the once in ten year twenty-four hour storm shall meet the following limits and shall be monitored at OSN 003 by a grab sample once per discharge, but not more often than once per week:* Discharge Limits Effluent Characteristic Instantaneous Maximum Flow (MGD) Report TSS (mg/l) 50 pH 6.0-9.0 During plant operation, necessary measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the suspended solids to 50 mg/l or less at OSN 003 during rainfall periods less than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall. Any underdrains must be checked annually and measures must be taken to insure that the underdrain operates as designed. Permittees will have to modify the underdrain system should maintenance measures be insufficient to achieve operation of the underdrains as designed. AES Cedar Bay must back flush the exfiltration/underdrain system at least once during the first six months of calendar each year. These backflushings must occur no closer than four calendar months from each other. In advance of backflushing the exfiltration/underdrain systems, the permittees must notify BESD and SJRWMD of the date and time of the backflushing. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of filters, sediment, traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silt, and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 in the discharge to the St. Johns River and 6.5 to 8.5 in the Broward River. Special consideration must be given to the control of sediment laden runoff resulting from storm events during the construction phase. Best management practices erosion controls should be installed early during the construction period so as to prevent the transport of sediment into surface waters which could result in water quality violations and Departmental enforcement action. Revegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas should be accomplished as soon as possible to reduce the potential for further soil erosion. Should construction phase runoff pose a threat to the water quality of state waters, additional measures such as treatment of impounded runoff of the use of turbidity curtains (screens) in on-site impoundments shall be immediately implented with any releases to state waters to be controlled. It is necessary that there be an entity responsible for maintenance of the system pursuant to Section 17- 25.027, F.A.C. Correctional action or modification of the system will be necessary should mosquito problems occur. AES Cedar Bay shall submit to DER with copy to BESD, erosion control plans for the entire construction project (or discrete phrases of the project) detailing measures to be taken to prevent the offsite discharge of turbid waters during construction. These plans must also be provided to the construction contractor prior to the initiation of construction. All swale and retention basin side slopes shall be seeded and mulched within thirty days following their completion and a substantial vegetative cover must be established within ninety days of seeding. Boiler Blowdown Discharge from boiler blowdown to the cooling tower from outfall serial Number 004 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Discharge Limits Monitoring Characteristic Requirements Daily Sample Measurement Maximum Type Frequency TSS 30.0 grab 1/Quarter Oil and Grease 15.0 grab 1/Quarter Flow - Calculation 1/Quarter Construction Dewatering Discharge of construction dewatering to the SKC once-through cooling system from outfall serial number 005 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - daily Totalizer Turbidity (NTU) 164 1/week grab Aluminium mg/l 1.5 1/week grab Copper mg/l 0.046 daily composite Iron mg/l 0.3 1/week grab Lead mg/l 0.5 1/week grab Mercury mg/l 0.002 1/week grab Phenol ug/l 35.7 daily grab TSS mg/l 50.0 1/week grab pH 6.0-9.0 1/week grab Variance - In accordance with the provisions of Section 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., AES Cedar Bay is hereby granted a variance to water quality standards of Chapter 17- 3.121, F.A.C. for copper subject to the following conditions. AES Cedar Bay shall treat the construction dewatering discharge so as not to exceed 0.046 milligrams per liter for copper in the effluent from the dewatering treatment system. AES Cedar Bay shall do sufficient bench testing to demonstrate that it can meet the above limit for copper. AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of the bench testing, and allow DER and BESD to be present if they so desire to observe the bench testing. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall determine the amount of treatment and removal provided for iron, aluminum and lead by the method of treatment selected for copper. A report shall be submitted to DER and BESD summarizing the results of the bench testing of the proposed treatment technique. The variance shall be valid beginning with the start of dewatering and lasting until the end of construction dewatering but not to exceed a period of two years (not including periods of interruption in the construction dewatering). The Secretary has been delegated the authority to grant additional variances or mixing zones from water quality standards should AES Cedar Bay demonstrate any to be necessary after consideration of comments from the parties, public notice and an opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 120.57 F.S., with final action by the Siting Board if a hearing is requested. In the absence of such final action by the Secretary, compliance with water quality standards shall be measured at the designated POD to the St. John River unless a zone of mixing is granted. Project discharge descriptions - Dewatering water, outfall 005, includes all surficial groundwater extracted during all excavation construction on site for the purpose of installing structures, equipment, etc. Discharges to the SKC once through cooling water system at a location to be depicted on an appropriate engineering drawing to be submitted to DER and BESD. Final discharge after treatment is to the St. Johns River. The permittee shall report to BESD the date that construction dewatering is expected to begin at least one week prior to the commencement of dewatering. Mixing zones - The discharge of the following pollutants shall not violate the Water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the edge of the designated instantaneous mixing zones as described herein. Such mixing zones shall apply when the St. Johns River is in compliance with the applicable water quality standard. Plant Dewatering Operations for two years from the date construction dewatering commences: Parameter Mixing Zone Aluminum 125,600 m2 31 acres Copper " 31 " Iron " 31 " Lead " 31 " Turbidity 12,868 m2 3.2 " Phenol 12,868 " 3.2 " The permittee shall report the date construction dewatering commences to the BESD. During operation of CBCP for the life of the facility: Iron 125,600 m2 (31 acre) mixing zone Chlorine 0 - not measurable in river Temp 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) pH 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) Variances to Water Quality Standards - In accordance with the provisions of Sections 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., permittees are hereby granted variances to the water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3.121, F.A.C. for the following: During construction dewatering for a period not to exceed two years -- copper. The Secretary of DER may authorize variances for aluminum, iron, and lead upon a showing that treatment for copper can not bring these metals into compliance, however, any variance granted shall not cause or allow an exceedance of acute toxicity standards. During Operation -- iron. Such variances shall apply only as the natural background levels of the St. Johns River approach or exceed those standards. In any event, the discharge from the CBCP shall comply with the effluent limitations set forth in Paragraph III.A.12. At least 90 days prior to start of construction, AES shall submit a bioassay program to assess the toxicity of construction dewatering effluent to the DER for approval. Such program shall be approved prior to start of construction dewatering. Sanitary wastes from AESCB shall be collected and discharged for treatment to the SKC domestic wastewater treatment plant. Water Monitoring Programs Necessity and extent of continuation, and may be modified in accordance with Condition No. XXI, Modification of Conditions. Chemical Monitoring - The parameters described in Condition III.A. shall be monitored during discharge as described in condition III A. commencing with the start of construction or operation of the CFBs and reported quarterly to the Northeast District Office: Coal, Ash, and Limestone Storage Areas - runoff from the coal pile, ash and lime stone storage areas shall be directed to the SK waste-water treatment facility for discharge under its existing waste-water permit. Monitoring of metals, such as iron, copper, zinc, mercury silver, and aluminum, shall be done once a month during any month when a discharge occurs at OSC 008 or once per month from the collection pond. The ground water levels shall be monitored continuously at selected wells as approved by the SJRWMD. Chemical analysis shall be made on samples from all monitored wells identified in Condition III.F. below. The location, frequency and selected chemical analysis shall be as given in Condition IV.F. The ground water monitoring program shall be implemented at least one year prior to operation of the CFBs. The chemical analysis shall be in accord with the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waistwater. The data shall be submitted within 30 days of collection/analysis to the SJRWMD. GROUND WATER Prior to the construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well for the SK paper mill, the Seminole Kraft must obtain a Water Well Construction Permit from the SJRWMD pursuant to Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. Construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well will require modification of the SK consumptive use permit when such construction, modification or abandonment is other than that specified and described on SK's consumptive use permit application form. The construction, modification, or abandonment of a monitor well specified in condition IV.H. will require the prior approval of the Department. All monitor wells intended for use over thirty days must be noticed to BESD prior to construction or change of status from temporary to permanent. Well Criteria, Tagging and Wellfield Operating Plan Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to put the system back in an operative condition acceptable to the SJRWMD. Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17.21.02(5), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 373.309, Florida Statutes and Chapter 366.301(b), and .307(a), Jacksonville ordinance code. Wells deemed abandoned will require plugging according to state and local regulations. A SJRWMD issued identification tag must be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401, Florida Administrative Code. The SK must notify the SJRWMD in the event that a replacement tag is needed. The permittees must develop and implement a Wellfield Operating Program within six (6) months of certification. This program must describe which wells are primary, secondary, and standby (reserve); the order of preference for using the wells; criteria for shutting down and restarting wells; describe AES Cedar Bay and SKC responsibilities in the operation of the well field, and any other aspects of well field management operation, such as who the well field operator is and any other aspects of wellfield management operation. This program must be submitted to the SJRWMD and a copy to BESD within six (6) months of certification and receive District approval before the wells may be used to supply water for the AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration plant. Maximum Annual Withdrawals Maximum annual withdrawals for AESCB from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 1.99 billion gallons. Maximum daily withdrawals from the Florida aquifer for the AESCB must not exceed 7.0 million gallons. The use of the Floridan aquifer potable water for control of fugitive dust emissions is prohibited when alternatives are available, such as treated discharges, shallow aquifer wells, or stormwater. The use of Floridan aquifer potable water for the sole purpose of waste stream dilution is prohibited. Water Use Transfer The SJRWMD must be notified, in writing, within 90 days of the transfer of this certification. All transfers are subject to the provisions of Section 40C-2.351, Florida Administrative Code, which state that all terms and conditions of the permit shall be binding of the transferee. Emergency Shortages Nothing in this certification is to be construed to limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. In the event of a water shortage, as declared by the District Governing Board, the AESCB shall adhere to reductions in water withdrawals as specified by the SJRWMD. Monitoring and Reporting The permittee shall maintain records of total daily withdrawals for the AESCB on a monthly basis for each year ending on December 31st. These records shall be submitted to the SJRWMD on Form EN-3 by January 31st of each year. Water quality samples shall be taken in May and October of each year from each production well. The samples shall be analyzed by an HRS certified laboratory for the following parameters: Magnesium Sulfate Sodium Carbonate Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity if pH is 6.9 or lower) Chloride Calcium All major ion analysis shall be checked for anion-cation balance and must balance within 5 percent prior to submission. It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for laboratory problems or loss. The sample analysis shall be submitted to the SJRWMD by May 30 and October 30 of each year. AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted hereinon legal uses of water existing at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations if the withdrawals of water cause an adverse impact on legal uses of water which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified but not limited to: Reduction of well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10 percent in the ability of an adjacent well to produce water; Reduction of water levels in an adjacent surface water body resulting in a significant impairment of the use of water in that water body; Saline water intrusion or introduction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use resulting in a significant reduction of water quality; or Change in water quality resulting in either impairment or loss of use of a well or water body. The AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact cause by withdrawals permitted herein on adjacent land uses which existed at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD had the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates of water allocations if withdrawals of water cause any adverse impact on adjacent land use which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified by but not limited to: Significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent surface water body; Land collapse or subsidence caused by a reduction in water levels; or Damage to crops and other types of vegetation. Significant increases in Chloride levels such that it is likely that wells from the plant or those being impacted from the plant, will exceed 250 mg/l. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements After consultation with the DER, BESD, and SJRWMD, AESCB shall install a monitoring well network to monitor ground water quality horizontally and vertically through the aquifer above the Hawthorm Formation. Ground water quantity and flow directions will be determined seasonally at the site through the preparation of seasonal water table contour maps, based upon water level data obtained during the applicant's preoperational monitoring program. From these maps and the results of the detailed subsurface investigation of site stratigraphy, the water quality monitoring well network will be located. A ground water monitoring plan that meets the requirements of Section 17-28.700(d), F.A.C., shall be submitted to the Department's Northeast District Office for review. Approval or disapproval of the ground water monitoring plan shall be given within 60 days of receipt. Ground water monitoring shall be required at AESCB's pelletized ash storage area, each sedimentation pond, the lime mud storage area, and each coal pile storage area. Insofar as possible, the monitoring wells may be selected from the existing wells and piezometers used in the permittees preoperational monitoring program, provided that the wells construction will not preclude their use. Existing wells will be properly sealed in accordance with Chapter 17-21, F.A.C., whenever they are abandoned due to construction of facilities. The water samples collected from each of the monitor wells shall be collected immediately after removal by pumping of a quantity of water equal to at least three casing volumes. The water quality analysis shall be performed monthly during the year prior to commercial operation and quarterly thereafter. No sampling or analysis is to be initiated until receipt of written approval of a site-specific quality assurance project plant (QAPP) by the Department. Results shall be submitted to the BESD by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following the month during which such analysis were performed. Testing for the following constituents is required around unlined ponds or storage areas: TDS Cadmium Conductance Zinc pH Copper Redox Nickel Sulfate Selenium Sulfite Chromium Color Arsenic Chloride Beryllium Iron Mercury Aluminum Lead Gross Alpha Conductivity shall be monitored in wells around all lined solid waste disposal sites, coal piles, and wastewater treatment and sedimentation ponds. Leachate Zone of Discharge Leachate from AESCB's coal storage piles, lime mud storage area or sedimentation ponds shall not cause or contribute to contamination of waters of the State (including both surface and ground waters) in excess of the limitations of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the boundary of a zone of discharge extending to the top of the Hawthorne Formation below the wastelandfill cell or pond rising to a depth of 50 feet at a horizontal distance of 200 feet from the edge of the landfill or ponds. Corrective Action When the ground water monitoring system shows a potential for this facility to cause or contribute to a violation of the ground water quality standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., at the boundary of the zone of discharge, the appropriate ponds or coal pile shall be bottom sealed, relocated, or the operation of the affected facility shall be altered in such a manner as to assure the Department that no violation of the ground water standards will occur beyond the boundary of the zone of discharge. CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION Storm Water Runoff During construction, appropriate measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the total suspended solids to 50 mg/1 or less and pH to 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003 during rainfall events that are lesser in intensity than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall, and to prevent an increase in turbidity of more than 29 NTU above background in waters of the State. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silT. and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003. Stormwater drainage to the Broward River or St. Johns River shall be monitored as indicated below: Monitoring Point Parameters Frequency Sample Type *Storm water drainage BOD5, TOC, sus- ** ** to the Broward River pended solids, from the runoff turbidity, dis- treatment pond solved oxygen, pH, TKN, Total phosphorus, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform Oil and grease ** ** *Monitoring shall be conducted at suitable points for allowing a comparison of the characteristics of preconstruction and construction phase drainage and receiving waters. **The frequency and sample type shall be as outlined in a sampling program prepared by the applicant and submitted at least ninety days prior to start of construction for review and approval by the DER Northeast District Office. The District Office will furnish copies of the sampling program to the BESD and SJRWMD and shall indicate approval or disapproval within 60 days of submittal. Sanitary Wastes Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction toilet facilities shall be in accordance with applicable regulations of the Department and the BESD. Environmental Control Program Each permittee shall establish an environmental control program under the supervision of a qualified person to assure that all construction activities conform to good environmental practices and the applicable conditions of certification. A written plan for controlling pollution during construction shall be submitted to DER and BESD within sixty days of issuance of the Certification. The plan shall identify and describe all pollutants and waste generagted during construction and the methods for control, treatment and disposal. Each permittee shall notify the Department's Northeast District Office and BESD by telephone within 24 hours if possible if unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible environmental damage are detected by it during construction, shall immediately report in writing to the Department, and shall within two weeks provide an analysis of the problem and a plan to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage and a plan to prevent reoccurrence. Construction Dewatering Effluent Maximum daily withdrawals for dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility must not exceed 1.44 million gallons, except during the first 30 days of dewatering. Dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility shall terminate no later than nine months from the start of dewatering. Should the permittee's dewatering operation create shoaling in adjacent water bodies, the permittee is responsible for removing such shoaling. All offsite discharges resulting from dewatering activities must be in compliance with water quality standards required by DER Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, F.A.C., or such standards as issued through a variance by DER. SAFETY The overall design, layout, and operation of the facilities shall be such as to minimize hazards to humans and the environment. Security control measures shall be utilized to prevent exposure of the public to hazardous conditions. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards will be complied with during construction and operation. The Safety Standards specified under Section 440.56, F.S., by the Industrial Safety Section of the Florida Department of Commerce will also be complied with. CHANGE IN DISCHARGE All discharges or emissions authorized herein to AESCB shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The discharge of any pollutant not identified in the application or any discharge more frequent than, or at a level in excess of, that authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this certification. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modification which will result in new, different or increased discharges or expansion in steam generating capacity will require a submission of new or supplemental application to DER's Siting Coordination Office pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION If, for any reason, either permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certification, the permittee shall notify the Deputy Assistant Secretary of DER's Northeast District and BESD office by telephone as soon as possible but not later than the first DER working day after the permittee becomes aware of said noncompliance, and shall confirm the reported situation in writing within seventy-two (72) hours supplying the following information: A description and cause of noncompliance; and The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying event. FACILITIES OPERATION Each permittee shall at all times maintain good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all of its treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certification. Such systems are not to be bypassed without prior Department (Northeast District) after approval and after notice to BESD except where otherwise authorized by applicable regulations. ADVERSE IMPACT The permittees shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including, but not limited to, such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying event. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittees shall allow the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized DER representatives, and representatives of the BESD and SJRWMD, upon the presentation of credentials: To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in which records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and To have access to and copy all records required to be kept under the conditions of this certification; and To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this certification and to sample any discharge or emissional pollutants; and To assess any damage to the environment or violation of ambient standards. SJRWMD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, and observe permitted and related CUP facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. BESD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, sample any discharge, and observe permitted and related facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION This certification may be suspended, or revoked pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes, or for violations of any Condition of Certification. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY This certification does not relieve either permittee from civil or criminal responsibility or liability for noncompliance with any conditions of this certification, applicable rules or regulations of the Department, or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder. Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve either permittee from any responsibilities or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable State Statutes or regulations. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this certification does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, tangible or intangible, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. The permittees shall obtain title, lease or right of use to any sovereign submerged lands occupied by the plant, transmission line structures, or appurtenant facilities from the State of Florida. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this certification are severable, and, if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected thereby. DEFINITIONS The meaning of terms used herein shall be governed by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term used in these general or special conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation or, in the alternative, by the use of the commonly accepted meaning as determined by the Department. REVIEW OF SITE CERTIFICATION The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked, or suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date of issuance of this certification or any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Control Act Amendments of 1972 for the plant units, the Department shall review all monitoring data that has been submitted to it or it's agent(s) during the preceding five- year period for the purpose of determining the extent of the permittee's compliance with the conditions of this certification of the environmental impact of this facility. The Department shall submit the results of it's review and recommendations to the permittees. Such review will be repeated at least every five years thereafter. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS The conditions of this certification may be modified in the following manner: The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority to modify, after notice and opportunity for hearing, any conditions pertaining to consumptive use of water, reclaimed water, monitoring, sampling, ground water, surface water, mixing zones, or variances to water quality standards, zones of discharge, leachate control programs, effluent limitations, air emission limitations, fuel, or solid waste disposal, right of entry, railroad spur, transmission line, access road, pipelines, or designation of agents for the purpose of enforcing the conditions of this certification. All other modifications shall be made in accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes. FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION The plant and associated facilities shall be construed in such a manner as to comply with the Duval County flood protection requirements. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION Certification and conditions of certification are predicated upon design and performance criteria indicated in the application. Thus, conformance to those criteria, unless specifically amended, modified, or as the Department and parties are otherwise notified, is binding upon the applicants in the preparation, construction, and maintenance of the certified project. In those instances where a conflict occurs between the application's design criteria and the conditions of certification, the conditions shall prevail. NOISE To mitigate the effects of noise produced by the steam blowout of steam boiler tubes, the permittees shall conduct public awareness campaigns prior to such activities to forewarn the public of the estimated time and duration of the noise. The permittees shall comply with the applicable noise limitations specified in Environmental Protection Board Rules or The City of Jacksonville Noise Ordinance. USE OF RECLAIMED WATER AESCB The AESCB shall design the Cogeneration Facility so as to be capable of using reclaimed and treated domestic wastewater from the City of Jacksonville for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water shall be utilized as soon as it becomes available. Ground water may be used only as a backup to the reclaimed water after that time. Before use of reclaimed water from the City by the permittee, it will be treated to a level suitable for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water used in the AESCB cooling tower shall be disinfected prior to use. Disinfectant levels in the cooling tower makeup water shall be continuously monitored, prior to insertion in the cooling tower. The reclaimed water shall be treated so as to obtain no less than a 1.0 mg/liter free chlorine residual after fifteen (15) minutes contact time or its equivalent. Chlorination shall occur at a turbidity of 5 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) or less, unless a lesser degree of disinfection is approved by the Department upon demonstration of successful viral kill. Within 120 days following issuance of a modification to the City of Jacksonville's DER wastewater discharge permit allowing Jacksonville, as part of its comprehensive reuse plan, to supply reclaimed water to the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, AES Cedar Bay, Inc. shall submit a request for modification to DER for use of reclaimed water for cooling purposes, seeking to make any necessary modifications to their facility and the conditions of certification as may be necessary to allow use of reclaimed water. Its request shall include plans, technical analyses, and modelling needed to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed modifications. Its request for modification shall also include a financial analysis of the costs of any necessary modifications to its facility, additional operating costs, and the financial impact of these additional costs on AES Cedar Bay, Inc. If DER requires data or analyses concerning the cogeneration facility or its operation, or its discharges or emissions in order to evaluate Jacksonville's application to modify its domestic wastewater discharge permit, AES will supply the necessary information in a timely fashion. The Secretary, as prescribed in Condition XXI, Modification of Conditions, may modify the conditions of certification contained herein as may be necessary to implement the use of reclaimed water. The use of reclaimed water shall be contingent upon a determination of it being financially practicable, and it meeting applicable environmental standards. Prior to any such action by the Secretary, the Secretary shall request and consider a report by the SJRWMD as to the request for modification for the use of reclaimed water by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. Possible Use of Reclaimed Water The use of reclaimed water as described above shall not be limited to cooling tower makeup. Reuse water, if available may be used for fugitive particulate emission control, washdown, and any other feasible use for non-potable water which would not require additional treatment. ENFORCEMENT The Secretary may take any and all lawful actions as he or she deems appropriate to enforce any condition of this certification. Any participating agency (federal, state, local) may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition of this certification that is based on the rules of that agency. Prior to initiating such action the agency head shall notify the Secretary of that agency's proposed action. BESD may initiate any and all lawful actions to enforce the conditions of this certification that are based on the Department's rules, after obtaining the Secretary's written permission to so process on behalf of the Department. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Prior to start of construction, AESCB shall survey the site for endangered and threatened species of animal and plant life. Plant species on the endangered or threatened list shall be transplanted to an appropriate area if practicable. Gopher Tortoises and any commensals on the rare or endangered species list shall be relocated after consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. A relocation program, as approved by the FGFWFC, shall be followed. PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS AES Cedar Bay shall provide clean-up of the #1 underground diesel fuel storage tank site, which is listed under the EDI program, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-770. AES shall complete an Initial Remedial Action (IRA) in accordance with Rule 17-770.300, F.A.C., prior to construction dewatering. DER and BESD will receive written notification ten working days prior to initiation of the IRA. AES shall determine the extent of contamination. AES Cedar Bay shall then design and install a pump and treatment system at the site, which will create a reverse hydraulic gradient that will prevent the further spread of the contamination by the dewatering operation. This plan shall be submitted to DER and BESD for approval, thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering, and shall be implemented prior to commencement of the dewatering operation. Furthermore, AES Cedar Bay shall submit a Quality Assurance Report (CAR) and a Remedial Action plan (RAP), in accordance with a F.A.C. Chapter 17-770 to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. AES Cedar Bay shall provide complete site rehabilitation in accordance with F.A.C Chapter 17-770. AES Cedar Bay shall develop a QAPP, CAR, and RAP as required and in accordance with Chapter 17-700, F.A.C. for the site listed in XXVIII, C and D below, and submit these plans to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. Prior to construction dewatering, at the underground diesel fuel storage tank #2 site, AES Cedar Bay shall: Perform an IRA with F.A.C. Rule 17-770.300. Determine the extent of down gradient contamination and submit that information to BESD, and DER prior to installation of the well described in paragraph C.4 below. Establish a series of groundwater level monitoring wells at intervals of approximately 250 feet from the coal unloading site to the #2 tank for determination of the groundwater dewatering cone of influence. Daily groundwater levels shall be recorded for each of these wells during construction dewatering. A background well with a continuous water level recorder shall be installed, at a site that would not be influenced by the dewatering operations, to determine ambient conditions at the site. Install a monitoring well with a continuous water level recorder which will be used to trigger implementation of the RAP. The well will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVII C.2. If the epiezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well, then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph C.3 and C.4 to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar Bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Prior to construction dewatering, at each of the following tank sites: underground diesel fuel storage tank #3; underground #6 fuel oil shortage tank #5; above-ground #6 fuel oil storage tank #2: "pitch tank" located North of the lime kilns; AES Cedar Bay shall: Install 2 down gradient monitoring wells. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for location and construction of these 8 wells to DER and BESD for approval. BESD shall have the opportunity to observe the construction of these wells. Sample the above reference wells for parameters listed in 17-770.600(8), F.A.C. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall sample the monitoring wells at the above-ground tank sites for acetone and carbon disulfide. AES Cedar Bay shall split samples with BESD if BESD so requests and submit a report of the analytical results to DER and BESD within ten days of receipt of analysis by AES Cedar Bay. If contamination is found in the above reference wells in excess of the clean-up criteria referenced in 17- 770.730(5)(a)2., F.A.C., a QAPP, CAR and an RAP will be development and, DER and BESD shall be provide with that information prior to the installation of the well described in paragraph D.4 below. Install a trigger well with a continuous water level recorder which will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVIII.D.3. If the piezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph D.4, to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Implementation of the appropriate portion of the RAP shall commence within 14 days of the determination that the construction dewatering cone of depression will reach any of contaminated sites. AES Cedar Bay shall monitor the construction dewatering effluent from their treatment system, once a week during dewatering, for the following criteria: Benzene 1 ugle; Total VOA 40 ug/l Total Naphthalenes (Total-naphthalenes = methyl napthalenes) 100 ugle; and Total Residual Hydrcarbons 5 mg/l. If the concentrations of contaminants in the effluent rise above those in the above list, AES Cedar Bay shall take corrective actions to return concentrations to acceptable levels. If any disagreement arises regarding this condition, the parties agree to submit the matter for an expedited hearing to the DOAH and shall request assignment of the hearing officer who has heard the case, if possible, pursuant to 403.5064, F.S. The informal dispute resolution process shall be used. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road Suite C Tallahassee, FL 32301 Betsy Hewitt, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kathryn Mennella, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Richard L. Maguire, Esquire Towncentre, Suite 715 421 West Church Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Katherine L. Funchess, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William C. Bostwick, Esquire 1550-2 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32201 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
