Impacts of coal transportation in southwest Florida

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Impacts of
COAL TRANSPORTATION
in Southwest Florida

HE -
199.5 Southwest Florida Regional
.C6
147 Planning council
1984

Inpac 3 0
01N GOAL TRANSPORTATION
in Southwest Florida

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
2121 West First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901

Preparation of this document was financed in part through a Coastal Energy Impact*
Program Subgrant (83-CE-21-09-0.0-21-006) from the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management., and the office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio n,
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

OCTOBER, 1984

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Introduction . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1

A. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Southwest Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
A. The Region . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-

a. Port Boca Grande . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
b. Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Rail . . . . . . . 9
4. Roads . . . . . . . io

III. Coal Usage . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Electricity Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
C. Coal . . . ... . . . . . . . . . i5
D. Fuel Changes . . . . . . . . . . 15

IV. Transport Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1611
A* Barge . * * o * , .. . o . . . : . . . . . . 18
B. Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . 20
C. Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D. Coal-by-Wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2@
E.:@' Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
F. Combined Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
G. Other Combinations . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 28

V. Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . o . . o 33

A. Barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . 33
B. Rail . . . . . . . . . . . 0@ . . . . . . . . . . 35
C o Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
D * Coal-by-Wire . . . . . o . . o . . . . . . . o - - 40
E * Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 41
F. Combined Modes. o. . . . . . o . . . . . . . . 43

PAGE

Vi. Policy Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A. State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1. Charlotte Harbor Resource Management
Area . . . . . * * * ' 45
2. Charlotte Harbor A@u;t1c'P;eLe;v;s *Management
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

B. Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. Goals, objectives, and Policies . . . . . . 4 9
3. Developments of Regional Impact . . . . . . 55
4. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

C. Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies . . . . . . 58

a. Charlotte County/Punta Gorda
Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . 58
b. Lee County Comprehensive Plan . . . . . 60
C. Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan . . . . . 61

3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
4. Local Government Responses . . . . . . . . . . 64

VII. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

VIII. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.

IX. Council Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,

X. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75@

A. Coal Conversion Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . 75
B. A Long Range Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . so
C. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
D. Land Use Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
E. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
F. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
G. Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

A. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine some of the impacts
likely to result from the coal conversion of the Florida Power
and Light Company electrical generating plant at Fort Myers. The
project focuses on the transportation aspects of those impacts,
with railroads and barges receiving particular attention. This
project does not examine the feasibility of coal conversion
itself. That issue will be dealt with through acti-ons of federal
and state governments and the generating company. A.review of a
recent feasibility study, however, is included as a part of the
Appendix.

In 1979, about 2.2 million tons of coal were hauled by rail to
Florida electric plants. That was 27"/. of the total 8.1 million
tons used by those utilities. 1-t is predicted that in-1985, 8.4
million tons <48% of the total) will be delivered by rail.0) A
draft feasibility study (April, 1983) concluded that the Fort
Myers plant was a fair candidate for conversion.<2) As a result
of coal conversion of that facility, Southwest Florida,could be
significantly affected by coal usage and the siting of facilities
for storage, handling, and transportation of coal.

The U.S. Department of Energy has assumed that barges would be
the coal transportation mode. Rail transportation, however, has
been used elsewhere in Florida. It offers a reasonable
alternative that deserves study. In this manner, the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council, local governments, and other
ag'encies can compare the various impacts of these and other
transportation modes.

The results of this project can be used by the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council itself, affected local governments, and
the State of Florida. At all three levels - local, regional, and
state - transportation planning is receiving greater attention.
For this Regional Planning Council, the findings of this project
would be utilized for review of projects coming before the
Council. This Council is also developing a transportation
element as part of a regional comprehensive plan. The results of
this project will be utilized in development of that element.

For affected local governments, this document would-provide a
similar function. This study would alert those affected local
governments to the need for planning for the possibility of rail,
barge, or other means of transporting coal and the likely impacts
associated with that possibility. Also, for all three levels of
government in the Southwest Florida Region, the results of this
proposed project could complement efforts to protect the
Charlotte Harbor Resource Management Area.

B. Study Area

While the entire Southwest Florida Region is the study area for

this project, certain portions of@the project will emphasize more
limited areas. The study area for rail impacts generally
consists of Lee County and Charlotte County. Specifically, it
.includes those portions of the two counties through which the
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad passes. (See Figure 1. All figures
are found in the Appendix.) This route would also include
portions of Punta Gorda in Charlotte County and Fort Myers in Lee
County. This particular route is utilized because it is assumed
that if coal were to be hauled into the Region by rail, it would or
be shipped via Arcadia. Currently, that is the only route
available that could serve the FPL plant in Fort Myers.

In the case of barge transportation, the study area is different.
It would be the waterways and associated areas which barges
currently use. This would include Port Boca Grande, the
Intracoastal Waterway (through Pine Island Sound, San Carlos Bay
and the Caloosahatchee River), and the terminal facilities at the
FPL plant. (This assumes that there would be no changes from the
currently used barge route.) I I
The focal point for the study area is the Florida Power and Light
Company generating plant at Fort Myers.(3) The plant is located
in Lee County, east of Fort Myers and on the south side of the
Caloosahatchee River. (Section 35, Township 43 south, Range 25
east.) Total land are.-a held by FPL at this facility is 460 acres
with 356.5 acres of that in use. That facility has fourteen
generating units.(4) (See Table 1. All tables are found in the
Appendix.) The two main units (I and 2) are used for normal
operation. The twelve combustion turbine units are fired only to
meet heavy demand, as during very cold weather. Only unit number
2 would be converted to burn coal if conversion occurred.(5)

References for Part I

(1) Florida Department of Transportation, Pail Element Resource
Document , 1982, p. 5-1.

(2) U.S. Department of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs Conversion of Florida Electric
Powerplants from Oil to Coal Burning: Engineering,
Environmental, and Economic Feasibility Study of 14 Florida
Feasibility Study."

(3) The reader should note that the FPL generating plant is not
within the city limits of Fort Myers. it is, however, generally
described as the Fort Myers plant.

(4) Florida Power & Light Company, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plant Site Plan:
1983-1992 , 1 April, 1983, pp. 30-31.

(5) Feasibility Study p. 18.

II. Southwest Florida

A. The Region

Southwest Florida covers an area o4.6,663 square miles that
consists of six counties. Four of the six counties borde,r the
Gulf'of Mexico. The Region has a coastal orientation, with
population and economic activity concentrated in the coastal
urban areas. (See Fi gure 2.)

The northernmost county, Sarasota County, was established in
1921. The City of Sarasota is the county seat. The three other
municipalities.in Sarasota County are Longboat Key, North Port,
and Venice. Longboat Key and North Port are relatively new
communities, formed largely through the actions of development
companies. Venice is one of the older cities in Southwest
Florida. Englewood, an unincorporated area in the south coast
section, is a growing population center that spills over into
adjacent Charlotte County.

Charlotte County, also established in 1921, has seen most of its
development around Punta Gorda, the county seat and only
municipality. Charlotte County has extensive estuarine water
resources. Charlotte Harbor dominates the western portion of the
county, with the Peace River emptying into the harbor from the
northe.ast, and the Myakka River from the -northwest. Major growth
has occurred in recent years in the unincorporated areas of Port
Charlotte (north of Punta Gorda) and the Englewood/Grove City/
Manasota Key area on the coast. The City,of Punta Gorda has
experienced growth primarily 'in the west and south.

The county with the greatest number of the Region's growth
centers is Lee County, established in 1887. Fort Myers, the
county seat, and the two other incorporated municipalities in the
county, Cape Coral and Sanibel, are growing rapidly due to
immigration. There are also numerous distinct un.incorporated
areas with the potential to become major urban centers.

The southernmost county, Collier County, was established in 1923.
It has the largest land area of any county in the Region. The
area around the City of Naples has been the primary point of
development. Collier County has the sole county seat in the
Region that is located in an unincorporated area, East Naples.
The former county seat, Everglades City, is the only other
incorporated area. There is one inland population center of
significant size, Immokalee, an agricultural community. Although
unincorporated, it serves as a commercial center for northeastern
Collier County.

Glades County, established in 1921, is the northernmost of the
Region's two inland counties. The major population center is
Moore Haven, the county seat. The remaining population is
scattered throughout the County. Lake Okeechobee borders the
eastern side of the County. The Caloosahatchee River flows from

the Lake through the southern part of the County toward the Gulf
of Mexico. Glades County has experienced very gradual growth
since its esta-blishment.

The county with the second largest area in the Region is Hendry
County. It has two population centers, the municipalities of
LaBelle and Clewiston. LaBelle, the county seat, is in the
northwestern part of the county and Clewiston is in the
northeastern part, bordering Lake Okeechobee. The economy of
Clewiston is primarily dependent upon the sugar cane industry,
located in the area just south of Lake Okeechobee.

As can be seen in Table 2, only a little more than 12Y. (about
477,140 acres) of the Region can be classified within the broad
category of "urban" land uses. If the category of uOpen and
Other" (urban lands cleared for development or in use for
recreation) are deleted, less than 57. of the Region is urban.
Most of these urban lands are located along the coast. As much
as 95%. of the Region's population, however, resides in coastal
areas. Thus, while the amount of urban land in the Region (less
than 5/*.) is small, the impact of urban development on the
Region's coastal resources is significant.

Future development, however, will not be confined only to the
coastal areas. As can be seen in Figure 3, significant growth is
expected in the Region. While some of this growth will occur in
inland areas, much of it will be an expansion of existing coastal
communities and urban areas.

B. Transportation

Southwest Florida has a variety of water, rail, road, and air
transportation facilities. (See Figure 4.) These are found
primarily along the coast, in and connecting areas of heavy
population and development.

1. Water

Water transportation facilities consist of a port (Port Boca
Grande) and parts of two waterways (Intracoastal Waterway
and Okeechobee Waterway).

a. Port Boca Grande

Port Boca Grande is the only deepwater port in
Southwest Florida. The port lies almost at the
southern tip of Gasparilla Island in Section 26,
Township 43 south, Range 20 east of Lee County.(See
Figure 2.) Gasparilla Island is a six and one-half.
mile long barrier island that separates Charlotte
Harbor from the Gulf of Mexico. The northern quarter
of the island lies in Charlotte County while the .
southern portion <which includes Port Boca Grande) is
in Lee County. Road access is limited to Charlotte
County via a privately-owned causeway and toll bridge.

There is no land connection with Lee County.

The port was a phosphate shipping center as early as
1887.0) Phosphate was last shipped out in 1979 and rail
service was ended the same year.(2) A representative
listing of freight traffic is presented in Table 3.

The only port-related activity currently underway is the oil
terminal operated by Belcher Oil Company. This ten- acre
facility was built by Florida Power and Light Company in
1958 to receive fuel oil from tankers for transshipment by
@shallow draft barge to its generating plant east of Fort
Myers.(3) The terminal at Port Boca Grande has four oil
storage tanks (total capacity of 650,000 barrels) and an
offshore docking facility. Oil tankers can be unloaded at
the rate of 17,000 barrels per hour. Barges can be loaded
at a maximum rate of 5,000 barrels per hour. Depth at the
dock is maintained by dredging at about 32 feet. (Other
sources list this depth as 38 feet below mean low water.)
Vessels up to 650 feet long and 100 feet in width can be
handled at the dock.(4) The 460-foot pier and the'260-foot
dock are made of concrete.

A fairway (channel) provides safe passage from the Gulf to
the facility. Approximately five miles long, thirty-two
feet deep, and three hundred feet wide, the channel is
maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.<5) The
initial dredging occurred in 1913 to permit deep-draft ore
carriers to enter the Port to load phosphate ore. Since
then, there have been thirty maintenance dredging
operations. (That is once every 26.8 months over
sixty-seven years.)

As of 1978, a total of $3,985,533 had been expended to
maintain the fairway. The dredging has grown increasingly
expensive, The initial effort in 1913 cost $27,972. In
1980, the cost of maintenance dredging was $741,503.(6) The
amount appropriated by Congress for 1983 was $915,000. The
amount requested by the Corps for 1984 is $1.1 million.(7)

All of these funds have been federal except in 1913.
One-half ($13,986) of the 1913 work was paid for by local
funds. Since then, however, all, monies spent have been
federal.(8) (For additional discussion of the expenditure
of public and private funds relative to Port Boca Grand@e,
the reader is referred to the review of the coal conversion
feasibility study, an appendix to this report.)

Port Boca Grande is not a typical port. First, ships enter
the port only to discharge cargo for transshipment by barge
to the FPL Fort Myers plant. They do not take on any cargo
for export to other cities, region-s, states, or countries.
(As noted above, phosphate was last shipped out of Port Boca
Grande in 1979.) Second, the operation of the port benefits

only one company, Florida Power and Light Company. Third,,
only one commodity, fuel oil, is handled there.

There has been an on-going interest in Lee County to
establish a port facility. At the same time, however, there
have been growing misgivings about expansion of Port Boca
Grande.

In 1983, the County Commission requested proposals for
private industry to plan, finance, develop, and operate a
port facility in Lee County. No location was specified in
the request for proposal. It should be noted, however, that
the request outlined significant constraints that would be
placed on any proposal involving the use of Port Boca
Grande.(9)

The request for proposal generated only one response, for an
area in southern Cape Coral. That proposal was very vague
and did not meet the standards established by the County
Commission for the proposals.00) Also, the City of Cape
Coral strenuously objected to the proposal. The basic theme
of its complaint was that the proposal was inconsistent with
that area and the Cape Coral Comprehensive Plan.<11)

In April, 1983, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council published its Outer Continental Shelf Onshore
Facilities Siting Study. In that study, a survey of all
six counties in Southwest Florida revealed only three
potential sites (all in Lee County) for onshore OCS
facilities. After review, those sites were also discounted.
Additionally, in a special action, the Regional Planning
Council voted unanimously to recommend to interested
agencies and other parties that Port Boca Grande (one of the
three potential sites) not be considered as a site for
onshore OCS facilities.

In September, 1983, the Lee County Commission rejected a
long-standing proposal for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to study the potential of enlarging the Boca Grande channel
for larger ships.02)

The State supported the indefinite suspension of the study
as a result of the action taken by Lee County. In a letter
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Governor Bob Graham
pointed out problems of strong local opposition,
environmental sensitivity, limited land area, no rail or
heavy-duty road access, and questionable need for the study.
The Governor wrote, "The State would review its position on
the resumption of the study only if these and other problems
could be resolved.'(13)

On February 29, 1984, the Lee County Commission abolished
the Port Advisory Board. That group had supported the
development of port facilities.(.14)

In June, 1984, the Commission rezoned most of the land that had
been zoned for port facilities on the southern tip of Gasparilla
Island. Forty acres of land owned by CSX Corporation can now be
used for residential development. (CSX Corporation is the
conglomerate that includes Seaboard Coast Line Railroad.) As a
result of that action, only the ten acres owned by FPL remain
zoned for port activities.(15)

There is additional cause +or opposition to port expansion by the
State. Port Boca Grande lies within the boundaries of the
Gasparilla Sound - Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve. The
management plan for the Preserve prohibits the construction of
new port facilities and discourages ex pansion of existing ports.

Discussion of a port facility will probably continue. Based on
actions such as those cited here,hov)ever, it appears that Port
Boca Grande is currently not a likely candidate.

b. Waterways

There are two ujaterv)ays in this Region. The Intracoastal
Waterway folloi,,js the coast, generally between barrier islands and
the mainland. It enters Southwest Florida from the north via
Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County. The southern terminus of the
Intracoastal Watert,4ay is in Lee County in the eastern part of San
Carlos Bay. At that point, where the Caloosahatchee River enters
the Bay, the waterway becomes the Okeechobee Watertkiay. This then
proceeds to Lake Okeechobee via. the Caloosahatchee River. A list
,of -all the bridges on these two waterways is provided in Table 4.
r
The Intracoastal Waterviax system does not reach any point in
Collier County.

Much of the traffic on these waterways is recreational. This
would include pleasure boats, sailboats, fishing craft (private),
and related craft. Commercial and industrial traffic consists
primarily of two types. Commercial fishermen form one group.
Among these viould be a variety of boats, some fishing and others
traveling to and from a dock, supply point, fish house, or some
other destination. The industrial portion of this traffic is
composed mostly of the daily fuel oil barge shipment which
supplies the electric generating plant at Fort Myers.

Table 5 is a compilation of commercial traffic statistics for
federally maintained waterways in Southwest Florida. The
locations are noted on Figure S.

2. Air

Air transportation in Southwest Florida is oriented mainly around the
two regional airports, the Southwest Florida Regional Airport (Lee
County) and the Sar-asota-Bradenton Airport. A number L.1-9 smaller
airports handle substantial commercial, charter, and

general aviation traffic. The Southwest Florida Regional Airport
opened in May of 1983, replacing Page Field as the major airport
for Lee County (and much of the Region). All commercial carriers
now operate out of the Regional Airport, with Page Field open
only to general aviation traffic (private aircraft, unscheduled
flights, and small charters). This new airport is specifically
designed to be able to accommodate the increasing air traffic
into and out of Southwest Florida.

The opening of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport and other
events introduce some new factors that do not permit a straight
comparison with other years at other airports. Among these
factors are deregulation of.the airline industry, economic
variations, and the attractiveness of the new facility.
Generally speaking, however, passenger traffic into the Region
has been increasing, while flight operations and cargo have not
shown such increases. (Passenger counts, flight operations, and
cargo statistics are provided in Table 6.)

For example, the total number of passengers passing through Page
Field in 1980 was 5.61 times greater than in 1970. For the
Sarasota-Bradenton Airport, passenger traffic increased 3.25
times. The number of landings and take-o4fs (flight operations),
however, remained relatively stable at both airports. That is
likely a result of the use of larger aircraft, with each craft
generally capable of carrying more passengers. Air cargo totals
increased more than the flight operations, but not as much as the
passenger count.

3. Rail

Rail transportation service in Southwest Florida is provided by
the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. (formerly the Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad). Freight service is furnished, but passenger
service is not available. The primary products transported by
the railroad include agricultural.commodities. These
agricultural products are grown in the interior part of the
Region and are exported to other areas of the state. Among other
items transported by rail are newsprint, construction materials,
beer, propane gas, rock, and stumps.(16) The first four are
imported into the Region while the last two are exported. The
stumps are harvested here and shipped to other areas for
processing.
Currently, the railroad enters @outhwest Florida via three
routes. The northernmost route passes from Manatee County into
Sarasota County parallel to U.S. 301. From Palmetto, on the
Manatee River in Manatee County, the railroad runs 18.7 miles to
Sarasota. <A 5-mile spur at Sarasota is included in the 18.7
miles). Operating speeds range from a low of 10 miles per hour
to a high of 40. The weight limit for this and all other
railroad segments discussed below is 270,000 pounds, unless
stated otherwise. From Sarasota to Venice is 18.2 miles. The
operating speed is 25 mph. For both segments, service frequency
is on an as-needed basis.(17) The Sarasota-Venice segment is

served by one train pulling 12 cars-08)

A second route follows U.S. 17 from Arcadia in DeSoto County to
Punta Gorda in Charlotte County. From there, it proceeds through
Fort Myers to terminate east of U.S. 41 in Collier County south
of the Lee-Collier line. The Arcadia-Fort Myers segment covers
51.6 miles. Operating speeds are 35 and 40 mph. The service
frequency is three times per week.(19) Each train consists of
one engine and about 25 cars.(20) For the Fort Myers-Vanderbilt
Beach segment, the distance is 26.7 miles. Operating speeds are
25 and 35 mph.

The third route goes into Glades County with U.S. 27 from Sebring
inHighlands County. From there, it extends on to Moore Haven
and then to Clewiston in Hendry County. The distance from Sebring
to Palmdale is 43.1 miles. The operating speed is 35 mph with a
daily service frequency.(21) The track distance from Palmdale to
Moore Haven is about 17.5 miles and about 14.5 more miles to
Clewiston. The Seaboard Coast Line continues on into Palm Beach
County, with about 5 miles of track from Clewiston to the county
line.(22) From Palmdale to Clewiston, there are two trains, one
in each direction, each day for six days per week. The normal
train has one engine and 50 cars.(23)

Over the years, rail service to Southwest Florida has decreased.
(The reader is referred to "A Long Range Perspective" in the
Appendix. It is a discussion of declining rail service in
Southwest Florida.) There have been three fairly recent
abandonments. The rail line that formerly served Port Boca
Grande has been completely removed as far north as Arcadia. The
line that used to enter Naples now goes only to Vanderbilt Beach
near the Lee County-Collier County border.

The most recent abandonment was in Glades and Hendry Counties.
South of Palmdale, near the junction of S.R. 29 and U.S. 27, the
railroad splits. The easternmost line goes on to Moore Haven and
Clewiston as described above. The other line runs south for 36..3
miles to Immokalee. The abandonment of this line to Immokalee
was recently authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission,
effective January 2, 1984. (At one time, this line extended to
Everglades City.)

4. Roads

In terms of passengers, vehicles, and freight, the most heavily
used transportation mode in Southwest Florida is the road system.
In addition to private motor vehicle traffic, the road network
carries commercial traffic which distributes the vast majority of
goods consumed in the Region. Other uses include mass transit,
inter-city bus traffic, service vehicles, and bicycles.

The local road system is badly congested. This is worsened
during the winter months when the tourist and seasonal population
is at its peak. Inter-city traffic has received some relief now
that Interstate Highway 75 has been substantially completed

through the Region.

References for Part II

(1) Lee County, Florida, Port Boca Grande: A Basic-Study June,
1980, p. 2.

(2) Ibid., p. 8.

(3) Ibid., p. 10.

(4) Ibid., p. 12.

(5) Ibid., p. 10.

(6) Girlamo DiChiara, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District,
Corps of Engineers, to staff, Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, 26 October, 1963.

(7) Rosalyn Averill, "$1.5 Million Sought for Dredging.in Lee," Fort
Myers (Florida) News-Press , 2 February 1984, sec. A, p. 14A.

(8) Gail G. Gren, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District,
Corps of Engineers, to staff., Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, 13 December, 1983.

(9) Lee County (Florida) Port Authority, "Request for Proposal To'
Plan, Finance, Develop and Operate a Port Facility in Lee
County, Florida," 1983, pp. 13-15.

(10) Jane Musgrave, "Commission Ships Port Proposal Out to Sea," Fort
Myers (Florida) News-Press , 21 September, 1983, pp. 1B and
2B. -

(11) Robert D. Proctor, City Manager, Cape Coral, Florida, to Roland
H. Eastwood, Chairman, Lee County Port Authority, 13 September,
1983.

(12) Jane Musgrave, "Lee Sinks Boca Grande Port Study b y Not Voting on
Government Offer," Fort Myers (Florida) News-Press , 21
September, 1983.

(13) Bob Graham, Governor, State of Florida, to Colonel Alfred B.
Devereaux, Jr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 23 March, 1984.

(14) Susan Ornstein, "Lee Sinks Port Advisory Board, Fo rt Myers
(Florida) News-Press , I March, 1984.

(15) Tom Butler, "Port Decision Gives Supporters Sink'ing Feeling,
Fort Myers (Florida) News-Press, 18 June, 1984, pp. 18 and 28.

(16) Jack Cherry, Jr., Superintendent, Seaboard System Railroad, to
staff, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 16 May,
1984.

(17) Florida Department of Transportation, Rail El ement Resource
Document 1982, pp. A-64 and A-65.

<18) Jack Cherry, Jr.

(19) Florida Department of Transportation, pp. A-51 and A-52.

(20) Jack Cherry, Jr.

(21) Florida Department of Transportation, p. A-54.

(22) SWFRPC staff estimates.

(23) Jack Cherry, Jr.

III. Coal Usage

A. Electricity Gene-ration

In order to examine the impacts that might occur if coal were
brought into this Region, it is necessary to estimate the
expected electrical generation needs and the quantity of fuel
required to meet those needs. These can then be used to estimate
the transportation requirements to import that coal into
Southwest Florida. Those requirements could be in terms such as
number of trucks, unit trains, barges, or pipeline capacity.

Florida Power and Light Company operates the only electrical
generation plant in Southwest Florida. For its entire
(statewide) service area, the total sales of FPL in 1990 are
estimated to be approximately 32.3% greater than those of
1982.(1) <That service area includes 2,402,998 customers in
thirty-five counties and twelv.e generating plants in southern
Florida, the eastern coast, and the northeastern corner.)(2)
This increase may even be understated for Southwest Florida
because this Region has experienced greater growth rates than
other areas. If it is assumed that fuel consumption will
increase in the same manner as total sales, then fuel consumption
could increase about M. by 1990. As noted above, this is likely
to be a conservative estimate. The actual increase may be
higher.

It is difficult to correlate electrical sales directly to county
or regional boundaries. The service areas of electrical
utilities generally do not conform to those boundaries. An
additional complexity involves the sharing that occurs within a
utility system (among its own generating plants) and between
utilities. For example, FPL has purchased excess electricity
generated by other utilities such as Tampa Electric Company.
This means that it is possible for FPL to sell more power than it
generates.

Another factor must be added to this already complicated task.
The simplest way to estimate fuel usage would be to project
current oil usage to some future date (once a projection method
had been selected). That projected oil quantity could then be
converted to an equivalent amount of coal. In order to apply
this method to a specific generating plant, it must be assumed
that conversion of that specific plant will occur and that the
plant will be operating at the same generating capacity with coal
as with oil.

It is possible, of course, that conversion of a current
oil-burning facility may not occur. It is also possible that,
even if converted, the plant may operate at a lower capacity.
This latter possibility could occur if the converted plant were
less efficient burning coal than oil. It also could be possible
that some portion of the projected load of the plant (converted
or not) could be assumed by some other, more efficient plant.

B. 0il

In 1965, oil was used to produce 56.2% of the electricity
generated by Florida utilities. (See Table 7.) By 1980 . that
figure had slipped to 46.2%. Compared with the rest of the
United States, however Florida utilities still rely heavily on
oil. Three Florida utilities were among the top twenty of one
hundred and eight-five utilities in oil receipts in 1980 in the
United States. The first--of all one hundred and
eighty-five--was Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Power
Corporation was fifth and Jacksonville Electric Authority was
twenteth.(3)

The Fort Myers FPL plant burns oil exclusively. Fuel usage by
both units of the Fort Myers plant in 1978 was about 3,650,000
barrels of heavy oil.(4) (This does not include the twelve
combustion turbine generators used for unusual peak demands.)

Actual fuel usage in 1982 increased to 4,536,111 barre ls for both
units. This represented an increase of over 24%. Unit 2 burned
3,070,003 barrels of the total amount of heavy oil.(5)

If the same fuel were used, the same circumstances of fuel
transport were to apply, and no new generating capacity were
needed, there may be relatively little change in the number of
fuel deliveries per year. For example, it may be possible to
increase the amount of fuel oil carried on barges as much as 10
or 15 percent. More than that, however, may result in the need
for more deliveries, more barges per delivery, or barges of
larger capacity. Whereas one delivery per day was sufficient in
1979, one and one-half deliveries may be needed by 1993. That
may occur as three deliveries every two days, changes in delivery
times, using more barges, switching to larger capacity barges, or
some other arrangement.

C. Coal

As noted above, fuel usage for electrical generation in Florida
has slowly been shifting away from petroleum. (See Table 7.)
Coal usage, however, has increased. For example, in 1965, coal
fueled 17.8% of electrical generation. By 1981, that share had
increased to 21.9%.

Coal usage for electrical generation in the entire United States
has demonstrated a similar pattern. (See Table 8.)

Estimated coal use for electrical generation was 10,930,000 tons
in Florida in 1982.(6) By 1990, that usage will increase by
about 131%. (see Table 9.) That quantity (25,278,000 tons) will
be burned by existing and planned facilities. If all potential
coal conversions are made, as much as 35,850,000 tons of Coal
could be burned in 1990 in Florida.(7) That will be an increase
of 228% over the 1982 amount.

D Fuel Changes

Use of a different fuel could have significant impact on the
operation of Fort Myers unit number 2. A recent study of coal
conversion projects a reduced role for unit number 2. For
example, 1990 coal demand is expected to be 4110,000 tons at an
average plant capacity factor of 0.32.(S) In 1982, unit number 2
burned 3,070,033 barrels (123,940,126 gallons) of heavy oil.(9)
That is equivalent to about 798,200 tons of coal.

The projected reduction in fuel demand is based on an expected
decrease in the use of the unit if coal conversion occurs on a
broad scale. Larger capacity generating units usually have lower
heat rates. That is, they use less fuel to produce a unit of
electricity. Thus, it is assumed that larger units will operate
at a hiQher usaqe rate than smaller (less efficient) units.(10)
The average plant capacity factor for unit number 2 is 0.56
without conversion and 0.32 with conversion.

The barges currently used by FPL carry a maximum of about 11,000
barrels of oil.(11) Those 11,000 barrels (462,000 gallons) weigh
about 1,650 tons. The Fort Myers plant would require about
410,000 tons of coal in 1990 if converted. 114 it were assumed
that each barge could carry an equivalent weight of coal, about
250 barges of coal would be needed to meet that demand. (It is
unlikely that an oil barge.could be used to transport coal due to
the different physical characteristics of the two fuels. The
assumption is made, however, to provide some indication of the
number of craft that might be needed.) (See Table 10.)

A barge of similar dimensions probably would carry much less
coal. At the more realistic capacity of 1,000 tons, about 410
barges of coal would be needed in 1990. Even that may be A- lotj
figure since the current water route cannot accommodate a barge
with a draft of nine feet.

Referenc-es for Part III

(1) Florida Power & Light Company, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan:
1983-1992 , Miami, Florida, I April, 1983, p. 50.

(2) Ibid., p. 25.

(3) U.S. Department of Energy, The Florida Statewide Coal Conversion
Study: Coal Supply and Transportation Analysis , September,
1983,*p. 2-1. (Hereafter cited as "U.S. Department of Energy,
Coal Supply

(4) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Regional Energy
Plan , Fort Myers, Florida, 19 April, 1979, p. 28.

(5) Frank Balogh, Power Services Analyst, Florida Power & Light
Company, to staff, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,
7 November,, 1983.

(6) U.S. Department of Energy, Coal Supply , p. 3-3.

(7) Ibid., p. 3-7.

(8) Ibid.

(9) Frank Balogh.

(10) U.S. Department of Energy, The Florida Statewide Coal Conversion
Study: Alternatives to Coal Conversion for Florida Utilities
October, 1983, p. 24.

(11) Frank Balogh.

TV. Transport Alternatives

This report addresses several alternative transport modes for
coal movement into Southwest Fl,orida. They are not presented in
any order of priority, although some are more likely to occur
than others. None, however, are without problems. Each
alternative is reviewed and any relevant existing use or example
is discussed. The potential positive and negative impacts are
examined. Additionally, in discussing each alternative, an.
attempt is made to determine how feasible that alternative is.

Most of the alternatives that are addressed are individual modes.
It quickly becomes apparent, however, that coal transport could
easily involve a combination of these modes. Therefore, possible
combinations are also discussed.

A, Barge

Florida Power and Light Company currently receives fuel oil at
its Fort Myers plant by barge. That fuel is first delivered to
Port Boca Grande by tanker from Texas, Louisiana, or other
sources. At Port Boca Grande, it is off-loaded, stored, and then
loaded onto barges for transshipme,nt to Fort Myers.

Each barge has a capacity of 11,000 barrels and measures 210 feet
long, 45 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. (These are exterior
dimensions.) About 957 of the shipments consist of two barges in
tandem pushed by a tugboat while the remainder have one barge.
In 1982, FPL received 4,610,964 barrels of Bunker C oil (420
barges) in this manner.

The trip from Boca Grande to the Fort Myers plant requires seven
to eight hours. Two persons assist in loading the barges, two
persons man the tug and barges, and one person offloads at Fort
Myers for a total of five people.(D.

An ocean-going barge could carry from 19,000 to 32,000 tons of
coal and draw twenty-five to thirty-two feet of water. A barge
commonly used for river traffic has a capacity of about 1,500
tons. (This refers to larger, deeper rivers such as the
Mississippi--not the Caloosahatchee River.) It measures 195 feet
long and 35 feet wide with a draft of 9 feet. A river barge such
as this cost about $225,000 in 1978.(2) There is also a
1,000-ton river barge that measures 175 feet by 26 feet with a
draft of 9 feet.

The barges currently in use for fuel delivery to the FPL plant
can operate safely in the relatively shallow water encountered
from Boca Grande to the Fort Myers plant. To utilize either of
the two river barges noted above, however, would require water
depths of twelve to fifteen feet.

This is a result of the additional depth needed for operation of
the barges. For slow speed operation and maneuvering, as at

dockside, there should be a channel depth of at least three feet
more than the draft of the craft at dockside. For operation at
higher speeds to achieve greater efficiency and economy, channel
depth should be five feet more than the draft of the vessel.(3)
The authorized project depths for the current barge route are
nine feet from Boca Grande to San Carlos Bay, ten feet from Punta
Rassa to Fort Myers, and eight feet above Fort Myers. These
depths are too shallow for safe operation by either of the two
river-going barges.

It should be noted that actual depths are less than authorized
depths in several areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
performed a survey of area waterways in June of 1980. In the
Pine Island Sound portion of the Intracoastal Waterway, several
areas were recorded to have depths of seven and eight feet
(rather than nine). In the Caloosahatchee River below Fort
Myers, depths of eight and nine feet were fairly common (rather
than ten feet). Additional shoaling may have occurred since the
date of the survey.

There are two alternatives or routes utilizing barges. They are
the following:

1. existing route, i.e., from Port Boca Grande to the FPL
plant, and /
2. from Tampa to the FPL plant.

Other alternatives involving direct, non-stop shipment by barge
from a New Orleans port or similar source are not considered
feasible. This is due to problems encountered in the use of a
barge capable both of crossing the open Gulf and going up the
Caloosahatchee River with its relatively shallow depths.

Coal could be delivered to Port Boca Grande or Tampa via
ocean-going barge or ship from a New Orleans area port or some
other source. Railroad transportation could also be used to
supply coal to Tampa for transshipment by barge to Fort Myers.

A factor contributing to the continued use of.barges for fuel
shipment (oil or coal) is the avoidance of costs associated with
a different route or means of transport. Even if more barges or
barge-trips are required, the same route can be used. The user
(in this case, FPD pays only to load, ship, and unload the fuel.
Construction and maintenance of the waterway and its associated
structures are not the responsibility of the user. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers does that at taxpayer expense. That, of
course, reduces the cost of shipping for the utility.
Additionally, there are no user fees or charges to recoup these
federal expenditures.<4)

A problem with the use of barges on the same route is that the
coal must be handled several times. It would have to be loaded
onto an ocean-going barge for the trip from Louisiana to Tampa.
There, it would be unloaded for storage and/or further
distribution. Coal being shipped to Fort Myers would be loaded

onto smaller barges for the trip to the generating plant. That
handling would occur whether the ocean-going barge landed at
Tampa or Port Boca Grande. If a landing at Tampa were combined
with a second stop at Port Boca Grande, that would add another
handling. At each handling or transferral point, personnel,
equipment, and space for operations will be required.
Essentially, each handling point will mean a duplication of
facilities with the additional cost.

It would appear that the use of Port Boca Grande as a point of
transferral from ocean barges to river barges could be justified
economically more easily than its use as a stop after docking of
the ocean barges in Tampa. In the latter case, it would be an
unnecessary cost.

B. Rail

For coal movement, the unit train is the most efficient form of
rail transportation. A unit train is one that transports a
single commodity. All of the cars in the train would be loaded
with coal, usually at a single origin, for travel to a single
destination.(5)

Unit train operation is different from that of the regular
freight train in several other ways. First, the train operates
as a unit. That is, the locomotives and the cars remain
connected. The locomotives do not Pick up or drop cars at
various points along the route. Second, the unit train may
travel more than 800 miles per day as compared to less than 100
miles per day for general freight trains.{6}

For efficient operation, the unit train would be in constant use ,
loading, transporting, or unloading coal. Downtime, as for
maintenance, should be minimal. Ideally, coal would be loaded at
the mine and unloaded at the electrical generating plant (or
other point of use). This direct, mine-to-user type of delivery
eliminates multiple handling of the coal.

The typical unit train car is either an open-top gondola or
hopper car.(7) The cars would likely be 100-ton hopper cars
pulled by six locomotives. A variety of car sizes are
available.(8){See Table 11.)

It is also possible that smaller unit trains could be used. As
few as thirty cars might make up a unit train, depending upon the
circumstances and the alternatives available for coal
transport.(9)

Once the unit train arrives at its destination, the coal must be
unloaded quickly for efficient operation. Gondola cars can be
tipped to empty the coal while the bottom is opened on hopper
cars to dump coal into a pit or similar containment area. Some
typical unloading systems are presented in Table 12.

A fully loaded car with 100-ton capacity may weigh more than 130
tons.{1O} This weight can result in significant wear and tear on

facilities when compared to general freight cars. Unit train
speeds in Florida have been estimated at twenty to fifty miles
per hour.<11)

Another incentive for efficient operation is equipment cost. A
unit train coal car with a capacity of 100 tons cost about
$40,000 in 1978 while a locomotive (3,600 horsepower) cost
$800,000 then.(12) Costs should be even higher today. A unit
train of one hundred cars pulled by six locomotives could cost
approximately $9 million at those prices.

There are two rail alternatives for coal tr;@nsportation. They
are the following:

1. direct shipment from coal-producing areas to Fort Myers,
and
2. shipment from Tampa to Fort Myers.

The first rail alternative seems less likely than the second.
Direc't shipment, using unit trains, would be feasible only if
there were a large user in Fort Myers. Currently, there is no
large demand for coal nor is there likely to be in the near
future (with the possible exception of the FPL plant). This
Region does not have large manufacturing plants that would burn
large quantities of coal. Additionally, even if converted to
burn coal, the Fort Myers plant alone may not use enough coal to
justify the unit train type of coal delivery.

14 the unit train were to deliver coal to several users, the
feasibility of direct shipment could be increased. The
efficiency of the unit train, however, lies in its nonstop
operation. Thus, the additional coal demand that could be met by
serving more than one user (or several users at one destination)
would have to be balanced against the costs of this different
operation.

Some consideration would also have to be given to those cars that
would be emptied at the first or second stop. A problem in any
unit train operation is that the cars are empty on the return
trip. (The same can be said for barge transport and much of the
truck transport in this Region.) That produces costs but no
benefits. This problem would be aggravated if there were
multiple stops because some of the cars would travel empty over
more than one-half of the distance.

As noted above, unit train cars are very heavy. For example, a
fully loaded car with 100 tons of coal may weigh more than 130
tons altogether. Therefore, before a unit train operation could
begin, a survey would have to be conducted of all tracks,
bridges, and other facilities that would be traveled over by the
unit train. More than likely, repairs and upgrading would be
required. This would-be expected in Southwest Florida, based on
the decline in railroad traffic that has occurred. Heavily
traveled lines generate more revenue than lightly traveled lines,
This, combined with a greater need for maintenance to serve the

heavier traffic, would seem to ensure that such lines would be
better maintained.

C. Pipeline

Pipelines normally carry liquid or gaseous products. For
example, the crude oil produced in Hendry, Lee, and Collier
Counties is transported across South Florida via pipeline, The
Sunniland Pipeline runs a distance of 119.67 miles from Sunniland
(in Hendry County) to Port Everglades (at Fort Lauderdale in
Broward County). (See Figure 6.) This line is composed of 4, 6,
and 8-inch steel pipe, with three pumping stations. It has a
capacity of 15,000 barrels (630,000 gallons) per day. The
current quantity being pumped through the line is about 9,000
barrels (378,000 gallons) per day.

The transmission line is fed by 34 miles of gathering lines from
oil fields in Collier and Hendry Counties-The gathering lines
can pump a total of 24,000 barrels (1,008,000 gallons) per
day.(13) Oil from Lee County wells is delivered to Sunniland by
tanker truck.(14)

Pipeline transport of coal utilizes water as the transport
medium. For coal slurry, ground coal and water are mixed in
about a 1:1 ratio (byiweight). The slurry mixture that results
can then be pumped through a pipeline. This 1:1 ratio would
require dewatering because the water used for transport would
interfere with efficient burning.(15)

Other coal-water slurries with different ratios have potential
for alternative fuel. For example, one mixture is composed of 70
percent finely crushed coal, 29 percent water, and the remainder
is additives. The slurry can be transported much the same as
number 6 boiler fuel. For example, railroad tank cars and
utility storage tanks could be used. The additives in the slurry
would prevent coal particles from settling out of the mixture.

For transportation purposes, this slurry would be handled almost
exactly the same as oil. DewAtering would not be necessary
before burning. Additionally, air pollution could be reduced
because coal washing performed during preparation of the slurry
would remove most of the ash and some of the sulfur. For a
generating unit designed for oil, however, some modifications
would be required.06)

A coal slurry pipeline will produce a large quantity of water at
the point of.use. (Residual water would not be a problem, of
course, for coal-water mixes designed to be burned without
dewatering.) For example, it has been estimated that delivery of
four million.tons of coal annually would result in 600-700
million gallons of water per year.(17) It may be possible to
recover 60-70% of this water for reuse on-site (e.g., power plant
condenser cooling) and agricultural irrigation.

Unfortunatelys there exists a significant impediment to slurry

water reuse or discharge - poor water quality. High levels of
total dissolved solids, heavy metals, sulfate, and biochemical
oxygen demand require significant treatment (and expense) before
the water can be reused or discharged into nearby water
bodies.(18) This problem of poor water quality will be
compounded if municipal or industrial wastewater is used to make
up the initial slurry.

Oil can also be used as a transport medium with coal. A coal-oil
slurry (507 pulverized coal and 50% number 6 fuel oil by weight)
could be transported via pipeline. This type of mixture would
require a source of oil whereas the coal-water slurry requires
water. At the destination, dewatering would not be required.
Additionally, the use of oil would likely mean that fewer boiler
modifications would be needed. This would reduce expenses.(19)

The most efficient operation of a coal slurry pipeline would
involve a pipeline originating at the coal mine and terminating
at the electrical generating plant or other point o 4 use.

A stumbling block to pipeline development is lack of eminent
domain powers for pipeline companies.<20) Eminent domain is
defined as the right (usually of a government) to take private
property for public use. The owner whose property is being taken
cannot refuse to relinquish that property. The government must,
however, pay just compensation for the property being 'taken.
Sometimes the parties involved cannot agree on the compensation.
The government will then condemn the property and a court will
settle the dispute as to compensation.(21)

The completion of a pipeline would require that numerous property
owners permit pipeline passage through their properties. It has
been estimated that this could be successfully negotiated in
98-997 of the cases. Condemnation might be necessary in only a
small number of situations. Even if these optimistic estimates
were to hold true, that small number of refusals could.
effectively stop a pipeline. The actual impact would depend on
the circumstances.(22)

Under Florida law, eminent domain in ay be used to

... enter upon any lands, public or private, necessary to
the business contemplated in the charter, and ...
appropriate the same, or ... take from any land most other
material which may be necesary for the construction and the
keeping in repair of its works and improvements upon making
due compensation according to law to private owners.
(361.01, F.S. )

Eminent domain is granted to non-governmental entities to
construct and/or operate the following:

dams for waterpower,
electric railway companies,
waterworks companies,

natural gas companies,
petroleum and petroleum products pipeline companies,
companies owning and operating sewer systems, and
coal pipeline companies.

Eminent domain powers are granted to coal pipeline companies
"...to make available low-cost electric power to all residents of
the state_", The right of eminent domain, however, is not
granted without certain conditions. They are the following:

a. "the least property or interest therein" shall be taken,
b. the property or interest must revert to its original
owner (or successors) if not used within a reasonable
time after the taking,"
c. the original owner (or successors) must pay for the
property-or interest, and
d. in any condemnation proceedings, the court will be bound
by the findings of the Florida Public Service
Commission on issues of economic and environmental
feasibility. (361.08, F.S.

There are two other requirements that are considerably more
difficult to satisfy. The act will take effect after these are
met. First, eminent domain authority must have been granted to
the coal slurry pipeline company(ies) by every state through
which the pipeline will pass en route to Florida. Second, a
continuous source of water must be available for use in the coal
slurry pipeline. <Section 5, Chapter 79-236)

The major force opposing pipeline construction is the railroad
industry. Maritime interests involved in shipping fuel oil
likely would also lose some traffic. Railroads would especially
feel the impact if a pipeline carried coal rather than they,

The type of opposition that could be expected against a serious
effort to develop a coal slurry pipeline can be seen in the
opposition that developed against the Transgulf Pipeline. That
project, through conversion of an existing pipeline and
construction of new sections, would run 889 miles from refineries
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. The converted pipeline, currently carrying natural gas,
would be used for oil. A second pipeline would be constructed
beside it to carry natur al gas.(23)

From the perspective of Southwest Florida, the pipeline
alternatives are limited--either a pipeline will enter the Region
or it will not. The impacts that might occur in areas outside
this Region are beyond the scope of this study.

The feasibility of pipeline construction is dependent upon the
existence of a large user, such as an electric generating plant
or industry. This is not an industrial area. There is not now
and is not likely-to be the type of industry-that would burn

2.4

large quantities of coal on a long-term basis.

There is, of course, an electrical generating plant, the FPL
facility at Fort Myers. Based on recent projections, even if
converted to burn coal, that plant may not be a large enough user
to justify construction of a pipeline into Southwest Florida.

A pipeline could also be constructed to serve multiple users.
There could be short branches off the main pipeline at a number
of points. The advantage for pipeline development would be
increased coal demand and greater revenues. The disadvantages
would be increased costs, increased technical difficulties, and
increased equipment and facility needs.

For example, in the case of a single user or single distribution
point, only one set of receiving and dewatering.facilities would
be required. In the case of multiple distribution points,
facilities for receiving, dewatering, and treatment would be
required at each point. Additionally, the problems of disposal
of the slurry water would have to be addressed at multiple sites,
rather than one. This would increase the risk of negative
impacts on water resources.

Another problem with multiple users is that the characteristics
of the coal demand are/likely to be different. It would be
unlikely that, say, five users would all be satisfied with the
same coal slurry mix.

While the technology for this type of coal transportation system
does exists, it is a controversial matter. Construction of a
pipeline that would reach as far south as Fort Myers would have
to traverse most of the length of the state. It would be much
longer than any other coal slurry pipeline currently operating.
Additionally, the one current pipeline transporting coal is in
Arizona, a state with environmental conditions very different
from those in Florida.

D. Coal-by-Wire

Coal-by-wire involves the importation into one area of
electricity produced by burning coal in an electrical generating
plant in another area. In this alternative, high voltage
transmission lines are the means of transport. Coal-by-wire can
take two forms. An example of the simpler of the two would be
the use of electricity in this Region that was generated at a
coal plant in Tampa. Also, electricity generated in Georgia
might be used here.

The second form of coal-by-wire may originate at the point of
coal production in mine-mouth generation. An electrical
generating plant located at a.mine generates electricity using
coal mined at that or nearby mines.

Coal-by-wire is a reversal of other coal transportation

alternatives. Coal-by-wire generates electricity at the point of
coal production. Electricity is then transmitted to the point of
demand. Other transportation alternatives transport the coal to
the point of demand. Then, the coal is burned to produce
electricity.

The major advantage of coal-by-wire generation is that most of
the impacts associated with coal transportation and electricity
generation occur outside the Region.

Impacts will still occur within the Region, of course.
Transmission lines and supporting towers will have to be
constructed and maintained. Rights-of-way will have to be
cleared. These will be one hundred feet wide or more. Service
roads to provide access for construction and.maintenance will
have to be built.

Impacts can be reduced if existing rights-of-way are utilized.
This depends on the requirements of any proposed coal-by-wire
transmission lines and the space available in the existing
rights-of-way.

E. Truck

Large trucks and trailers could be used-to transport coal to
Southwest Florida. Tr"uck transportation would utilize existing
roads. It would not require the development of a new
transportation network,. In addition, the existence of a road
network would permit a flexibility that other transportation
alternatives could not match. Generally, truck transportation
could be utilized at any time. Trains, by being tied to a track
system, would not be able to move as freely or easily. Trucks,
on the other hand, could operate much more freely.

Individual trucks, by not being part of a larger unit such as a
train or barge tow, could also provide some advantages of quicker
delivery. That would depend very much, however, on other
conditions, the most important of which would be the distance
involved.

Truck transportation is not without its disadvantages. First,
trucks are limited in their capacities by the conditions of their
operation. For example, it is possible to design, build, and
operate a truck of gargantuan proportions. The physical
dimensions of such a vehicle (its weight, height, width, and
length), however, would limit its usefulness to non-public roads.

Second, even for a vehicle of more normal size, weight limits on
roads and bridges could prevent use of its full capacity. Weight
restrictions on interstate highways would limit totaltruck
weight to 80,000 pounds. Thus, a truck and trailer unit with a
capacity of 52,000 pounds <26 tons) and an equipment weight of
about 20,000 pounds would be operating close to the maximum.(24)
(A single unit train car could carry almost four times as much as
such a truck.) Local roads would often have lower weight limits.

Even when weight limits on roads might not be a problemt those of
bridges could be.

Third,.truck operation may be subject to weather c onditions. For
short distance hauling in this Region, weather would generally
not be a deterrent. For long-distance hauling in which trucks
were used to transport coal from mines, the snow and ice of
northern states could interfere with delivery schedules.

Fourth, strikes, work stoppages, and labor disputes could
interfere with truck transportation. More personnel are required
per unit of coal transported by truck than by other
transportation methods. That greater number of personnel would
make this form of transport more susceptible to labor disputes
than other forms.

Fifth, truck transportation would likely be more costly for each
unit of coal delivered. This would reflect the fact that more
personnel and more equipment are required for each delivery than
in other modes.(25)

Trucks could be used in two general ways. These would be the
following:
II I
1. direct shipment from coal mine to generating plant or
2. hauling fromother sources of supply (such as a port) to
the generating plant.

Truck transportation is not likely to be used to transport coal
into Southwest Florida from other states. This would be due to
the long distance between the source of coal and the use.
Long-distance hauling would be adequately performed by other
modes.

Trucks could be used, however, for short-distance, local hauling.
For example, trucks could transport coal from Tampa, Port Boca
Grande or the nearest rail connection. The disadvantages of
truck transport would seem, however, to make even such
short-distance hauling problematic. Additionally, roads in the
area of the FPL plant are already subject to heavy traffic
conditions. Those conditions are even worse during the winter
tourist season'. At any rate, significant opposition to the use
of heavy trucks for routing coal transportation should be
expected from area residents.

F. Combined Modes

It is unlikely that a single mode would be used exclusively for
transportation of coal to the FPL plant at Fort Myers. A single
mode, such as a pipeline, could be used unde'r some circumstances.
Those circumstances, however, are not likely to occur here. The
primary condition would be a large coal demand. As noted above,
estimates of coal use after conversion do not indicate that such
a condition would be met.

A combination of two modes is the most likely alternative. Among
these would be the following:

1. ocean-going barge delivery to a Tampa area port with
rail transport to Fort Myers,
2. ocean-going barge delivery to a Tampa area port with
barge transport to Fort Myers,
3. ocean-going barge delivery to a Tampa area port with
truck delivery to Fort Myers,

(For either the second or third combinati on, the initial
ocean-going barge delivery could be to Port Boca
-Grande. Problems associated with truck transport from
Boca Grande, however, would make the third combination
most unl ikel Y.)

4. unit train transport to the Tampa area with rail
delivery to Fort Myers; short-haul truck delivery will
be required if there is no rail connection to the FPL
plant,
5. unit train transport to a Tampa port with barge delivery
to Fort Myers,
6. pipeline transport to the Tampa area with rail delivery
to Fort Myers,
7. pipeline transport to the Tampa area with truck delivery
to Fort Myers,
8. pipeline transport to a Tampa port with barge delivery
to Fort Myers, and
9. transport to the Tampa area by ocean-going barge, rail,
or pipeline with pipeline delivery to Fort Myers.

Of the above combinations, the ones more likely to occur are the
second, fifth, and eighth. These are considered more likely to
occur because they would make use of facilities already in place
in the Tampa area. In addition, there is also an existing demand
for coal in that area. That demand itself is likely to increase
as industrialization of the Tampa area continues.

The ninth alternative, in which a pipeline would be constructed
from port facilities in Tampa to the Fort Myers plant, may appear
to have lower costs. After all, the pipeline distance would be
relatively short for the Fort Myers segment. Also, ocean-going
barge transport and rail transport are already.in use. The very
existence of those other two transportation modes, rail and
barge, would seem, however, to make this alternative unnecessary.
It would likely be much more expensive to transport coal via a
pipeline if the costs (monetary, en-vironmental, and other) were
compared with the costs of adapting either railroad or barge
facilities to transport coal from Tampa to Fort Myers.

G. Other Combinations

In addition to single modes (e.g., barge or rail) and combined
modes (e.g., barge and rail), there exisTs a somewhat different
alternative. The various.alternatives discussed above all

'2 8

involve the transport of a new fuel; coal, to the Fort Myers.
plant. The alternative (actually four alternatives) reviewed
here would use a different method of transport than is currently
used, but would transport the same fuel, oil.

Four alternatives of this type have been presented by Seaboard
Coast Line Railroad representatives. They are the following:

1. rail transport from refineries in Texas and Louisiana to
Tampa, with truck or rail shipment from Tampa,
2. direct rail shipment to Fort Myers,
3. tanker or barge transport to Tampa, with truck or rail
shipment from Tampa, or
4. shipment by the proposed Transco Pipeline to
Kissimmee.(26)

In the context of this study, these four options all would have
similar impact on.this Region--increased rail or truck traffic on
routes to and from the generating plant at Fort Myers. The
method of fuel transport to Tampa is irrelevant unless that
method directly affects transport within the Region.

The alternatives outlined here likely would each use the unit
train concept at some point in the transportation process. The
unit train used to transport fuel oil would consist of specially
built tank cars. These cars would each carry about U,000
gallons of fuel oil (or about 100 tons).(27)

The size of the unit train and its frequency of operation would
be affected by the origin, route and destination. For example,
under the alternative of rail.transport from Gulf Coast
refineries to Tampa, the unit train could be the first major link
in the fuel transportation system. Since such a train would be
supplying fuel for a number of generating plants, it would likely
operate with the maximum feasible number o4 cars. This would be
one hundred cars (the standard number for a unit train) or more,
depending on circumstances.

Under the second alternative, a smaller unit train might be
employed for the journey to Fort Myers. For this and similar
uses, the larger unit train might not be feasible or necessary in
order to supply a single generating plant. Unit trains of about
one-third the larger size (as few as thirty cars) could be used.

This smaller unit train could be used for the rail shipment from
Tampa in the third alternative. Truck shipment could also be
used to complete the trip to Fort Myers. If trucks were used,
the approximate capacity of each would be 7,500 gallons, This
would mean that to transport an equivalent amount of fuel oil
would require four times as many trucks as railroad cars.(28)

The fourth alternative would result in similar applications,
depending on whether train or truck transport were used to move
fuel oil from the pipeline.terminus-to Fort Myers.

It should be noted that even railroad representatives recognize
limitations on rail transportation. Only one (the second) of the
four suggested alternatives would rely exclusively on rail
transport. The other three'utilize rail transport and some other
mode. The last alternative seems to be the best example of this.
As noted above, the most likely transport alternative will
combine two or more modes to achieve the flexibility needed to
transport any fuel over long distances and under varied
conditions. Seaboard officials apparently recognize that need
and understand its importance.

References for Part IV

(1) Frank Balogh.

(2) Report to the 1980 Florida Legislature by the Coal Slurry
Pipeline Study Committee on the Feasibility for Coal Slurry
Pipelines in Florida and Associated Impacts , I February, 1980,
pp. 3-3 and 3-4. (Hereafter cited as " Report

(3) Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce
of the United States: Calendar Year 1981, Part 2-Waterways and
Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles
February, 1983, p. VIII.

(4) Willy Canaday, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District,
Corps of Engineers, telephone interview, 11 October, 1983.

(5) Barney L. Capehart et al., "Transportation Impacts," in Impact
of Increased Coal Use in Florida , ed. A.E.S. Green,
Interdisciplinary Center for Aeronomy and Other Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1980, pp. 3-4 and
3-9.

(6) U.S. Department of Energy, Coal Supply, p. 4-1.

(7) Robert J. Halstead, Coal Transportation to Wisconsin: An
Overview , February, 15182, p. 36.

(8) Barney L. Capehart, pp. 3-4 and 3-5.

(9) Thomas P. Lavin, Seaboard System Railroad, to staff, Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council, 28 October, 1983.

(10) Robert J. Halstead, p. 36.

(11) Barney L. Capehart, pp. 3-4 and 3-5.

(12) Report , p. 3-3.

(13) J.J. St. John, Sunniland Pipe Line Company, Inc., to staff, South
Florida Regional Planning Council, 9 June, 1983.

(14) Robert S. Caughey, Bureau of Geology (Florida Department of
Natural Resources), Fort Myers, Florida, telephone interview, 18
March, 1983.

(15) Report , p. 3-12.

(16) "Coal Water Slurry," Electric Perspectivei Winter, 1983, pp.
32 and 33.

(17) Robert J. Halstead, p. 105.

(18) Report p. 7-10.

(19) U.S. Department of Energy, Coal Supply , p.7-5.

(20), Report , p. 10-19.

(21) Halbert C. Smith, Carl J. Tschappat, and Ronald L. Racster, Real
Estate and Urban Development (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irvin, Inc., 1977), p. 16.

(22) Report , p. 10-23.

(23) Susan Ornstein, "Shippers Pumped Up to Sink Oil Pipeline Proposal
This Week," Fort Myers (Florida) News-Press , 27 June, 1983,
p. 1B.

(24) Report , p. 3-3.

(25) Robert J. Halstead, pp. 79-81.

(26) "Railroad Officials Suggest Shipping Oil by Train--Not Boat,"
Boca Beacon (Boca Grande, Florida), December, 1982.

(27) Thomas P. Lavin.

(28) Ibid.

V. Impacts

In this chapter, potential impacts are addressed for likely
transportation alternatives. The alternatives to be reviewed are
the following:

1. barge,
2. rail,
3. pipeline,
4. coal-by-wire,
5. truck, and
6. combined modes.

In order to avoid duplication, the alternatives have been
somewhat simplified. For example, there are some common impacts
for barge transport of either coal or oil. Therefore, the
impacts of the alternatives proposed by Seaboard Coast Line
Railroad officials are reviewed under similar transport modes,
although the former concerns oil while the latter deals with
coal.

The assessment of impacts is limited to those impacts likely to
occur within Southwest Florida. It is recognized that all of the
listed alternatives have impacts beyond the borders of this
Region. It is not within the scope of this study, however, to
address those impacts. The regional impacts of the alternatives
are summarized in Table 13.

Initially, it was thought that each transport al -ternative might
be mutually exclusive. For exampleg if rail transport were used,
it was assumed that the use of barge transport would be
discontinued. That assumption has been discarded. The
non-converted units of the power plant likely will continue to
operate and will require fuel oil. Thus, it is possible for
barges to continue bringing in oil while trains deliver coal. On
the other hand, it is also possible for one transport alternative
to be used to supply both coal and oil. As an example, trains
could bring in coal and oil.

A. Barge

There are two possibilities involving barge transportation. The
first is the continued shipment of oil by barge from Port Boca
Grande to Fort Myers. The second is the shipment of coal by
barge.

The first alternative represents no significant change over
current conditions. There would be no increase in barge trips.
This is a condition that could continue the next several years.
At some point in the future, however, continued growth and
development in Southwest Florida will push energy needs high
enough to require greater generation. That, in turn, will result
in greater fuel consumption by the FPL plant. Carried even
further, the demand for electricity will eventually surpass the
generating capacity of the existing facility. At that point, the

plant will have to be expanded or some part of the increased
demand will have to be met by an existing facility elsewhere with
unused capacity or by a new facility.

The second barge alternative, shipment of coal, would have both
negative and positive impacts. Negative impacts would include
the following:

- requirement for more land at the FPL plant for coal
storage,

- potential for pollution from coal in storage and handling
at the FPL plant, and

- increased number of openings of the Edison Bridge'at Fort
Myers.

Additional negative impacts would be generated if the port
facility at Boca Grande ceased operation and fuel were to be
delivered from a different port. Among those impacts would be
increased potential for pollution and accidents along the new
route and the loss of employment at Port Boca Grande.

Total employment due to the FPL oil operation is relatively
small. As noted above, only five persons are at Boca Grande, two
man the barges, and one offloads fuel at the FPL plat. In
addition, there is one pilot at Boca Grande for the tankers.(D

If barges were used to deliver fuel to a converted plant, they
would have to pass through the Edison Bridge at Fort Myers. That
bridge currently opens on signal for the fuel barges. The Bridge
is closed to boat traffic Monday through Friday (except.federal
holidays) from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
At other times, the Bridge is opened to boat traffic on signal.
Federal vessels, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress,
however, are passed at any time.(2)

The impact of these addit ional openings would likely be minor or
even positive. In 1982, the Edison Bridge opened 6,175 times.(3)
(See also Table 14.) As noted above, approximately 260 barge
shipments (about 420 barges in all as noted in Table 10) were
required to supply fuel to the Fort Myers plant in 1982. These
caused the Edison Bridge to be opened 520 times (once for the
upriver trip and once for the downriver trip) or about 8.4
percent of the total.

To supply the estimated 1990 coal demand if the plant were
converted could require from 274 barges to 410 barges. If those
barges were transported as the oil barges are currently, the
total number of shipments--and consequent bridge openings--would
be no more than and perhaps less than under the existing
situation.

Positive impacts would include the following:

reduced pollution potential due to oil spills at Port
Boca Grande, along the route to the FPL plant, and at the
FPL plant,

reduced potential for pollution, property damage, and
personal,.injurx or loss of life due to a hurricane or storm
a 44ec t i ng Por t B'oc a Grande , and

reduced or eliminated tanker and barcie traffic at Boca
Grande with positive impacts on visual and aesthetic aspects
of recreational activities such as the use of the beach,
swimming, sunbathing, fishing, sight-seeing.

It is difficult to classify some impacts as either positive or
negative. This would depend upon.4uture events. The impacts of the
availability of Port Boca. Grande and its facilities +or other uses
are an example. (Whether or not these viould be positive or negative
impacts would depe 'nd on any new use that might occur at the site.
For example, if -a `_ chemical processing facility were to utilize the
site, this could easily have the potential for severe environmental
damage.)

B. Pail

The impacts that increased railroad traffic could generate are of
concern. Some of those conflicts may not be resolvable. It is
expected, howeve.r, that some advance knowledge of problem areas will
aid in their solution. it should at least assist local governments,
the railroad company, and others involved to reduce and mitigate
those impacts and conflicts.

The impacts that may result from large trains could be substantial.
Rail traffic in th'is area has generally declined. Formerly heavily
used stretchesof track have been abandoned. Therefore, H the Fort
Myers power plant were converted to burn coal, and rail were used to
transport the coal into the Region, there could be significant
changes.

As discussed in other sections of this report, the rail alternatives
cover several different options. These range from the use of rail as
the sole means of . transport to its use only for segments of the
journey from fuel source to point of use. In similar fashion, the
impacts of those alternatives will cover a broad range, whether the
fuel being transported is coal or oil.

Increased rail traffic is likely to produce impacts and conflicts in
the 4oi I owi ng areaF*

a. delays.ArLd increased operating costs for highwa/ users,
b. safety,

c. community barriers (physical and psychological),
d. environmental degradation,
e. incompatible or inappropriate land use, and
f. employment distribution.

Delays and increased operating costs for highway users will probably
be the first impacts of increased rail traffic at highway and
railroad grade crossings. The level of the conflict will depend on
factors such as the following:

a. length (time) of traffic blockage,
b. amount of road traffic affected (including both at the
immediate site and in the general area),
c. time of day (peak traffic or off-peak),
d. existence of alternate routes for highway users,
e. the purpose of the individual highway user's trip,
f. frequency of such events (how often is the road blocked by a
train?), and
g. location of the site.

The second category of impacts is safety. This category would
include both accidents and interference with emergency services.
Accidents between road vehicles or pedestrians and trains would have
two parts. The first would be those accidents that are the result of
clear and direct conflict between road and rail users. Among these
would be accidents such as the following:

a. a moving train striking a car, truck, or pede strian or,,
b. a car or truck striking a train.

The second group would be those accidents that might be classified as
indirect. These would not directly involve trains. Examples of
these would be the following:

a. a motor vehicle strikes another motor vehicle stopped at a
railroad crossing while a tra,in passes or
b. a driver, frustrated by the delay due to a train passing,
attempts to find an alternative route and has an accident
as a result of his haste, irritation at waiting, etc.

Interference with the provision of police, fire, and medical
emergency services could be a significant problem. This-issue would
be more than simply the delay and inconvenience that an individual
might experience due to having to wait for a train to pass. This
would deal with situations such as the following:

a. movement of emergency service vehicles and personnel to an
emergency situation such as fire or motor vehicle accident
or
b. transport of injured persons to a medical facility.

This type of interference could easily have life-threatening
consequences. Whereas.a few minutes of delay might be only a matter
of inconvenience in some situations, it would easily have serious
consequences for emergency situations in which response times are

also measured in minutes.

Community barriers is a third issue. Heavily used rail line segments
have traditionally been seen as a dividing line, often splitting a
community into racial, social, and economic parts. In this study, it
is assumed that existing railroad rights-of-tvay will be used. Even
if substantial repairs or improvements were necessary to permit
increased rail traffic, this would occur in an existing right-of-way.
Thus, no new barriers will likely be created. Rather, the impact of
those existing barriers could be increased, depending on the specific
situation and circumstances of the rail traffic.

The fourth impact issue, environmental degradation, would affect
several sites or locations. These would include the following:

a. all along the length of the railroad tracks used for fuel
transport in the region,'
b. at each grade crossing and point of rail/road conflict, and

c. at the point of unloading, handling, and storing of fuel at
the generating plant.

In addition to this variety of impact or conflict sites, there would
be a variety of impacts that might result in environmental
degradation. Among these would be the following:

a. air pollution (train emissions and dust from train
movements),
b. water pollution (similar to that associated with roads),
c. noise pollution,
d. aesthetics, and
e. solid waste disposal.

As noted above, it is assumed that there will be no significant new
construction of track and that any repairs or improvements will occur
on existing tracks and railroad facilities.

The fifth issue, incompatible or inappropriate land use, addresses
conflicts that could occur at three separate types of sites (such as
is the case with environmental degradation). It is also expected
that land use impacts or land use incompatibility produced by
increased rail traffic will already have existed to some degree. For
example, if a residential land use is situated adjacent to the
railroad tracks, some incompatibility already exists. If the land in
question is zoned for a residential use, but is not occupied, that
conflict may not be a significant problem. The potential for a
problem, however, is there.

The sixth issue involves the redistribution of employment. Jobs
would be lost by personnel associated with the barge operation and
the fuel storage facility. Additionally, jobs related to the
maintenance dredging would be lost since the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers would likely discontinue that dredging. There would be
some added employment elsewhere due to increased train'operations.

The use of rail transport could result in unit trains of thirty
to one hundred cars in length. To supply the estimated 1990 coal
demand of 410,000 tons per year for the Fort Myers plant could
require as many as 137 train-loads of coal per year. (This is
calculated on a unit train of thirty cars, each carrying one
hundred tons. See Table 15.) At that rate, at least five unit
trains would pass a point along the delivery route each week.
This includes both the south-bound trip to deliver fuel and the
north-bound trip back to the point of supply.

The length of the train should also be considered. A unit train
of thirty cars, each carrying one hundred tons, would be at least.
1,600 feet long. (This is the total length of the cars only.
Locomotives and any other cars would increase the train length.)

C. Pipeline

In some respects, a pipeline would have less impact than other
transport alternatives. The initial construction would involve
significant impacts, but those would be restricted to the job
site and would be short-term. Once operational, a pipeline would
have almost no impacts. It would result in no additional wear
and tear on bridges, roads, and railroads. It would add no
traffic to the road system. It would not affect the environment.
All of this assumes that it would operate without problems.

Pipeline construction, however, could have significant impacts,
although those impacts would generallybe local and short-term.
Once a route has been secured and surveyed, construction is
relatively straightforward. The land is cleared and graded.
Each mile of pipeline would require that about twelve acres of
land be cleared. This is based on a right-of-way of one hundred
feet. In order to prevent root damage to the pipeline and to
assure permanent access, all trees and large plants must be
removed.

Sections of pipe and the necessary equipment are unloaded along
the corridor. While that is being done, the trench is dug. The
pipeline is likely to be buried at a depth of at least three feet
below ground level. For stream or river crossings, the pipeline
would be buried at least three feet below the stream bottom.(4)

Any pipe-bending that is required is performed. Sections of pipe
are carefully positioned beside the trench. Pipe sections are
welded together. After welding, the string of pipe is coated for
corrosion protection and inspected. The pipeline is lowered into
the trench, which is then covered and levelled. The last step is
seeding of suitable grasses and general clean-up of the area.

A typical schedule for the work crews is ten to twelve hours per
day, six days per week. The distance between the initial
clearing and the final clean-up could be as*much as forty miles.
The work crews will move along the route at a rate of one to two
miles per day.

Pumping stations will be needed approximately every seventy-iive
miles. As many as fifty workers may be involved in the
construction of a pumping station for up to two years.(5)

The land area for a station may be as much as twenty acres. A
dumping pond and a water supply will be required at each pumping
station. The purpose of the dumping pond is to hold the slurry
in case of a pipe break, pump failure, or other emergency.(6) A
water suppl,y is needed to fill the pipeline to carry the slurry
to the next pumping station in case of pipeline water loss. As
much as one hundred acre-4eet or twenty-seven million gallons of
watermay be held in a freshwater make-up pond for this
supply.(7) This will be equivalent to about 1.25 times the
capacity of the next downstream pipeline section. The slurry
dump pond would have to hold a similar capacity.(8)

Pipeline impacts can be divided into three general categories of
construction, operation, and emergency. The construction period
will be the time of the most obvious impacts. The clearing of
the one hundred-foot wide corridor will disrupt wildlife and
destr'by trees. If the pipeline crosses wetlands, the natural
flow of water can be disrupted, vegetation destroyed, and
wildlife movement patterns altered. Water pollution problems can
be created in crossing rivers, lakes, and streams. Construction
of the right-of-way can provide easy access to previously closed
.areas for trespassing and illegal hunting. Problems with forest
fires and illegal dumping may occur.(9)

Construction impacts of noise, activity, dust, and related
factors will also occur. With normal safeguards, these impacts
and those above can be overcome and kept to acceptable levels.
While they may be significant in the short-term, most of these
impacts. will be over when construction is finished.

The period of pipeline operation will generally be the time of
least impact. (This assumes that the operation will be normal
and without incident.) The impacts of concern will occur at the
pipeline terminal and the point of coal usage.

Due to high water tables, ponds for make-up water and holding
ponds may have to be constructed above ground with levees or.
dikes to impound the water. A break.or leak in the wall of one
of these ponds could contaminate a large area if the pond were
filled with coal slurry. Holding ponds filled with coal slurry
might attract wildlife, especially waterfowl. The various
compounds in the mixture could pose a health hazard to such
animals.(10)

Major adverse impacts could occur in case of an emergency. For
example, a pipeline leak, break, or pump failure could result in
the spillage of the slurry mixture. The severity of a spill will
depend on several factors. Among these would be the following:

1. the source of the water for the slurry,

2. the quantity of the spill,
3. the site of the spill,
4. -the sensitivity of the site,
5. the period of time before clean-up operations could
begin, and
6. the effectiveness of clean-up operations.

Water is a factor of concern because of the quantities involved.
A coal-water mixture of 1:1 will need one ton of water to move
one ton of coal. That ton of water will be about 240 gallons.
Thus, a pipeline that transports 25 million tons of coal slurry
annually will produce about 16.5 million gallons of water per
day. This is equivalent to the quantity of sewage produced by
160,000 people.01) The projected 1990 coal demand for the Fort
Myers plant would be .41 million tons (410,000 tons) or 1.647 of
25 million tons.

The source of the water for the slurry mixture is the most
important factor. It is possible that water will be taken from
rivers near the beginning of the pipeline. According to one
source, Ohio River water may be used. That water has been
estimated to be in conflict with almost all Florida water
quality standards. Sewage effluent may be another source.
Depending on the level of treatment, that effluent could be a
source of bacteria and organic material.

Other problems are posed by various chemicals and compounds added
to the slurry mixture. These compounds would be used to inhibit
corrosion, prevent settling of coal particles, maintain a proper
pH level, and for other functions.(12)

Slurry water could contain excessive levels of total dissolved
solids, sulfate, and biochemical oxygen demand. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has warned that BOD levels may be
as high as those found in raw sewage. High levels of total
dissolved solids and heavy metals are also seen as potential
problems.(13)

The impacts of such severely polluted water could be significant.
Fish, wildlife, vegetation, surface water, and groundwater could
be affected by a spill. The water quality impacts could be
especially problematic for three reasons. First, the pipeline
will likely be buried. Second, the pipeline is likely to cross
numerous lakes and wetland areas. Third, even if no surface
water were present, groundwater levels are close to the ground
surface in many areas, especially during wetter periods of the
year.

D. Coal-by-Wire

The impacts of coal-by-wire will fall primarily on the area in
which the electricity is generated. Therefore, impacts expected
to occur in Southwest Florida would generally be associated with
the construction and maintenance of the transmission lines and
rights-oi-way.

Right-of-way width requirements could range from one hundred and
forty feet to seven hundred feet. The former would utilize
seventeen acres of land per mile of powerline.whil,e the latter
would use eight to five acres per mile.

Just as with pipelines, th.e right-of-way would be cleared of all
trees and brush. In addition, trees outside the right-o4-way but
posing a danger to the transmission lines or towers would be
removed. Depending on the. circumstances, this type of clearing
in a wider right-of-way would be more destructive than in the
case of a pipeline.

On the positive side, the ground would not be cleared of all low
growth and no pipeline trench would be dug. (Some digging would
be necessary, however, for the foundations of the support
towers.) In fact, some agriculture may be allowed in the
right-of-way if it had occurred there previously.

Impac ts on water resources should be reduced substantiallyp
mostly due to the lack of'trenching, especially in crossing
streams and wetlands. Those benefits may be partially offset by
the construction of access roads. If the general.practice of
providing access to every structure in.the right-of-way were
followed, each mille of transmission line would result in an
average of one-eighth mile of access road. For Southwest
Florida, access roads in wetlands could pose significant problems
due to their impacts on water flow. Other problems such as
trespassing, illegal hunting, fires, and illegal dumping could
result from unauthorized use.of the access roads.

Transmission lines would have visual impact. Large lines and the
necessary support towers are definitely not consistent with
natural sights. They could be placed away from populated areas
and highways. That, however, would increase the impacts on
natural areas, wetlands, and other undeveloped areas. That would
also require the construction of more access roads.

While these structures cannot be easily hidden from view, they
can be partially screened by careful plantings of trees. For
trees to reach a height adequate to provide screening, however,
will require years.

The land clearing activities in the right-of-way may include the
use of herbicides to reduce or eliminate the growth of unwanted
vegetation. Such chemicals are to.be used carefully in any
situation. In areas such as sensitive wetlands, their,use should
be monitored carefully and avoided if practical.04)

E. Truck

The impacts associated with truck transport of coal would
generally be similar to those of trucks used for the transport of
other materials. For exaAiple, a truck. carrying twenty tons of
sand, phosphate ore, or gravel will cause just as much

41@

deterioration of the roads in the Region as would a truck
carrying a similar quantity of coal. Weight restrictions, speed
limits, and traffic laws would affect all heavy trucks in similar
fashion.

The impact issue would, therefore, be one of the number of heavy
vehicles added to the traffic rather than the type of impact
associated with that vehicle. That is, it will be a question of
more wear and tear on roads, more noise, more air pollution, and
more traffic. All of those problems currently exist. The use of
heavy trucks for coal transportation will add more of the same
types of impacts.

If trucks were to carry a maximum of twenty-six tons of coal per
trip, to supply the projected coal demand of 410,000 tons in 1990
would require 15,770 deliveries. Each truck would, of course,
have to return to the point of coal supply. Thus, the 15,770
deliveries would be doubled to 31,540 trips. In other words, in
a year, any location along the route used by the trucks would be
passed by a full coal truck 15,770 times and an empty coal truck
15,770 times. Altogether, a coal truck would pass that point
31,540 times per year or about eighty-seven times per day for
every day of the year. To achieve that number of trips, the
power plant would have to receive trucks at the rate of about
four per hour or one truck about every seventeen minutes.

There is one route that might be followed if trucks were used to
supply coal to the FPL power plant at Fort Myers. It would
originate in the Tampa/Port Manatee area where coal would be
delivered either by rail, barge, or ship. From that supply
point, coal trucks would take 1-75 south. At Fort Myers, the
trucks would exit 1-75 and travel east on State Road 80 to the
power plant site.

At present, 1-75 is not a congested road. State Road 80,
however, is congested. In 1983, S.R. 80 had an average daily
traffic count of 16,167. (This count was made at a point on S.R.
80 on the east side of the Orange River, i.e., east of 1-75.)(15)
At this number of vehicles, S.R. 80 was operating at level of
service "E". (Level of service is a measure of the actual traffic
on a road segment as compared to its design capacity. Level of
service "A" occurs when there is relatively little traffic with
most of the capacity unused. A desirable level of service is
"C.11 "E" is undesirable. At that level, the road segment has
more traffic than it was designed to carry.)

Construction to add two lanes to the segment of S.R. 80 between
1-75 and S.R. 31 is scheduled to begin in 1987-88. It sh,ould be
completed before 1990.(16) The average daily traffic projected
for 1990 is approximately 21,000. That increased traffic would
be offset by the increased capacity of four lanes and related
improvements. Consequently, S.R. 80 would likely be operating at
about level of service "B."(17)

For the purpose of this project, 1990 has been assumed to be t he

first year of operation for the converted power plant. As noted
above, the coal trucks would add about eighty-sever trips per day
(about 31,540 per year) to the highway. The impact of those
trips would be *relatively minor in light of the planned increased
capacity of the road.

It is possible that the trucks would not operate around the
clock, For example, the operation of the trucks could be
confined to ten hours a day for five days a week. While this
would not change the total number of trips, it would concentrate
them into a smaller time period. If that period of operation
were to be during the week (i.e., Monday through Friday) and
during the day, however, the truck traffic could have greater
impact. There would be more trucks per hour during the times of
normal traffic.

The major problems of noise and air pollution could be partially
addressed through state and local regulationsi stricter laws, and
careful enforcement of existing laws. This would, for example,
prevent problems of excessive truck noise due to faulty mufflers.
Air pollution could be reduced if the coal were washed, wetted,
and covered to prevent coal dust from escaping. Also, the trucks
should be well maintained and efficiently operated.

F. Combined Modes

Combined modes of fuel transportation for both oil and coal are
presented in other parts of this report. All of those
combinations are based on one or more of the alternatives
discussed in earlier sections of this part. Therefore, the
potential impacts of those combinations have already been
reviewed.

References for Part V

(1) Steve Kaskovich, "...But How Important Is Deepwater Port to Lee's
Future?" Eort Myers (Florida) News-Press , 19 February,
1984, pp. IG and 3G.

(2) U.S. Coast Guard, Final Rule, "Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Navigable Waterways of the United States," Federal Register
49, no. 80, 24 April 1984, 17467.

(3) Florida Department of Transportation, Maintenance Department,
Bartow, Florida, personal communication, 7 May 1984.

(4) Report pp. 7-5 and 7-6.

(5) Robert J. Halstead, pp. 1009 103, and 104.

(6) Barney L. Capehart, p. 3-24.

(7) Ibid., p. 3-33.

(8) Report , pp. 7-5 and 7-9.

(9) Barney L. Capehart, pp. 3-26 and 3-29.

(10) Report I pp. 7-12 and 7-16.

(11) Ibid., p. 7-8.

(12) Barney.L. Capehart, p. 3-29.

(13) Robert J. Halstead, p. 105.

(14) Report , pp. 7-31--7-33.

(15) Florida Department of Transportation.

(16) Lee County Transportation Improvement Program: 1984-1989.

(17) SWFRPC staff estimates.

VI. Policy Assessment

A. State

1. Charlotte Harbor Resource Management Area

The Charlotte Harbor area has received considerable
attention in the last ten years. (See Figure 7.) In 1975,
the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida
nominated it as an area of critical state concern. The
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Sarasota
County, Charlotte County, Punta Gorda, Naples, and Sanibel
joined in supporting the nomination.

Protection of the estuarine resources of the area was a
major concern that led to the nomination. There were other
concerns that went beyond that primary issue. Those
concerns included the rapid, premature, almost uncontrolled
subdivision of land,and competition for freshwater.

In early 1978, it was decided to rely on an
intergovernmental program without a critical area
designation. The Charlotte Harborarea was selected in
order to examine the statewide issues in a specific
location. It was experiencing nearly all of the problems
identified in the general statewide problem statement.
Staff was directed to complete its finding-of-fact report
and to consider a resource planning and management program.

The Charlotte Harbor program received Governor Graham's
endorsement in early 1979. The study area was expanded to
encompass the entire counties of Lee, Sarasota and
Charlotte. It was felt that development inland would
generate significant impacts on the estuarine areas through
alterations of the natural eco-system. The Charlotte Harbor
Resource Planning and Management Committee first met in June
of 1979. A Technical Advisory Committee was appointed to
assist in the identification of problems and recommendations
for solving them. In July, the Committee adopted the goals
and problem issues. Four issues were selected for further
study: problems associated with water resources, natural
systems, community infrastructure, and intergovernmental
coordination and decision-making. In June of 1980, the
Committee submitted its report of the major problems, along
with recommendations for possible solutions.

A second Committee appointed in July d'eveloped a management
plan based on the recommendations of the original committee.
This committee formally adopted the Charlotte Harbor
Management Plan on June 5, 1981. Each local government in
the three-county study area has now incorporated the Plan
into its respective local government comprehensive plan.

The plan adopted in 1981 has two goals and a number of
objectives. Those goals are listed below, followed by

relevant objectives.

1. To maintain and improve the functional and
structural integrity of the natural estuarine
eco-systems and related coastal components through
coordinated management of human impacts in
surrounding uplands and freshwater systems.

2. To identify and address the impact of growth so as
to minimize or eliminate any adverse effects on
the Charlotte Harbor area.

Objective #I: Policy consistent with the Charlotte Harbor
Committee goals and objectives should be incorporated in all
public plans relating to the Charlotte Harbor area.

Objective #4: Future development in floodplain areas is to
occur only in a manner consistent with the function of
floodplains.

Objective #5: The stormwater and drainage systems of the
Charlotte Harbor area are to function in a manner that
protects and preserves the Charlotte Harbor estuarine
system. ?.

Objective #6: Pe rmitting and inspection processes for
wastewater management should be improved to assure that
future development does not result in unavoidable pollution
of. estuarine and freshwater systems.

Objective #7: Predictable impacts of development within
wetland areas should be mitigated or prevented through a
prior planning process.

Objective #8: The barrier islands and beaches of the
Charlotte Harbor area should be managed as a whole,
recognizing that any developmental activity potentially
affects the processes of the entire barrier beach, barrier
island, and pass systems.

Objective #9: Existing and future water needs of the
natural systems, areas of existing and projected population
growth, and agricultural areas are to be met.

Objective #10: Future land development decisions by local
government should be in accord with the goals and objectives
of the Charlotte Harbor committee, and existing platted
areas should also be encouraged to develop in accord with
.these goals and objectives.

Objective #11: Mitigation and prevention of development
impacts should be initiated during site planning and site
alteration processes.

Objective #12: Predictable dredge and fill impacts within
the Charlotte Harbor area should be minimized through.a
prior planning process.

Objective #13: Existing and future water and natural system
problem areas should be restored to healthy conditions,
where practical and necessary for the quality of the
estuarine system.

Objective #14: Coastal areas should be managed in a man ner
which minimizes the threat to life and property caused by
tidal flooding.

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves Management Plan

In addition to the Charlotte Harbor Resource Plan, there is
a recently adopted management plan for four aquatic
preserves in the area. On May 18, 1983, the Governor and
Cabinet adopted the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves
Management Plan. The Plan designates four aquatic preserves
as wilderness preserves in which "...the primary management
objective will be the maintenance of1these eco-systems in an
essentially natural state..."0)

The preserves are Cape Haze, Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte
Harbor, Matlacha Pass, and Pine Island Sound. (See Figure
B.) These four preserves are part of the Charlotte Harbor
estuarine system found in Charlotte and Lee Counties.(2)
The water route currently used to supply fuel oil to the FPL
plant at Fort Myers passes through three of the preserves.
Several of the alternatives discussed elsewhere in this
report would similarly affect these preserves.
Und'er the plan, "essentially natural conditions shall be
identified and resources restored to that condition where
possible."(3) The plan contains twenty-two major policies.
Those of special importance for this project are presented
here: ,

A. Prohibit the disturbance of archaeological and
historical sites within the aquatic preserves, unless
prior authorization has been obtained ...

B. Manage all submerged lands within the aquatic
preserves to ensure the maintenance of essentially
natural conditions, the propagation of fish and
wildlife, and public recreation opportunities.

D., Protect, and where possible, enhance threatened.and
endangered species habitat within aquatic preserves.

E. Prohibit development activities within aqua-tic
preserves that adversely impact upon significant grass
beds, unless a prior determination has been made by the
Board of overriding public importance with no

reasonable alternativesq and adequate mitigation
measures are included.

(The "Board" referre d to above and below is the
Governor and Cabinet of Florida, sitting as,the Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.)

F. Prohibit the trimming and/or removal of mangroves
and other-natural shoreline vegetation within the
aquatic preserves, except when necessitated by the
pursuit of legally authorized projects.

1. Prohibit the drilling for oil and gas wells, the
mining of minerals, and dredging for the primary
purpose of obtaining fill, within the aquatic
preserves.

J. Prohibit non-water dependent uses of submerged
lands within aquatic preserves except in those cases
where the Board has determined that the project is
overwhelmingly in the public interest and no reasonable
alternatives exist. This prohibition shall include
floating residential units, as described in Section
125.0106,F.S.

K. Prohibit storage of toxic, radioactive, or other
hazardous materials within the aquatic preserve.

N. Prohibit the construction of new deep water ports
within the aquatic preserve boundaries.

P. Manage state-owned spoil islands within aquatic
preserves as bird rookeries and wildlife habitat.areas.

0. Encourage public utilization of the aquatic
preserves, consistent with the continued maintenance of
their natural values and functions.

U. Apply the management criteria contained in the
adopted Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves Management
Plan to all subsequent legislative additions of land to
these aquatic preserves.(4)

B. Regional

1. In troduction

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council is one of
eleven such agencies in Florida. It covers the following
counties: Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and
Sarasota. As an advisory and coordinating agency, the
Regional Planning Council assists constituent local
governments in regional, metropolitan, county, and municipal
planning matters such as land use, water resources, and
transportation. Its functions are performed either in the

48*

interest of the public or for public purposes involving the
expenditure of publi,c funds. The Regional Planning Council
forms a vital link between local governments and the state
and federal governments through the preparation of plans and
reports and the provision of technical assistance. It also
serves as a forum +or local governments in Southwest
Florida. This facilitates the airing of problems of greater
.than local concern and the development of plans and programs
to address these problems.

The Southwest Florida.Regional Planning Council has rules
(goals, objectives, and policies) under which it operates.
Since the Council does not have regulatory or taxing
authority, it performs an advisory role under these rules.
The overall Council goal is the protection and improvement
of the total environment of Southwest Florida. There are
ten sub-goals that address various aspects of the total
environment. Each of these is further divided into
objectives and policies which provide guidance for Council
actions. These ten sub-goals are as follows:

1. economic
2. environmental pr otection,
3. housing,
4. land development,
5. transportation,
6. disaster preparedness,
7. support services,
8. intergovernmental coordination,
9. water resources, and
10. energy conservation.

Council rules have been reviewed to determine those that
might affect any of the transportation alternatives
discussed in this report. Selected goals, objectives, and
policies are presented on.the following pages.

2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies

291-2.02 ECONOMIC GOAL. To achieve a balanced economy which can
absorb and adapt to growth.

(2) Objective: Broaden the economic base i'n a manner that is
compatible with the character of the region.

Policies:

(a) Encourage new developmen t to occur in a manner which'
does not adversely affect the commercial and sport
fishing industry.

(3) Objective: Make the wisest and best use of the region's
human and natural resources.

Policies:

(b) Discourage economic activities that waste or degrade
natural human resources.

(c) Encourage programs that would maintain a continued
maximum yield of marine life necessary for commercial
and sports fishing.

(4) Objective: Ensure that public services and facilities
necessary for economic development are available
when needed.

Policies:

(e) Encourage local planning programs to designate areas
suitable for commercial and industrial growth and
development.

291:2.03 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOAL. To protect and improve the
air, water, and earth resources of Southwest
Florida for present and future populations.

(1) Objective: Encourage the wisest use of resources and the
protection of the environment of the region.

Policies:

(h) Encourage local governments to reject proposals for
development in the coastal zone that threaten to
degrade the quality or hamper the productivity of
estuarine and bay environments.

(i) Encourage the state and local governments to adopt
regulations that protect mangroves, estuaries, and salt
marshes to ensure the continual functioning of the
coastal eco-system.

<j) Encourage local governments to protect coastal waters
capable of supporting shellfish harvesting (Class II
waters) by requiring developers to retain, on-site,
wastes generated by development in order to prevent
actual or potential degradation of water quality.

Q) Encourage the protection of marine grass beds.

(w) Encourage the restoration of any beach, shoreline, or
other waterfront, shorefront, or coastal site to its
natural condition as soon as possible a4ter'any
crossing, use, or other damaging activity.

(2) Objective: Assist the I ocal and state. agencies in the
development of air quality management plans in
the Region.

Policies:

(d) Encourage local governments to develop strong air
quality discharge standards relevant to the needs of
their community, but coordinated with the needs of
adjacent affected communities.

(3) Objective: Assist in the control and elimination of noise
pollution.

Policies:

(a) Encourage local governments to establish noise
pollution ordinances and enforcement programs.

(b) Encourage the use of noise abatement structures between
noise generating sources and areas of pollution
concentration.

(d) Encourage the location of large noise generating
sources away from population centers.

291-2.05 LAND DEVELOPMENT GOAL. Have land use activities consistent
with natural land characteristics.

(1) Objective: Open space areas in the Region should have their
value protected through land planning and
conservation.

Poll cies:

(b) Encourage state and local land development plans to
protect significant natural resources and wildlife
habitats, in particular, habitats of endangered
species.

(e) Discourage development which occurs adjacent to State
Aquatic Preserves from disturbing any high marsh areas
or mangroves adjacent to the aquatic preserve or an
environmentally significant area.

(2) Objective: Preserve significant historical and
archaeological sites in the Region.

Policies:

(b) Encourage developments to preserve all signi4icant
historical and/or archaeological sites within their
boundaries.

(e) Encourage local governments to protect historical
and/or archaeological sites from possible adverse

effects of surrounding land uses.

(4) Objective: Limit urban expansion to those -areas most
suitable for new development.

Policies:

M Encourage grouping of industrial and commercial uses at
points of high transportation accessibility.

(g) Encourage local governmental plans to recognize and
prioritize the needs of surface water-dependent and
related land uses along the shorelines.

(5) Objective: Establish high quality urban design standards.

Policies:

(c) Encourage the use of effective buffering (use buffer or
landscape buffer) to ameliorate any incompatibility
between land uses.

(e) Encourage local governmental plans to recognize the
needs and ensure sufficient buffers for those intensive
land uses sulch as power plants and ports which are
incompatible with most other land uses, but are a part
of the community.

291:2.06 TRANSPORTATION GOAL. Develop a responsive and balanced
comprehensive regional transportation system
that properly integrates all methods of
transportation in the region with existing and
potential land use needs.

(1) Objective: To encourage all units of government to
participate in a continuous comprehensive
transportation planning program that properly
considers all methods of transportation.

Policies:

(e) Encourage all units of government to encourage the
protection and maintenance of the intracoastal
waterways, interconnecting channels, and related por't
facilities.

(9) Encourage land use planning efforts of all levels of
government to address the land needs of water-borne
commerce and traffic.

(h) Encourage the establishment of a minimal number of
suitable corridors for pipelines for both,onshore and
offshore needs.

(2) Objective: Encourage and implement mass transit and mass

carrier systems oriented to the users whenever
Policies: economically feasible.

(a) Encourage the use and continued operation of present
rail and transit facilities.

(4) Objective: Assist in the protection of the traffic-carrying
capacity of major streets and roads, major
interchanges and intersections.

Policies:

(a) Encourage all local governments to design, upgrade, and
maintain all transportation systems to enable roadways
to operate at, or above, Level of Service "C" (as
defined and used by the Florida Department of
Transportation).

(5) Objective: Encourage the development of a well-planned
transportation system that would protect the
environmental and ecological systems of the
Region.

Policies:

(a) Discourage the construction of transportation
facilities what would disrupt natural sheetflow or
disrupt the Region's wetlands or aquifer recharge
areas.

(b) Discourage the construction of transportation
facilities that would have an adverse effect on
significant wildlife habitats and animal refuge areas.

291-2.08 SUPPORT SERVICES. Ensure that support services and
facilities are adequate for the needs of present
and future populations.

(3) Objective: Ensure that governmental regulatory programs are
coordinated with planning programs concerned
with the provision of suppor t services.

Policies:

(d) Encourage state and local governments to encourage the
establishment of on-site treatment of industrial
wastes.

291-2.10 WATER RESOURCES. Protect and enhance the water resources of
the region.'

(1) Objective: To provide for the most effective management

possible of the water resources of the Region.

Policies:

(f) Discourage development that is not part of, or
consistent with state, district, and local
comprehensive water management plans.

(2) Objective: To prevent the destruction of aquifer recharge
areas.

Policies:

(a) Encourage the evaluation of land development and water
management proposals in terms of their probable total
effect upon the land's ability to recharge the aquifer
system.

(3) Objective: To prevent the contamination of the Region's
groundwater resources.

Policies:

(b) Discourage sewage treatme.nt plants, industrial holding
ponds or other potentially polluting facilities from
being constructed unless adequate precautions are made
to prevent contamination of leaching, especially in the
event of flooding.

(f) Discourage the construction of canals which would
contribute to saltwater intrusion.

(g) Encourage the use of generall y accepted Best Management
Practices to reduce or prevent groundwater pollution,
particularly in aqui4er recharge areas.

(4) Objective: To prevent the contamination of the Region's
surface waters.

Policies:

(d) Encourage increased on-site retention of stormwater
runoff, to improve surface water quality, increase
percolation of rainwater into the ground, and reduce
the demands of primary drainage canals.

(e) Encourage the establishment of natural vegetation
buffer zones and gradually sloping berms away from
artificial waterways in order to prevent the direction
of contaminants into adjacent water bodies.

(f) Encourage the establishment of specific water runoff
control measures for developments located adjacent to
waterways.

<5) Objective: To provide adequate supplies of water for all
uses.

Policies:

(9) Encourage the utilization of non-potable water for the
cooling of electrical generating plants.

291-2.11 ENERGY CONSERVATION GOAL. Promote and develop the most
effective, efficient, and economical uses of all
forms of energy available to Southwest Florida.

(4) Objective; Encourage improved facilities planning.

Policies:

(e) The character, location, and timing of the development
of energy and energy-related facilities should be
planned so as to minimize adverse environmental,
economic, and social impacts.

@3. Developments of Regional Impact
Some of the facilities needed in the various alternatives
may also be subject to a process that incorporates review by
agencies at the state, regional, and local levels. Under
the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act (Ch.
380, F.S.), a development that meets certain criteria can be
designated a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Generally, a development would be designated as a DRI if it
"would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or
welfare of citizens of more than one county." (Ch. 380.06,
F.S.) Although created under state statute, DRIs are
discussed in this section because the process occurs at the
regional level with the regional planning council as the
primary vehicle. The regional planning council follows a
format established under state law while also utilizing the
.policies adopted by itself and the affected local
government(s).

Twelve types of projects are generally presumed to be DRIs
(assuming they are of sufficient size or impact). They are
as follows:

airports,
attractions and recreation facilities,
electrical generating facilities and transmission
lines,
hospitals,
industrial plants and industrial parks,

mining operations,
office parks,
petroleum storage facilities,
port facilities,
residential developments,
schools, and
shopping centers.

Within the statute, there is a brief description of the
thresholds for these projects. For example, an industrial
plant or park would be a DRI if the proposed facility would
provide parking for more than 1,500 motor vehicles or occupy
a site greater than one square mile. Even if a facility
were below the threshold, it could still be a DRI depending
on the circumstances of the specific site and the potential
impacts of the facility.

Of interest in this study are four of the DRI types. They
are listed below with the threshold for each:

- electrical generating facilities and transmission lines
(27F-2.03)

(1) Any proposed steam electrical generating facility with a
total generating capacity greater than one hundred
(100) megawatts, or a proposed steam addition to an
existing electrical generating facility, which addition
has a generating capacity of greater than one hundred
(100) megawatts; except that this paragraph shall not
apply to a facility which produces electricity not for
sale to others. Generating capacity shall be measured
by the manufacturer's rated "name plate" capacity.
(2) Any propos'ed el-6-ctrical transmission line which has a
capacity of two hundred thirty (230) kilovolts or more
and crosses a county line.

Provided, however, that no electrical transmission line
shall be considered as falling within this standard if its
construction is to be limited to an established
right-of-way, as specified in Subsection 380.04(3)(b),
Florida Statutes.

- industrial plants and industrial parks (27F-2.05)

Any proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant
under common ownership, or any proposed industrial park under
common ownership which provides sites for industrial,
manufacturing, or processing activity, which:

(1) provides parking for more than one thousand five (1,500)
motor vehicles; or
(2) occupies a site greater than one (1) square mile.

- petroleum storage facilities (27F-2.08)

(1) The following developments shall be presumed to be
developments of regional impact and subject to the
requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes:

(a) Any proposed facility or combination of facilities
located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any
navigable water for the storage o@ any petroleum
product with a storage capacity of over fifty
thousand (50,000) barrels.

(b) Any other proposed facility or combination of
facilities ior.the storage of any petroleum product
with a storage capacity of over two hundred thousand.
(200,000) barrel's.

(2).For the purpose of this section, "barrel" shall mean
forty-two (42) U.S. gallons.

port facilities (27F-2.09)

The following development shall be presumed to be a development
of regional impact and subject to the requirements of Chapter
380, Florida Statutes:

i
The proposed construction of any water port, except those
designed primarily for the mooring or storage of watercraft
used exclusively for sport or pleasure of less than one hundred
(100) slips for moorings.

Designation of a facility or development is importa nt because
it triggers a careful review process that supplements local
review. The regional planning council serves as the chief
reviewing agency while also providing coordination among
relevant state, regional, and local bodies. This is
significant because a wide variety of expertise is brought to
bear on the DRI. The regional planning council develops a set
of recommendations for the proposed project. It should be
noted that the regional planning council can only recommend and
not require or regulate. The local government with
jurisdiction over the DRI site actually has final authority.

4. Other

Regional policies directly affect only the operation of the
Regional Planning Council itself. Their impact on local,
state, federal, or other regional agencies is indirect. As
noted above, regional planning councils in Florida have no
regulatory authority, but are strictly limited to an.
advisory role.

Impacts on various activities and projects occur via Council
reviews of such activities and projects and their permit
applications. For example, Council staff utilizes Council
policies to review a project. The full Council acts on

staff conclusions and makes recommendations to the local,
regional, state, or federal agency with jurisdiction or
permitting authority over the project as to its
acceptability, suitability, and conformance with Council
rules.

In addition to these goals, objectives, and policies,
Council utilizes the Charlotte Harbor Resource Management
Plan discussed above. This Plan is consistent with Council
efforts to protect Charlotte Harbor.

C. Local

1. Introduction

The comprehensive plans of relevant local governments
in Southwest Florida were reviewed for goals,
objectives, and policies that could be of importance
for coal transportation. Public policies governing
land use are found in the local government
comprehensive plans, each of which is an adopted
ordinance of the result of a process of public debate
and discussion. Industrial land use policies are
usually rather general. For example, the type of
industry or'industrial land use that would be
acceptable to most local governments would have to be
nearly ideal. This would be clean, small scale, high
technology, nonpolluting industry that would provide
stable employment and high pay scales.

Based on review of the various transportation
alternatives, the local governments most likely to be
affected are Charlotte County, Punta Gorda, Lee County,
and Fort Myers. (The first two have a combined plan.)
Lee County and Fort Myers would likely experience more
impacts than other areas because of the location of the
FPL generating plant. For rail transportation, all
four of these local governments would experience
increased rail traffic because of the location of the
rail line. For water transportation alternati ves,
impacts would vary according to the specific
alternative. It appears likely, however, that Lee
County and Fort Myers would have more impacts, although
Sanibel and Cape Coral may also be affected.

2. Goals, Objectives and Policies

The goals, objectives and policies of each local
government in the Region that might affect the various
alternatives are listed in this section. These were
derived from local government comprehensive plans.

a. Charlotte County/Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan

Economic Goal: Promote community economic efforts
toward expanding employment opportunities for citizens
of all ages and improvement of economic stability
through diversification of the economic base.

Industrial Land Use Goal: To encourage the orderly
development of the industrial park and other industrial
acreage in order to minimize conflicting land uses.

Objective 2: Encourage non-polluting industry that
produces a minimum of adverse environmental affects.

ObIjective 3: Encourage the location of new industrial
parks and districts near primary thoroughfares.

Objective 5: To protect residential areas from
encroachment of industrial activities, regulations
dealing with screening, buffer strips, open space and
setbacks will be employed.

General Poli cies

Industrial lands developed as a park will be limited
to manufacturing, warehousing, and related
activitie,.s that are conducted so the noise, dust,
odor, and glare of each operation is completely
confined within an enclosed building. The size and
volume of traffic generated by these uses should be
less than that generated by medium or heavy
industrial activity. Buildings and improvements
should be architecturally attractive, surrounded by
landscaped yards, and screened from other uses when
appropriate.

Coastal Zone Policies
* Encourage the implementation of water quality
management planning.

* Require economic assessments of coastal projects to
measure the contribution of the natural system that
may replace, to the regional economy.

Ecological Principles

* To incorporate the concept of air pollution impact in
industrial zoning.

* To encourage the development of a county wide
stormwater runoff management plan to include flow
regulation and practices for reducing pollution
loads.

* Preserve to the greatest extent practicable fresh
water recharge areas.

Transportation Policies

� Developers will be required to dedicate the
rights-of-way and make the improvements necessary,
according to the Thoroughfare Plan, for the portions
of the route falling within their development
proposal. Developers toil] be required to make the
necessary intersection and signalization
improvements that are necessary to ensure that the
project has adequate access without sacrificing the
carrying capacity of the connected route.

� The Traffic Circulation Plan for Charlotte County and
the City of Punta Gorda is related and shall
consider the environmental problems that are often
encountered, including the following: blockage of
light and air; noise pollution; air and water
pollution; interruption of the hydrological system;
and degradation of the biological system.

Electrical Unit Policies

Stay informed of future power plant sitings in
Charlotte and adjacent counties so as to be able to
mitigate any adverse environmental impacts.

b. Lee County Comprehensive Plan

Community Facilities and Services

Goal 9: To provide adequate, reliable, efficient and
cosf-effective levels of electric power to all Lee
County residents and visitors.

Objective 40: Encourage the proper location and
landscaping of substations and powerline easements to
provide minimal adverse effects on adjacent land uses.

Land Use

Goal 11: To utilize the land for man's activities in a
manner consistent with the natural environment, while
providing improved living and economic conditions for
both present and future citizens of Lee County, by
striving for a land use decision-making system that
takes into account the separate and inter-related
concerns of consumers, producers, and the government
alike.

Objective 56: Facilitate the movement of goods by
improving the efficiency and expanding the capacity of
the surface road network maintaining and, where
possible, improving railway, port and airport
facilities and services.

Policy 28: It shall be the policy of the Board of
County Commissioners of Lee County to recognize:
b. the special relation between land use and
quality of water, and give special
consideration in the review and permitting of
all new developments;
c. that the unique environment of Lee County
can pose limitations on urban and suburban
development.

Policy 32: It shall be the policy of the
Board of County Commissioners of Lee County
to prepare development regulations that:

c. encourage:

(1) industrial development in locations
having immediate or direct access to one
or more of the following:

- major highways
- railroads
- air freight facilities
- marine transport

Policy 35: It shall be the policy of the Board of County
Commissioners of Lee County to encourage, support, or promote:

c. commercial aviation and shipping port facilities
designed and located consistent with the needs of Lee County
and compatible with surrounding land uses.

c. Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan

Traffic Circulation System Goal: To provide the most efficient,
economical, integrated traffic circulation system for the
movement of people and goods within and through the Greater Fort
Myers area will the minimum congestion and travel time and the
maximum safety for resident and non-resident alike.

Strategy 3: Protect and encourage non-automotive traffic
circulation.

c. Facilities (lines and spurs) for rail traffic will be
protected and encouraged in instances which would reduce the
amount of truck traffic or where rail traffic would provide
other tangible benefits, such as economic development.

e. Facilities for water-related traffic will be encouraged
and protected, both for commercial and recreation purposes,
within the existing jurisdictional limitations.

Economic Development Element Goal: To strengthen the economic
system of the Greater Fort Myers area, especially the economic

base, the prospects for growth and stability, and the
opportunities for employment.

Strategy 3: Develop a transportation network that will foster
the development and expansion of all industry and commerce, with
Fort Myers as its hub.

c. Support the continuance of the Atlantic Coast Line
Railroad system, its lines, yards, spurs, and service to the
commercial and industrial sections of Fort Myers.

e. Encourage and protect water transportation routes to the
extent that they are used in connecting Fort Myers with
other commercial trade markets, serve local commerce and
industry, and provide an avenue of tourist access.

Power Generation and Transmi ssion Siting Goal: To protect the
general public interest in Fort Myers as it may be affected by
the provision of power to the community by the Florida Power and
Light Company.

Objective 1: To support Florida Power and Light's timely and
economic provision of an adequate power supply to the present and
future customers in the Greater Fort Myers area.

Objective 2: To ensure that the location of power customers, and
the siting oi the necessary power generation plants, transmission
facilities, and distribution facilities continue to be consistent
with the Fort Myers Land Use Plan, and continue to have minimum
adverse impacts.

3. Summary

Most local governments in Southwest Florida encourage economic
development. Their efforts, however, tend to focus on an ideal
industry that would offer high wages and employ large numbers of
workers but have relatively little negative impact. This would
exclude the traditional "smokestack" industries.

There is a definite concern by citizens and elected officials
alike that heavy industry would harm other aspects of the
regional economy, especially tourism and retirement. Most local
governments tend to favor commercial development by offering a
number of commercial zones. Industrial uses, however, are
generally confined to one or two zoning categories.

In addition, there are a large number of environmental standards
found in zoning regulations. Examples are seen in the
performance standards regulating such things as excessive noise,
vibration, smoke, and other particulate matter, radiation, odors,
toxic or noxious matter, fire and explosive hazards, and
industrial wastes. These standards governing industrial
development are particularly common in communities in the two
northern coastal counties of-Charlotte and Sarasota. Elsewhere,
there are ordinances restricting air and water pollution,

dredging and filling, and excavating.

Several areas use ordinances for planned unit developments to
regulate industry, creating planned industrial developments
(PIDs). Such development practices allow flexibility to the
developer, while at the same time granting stronger control over
industrial projects to the local government. PIDs also allow
essentially.unattractive land uses to be buffered from
neighboring land uses in a better manner than conventional
industrial zoning.

Charlotte County has two industrial zones. They are as follows:

IL (Industrial, light) - This zone is intended for li ght
manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing,
wholesaling, and distribution..

IG (Industrial, general) - This zone is primarily for
manufacturing and related uses.

There is also a Planned Development zone designed to encourage
concentrated, energy-efficient land development through the use
of innovative land use planning and structural design techniques.
Conventional zoning requirements are replaced by flexible
performance requiremeh@ts.

Those industrial performance standards would probably limit
larger-scale, potentially polluting, facilities. A County land
use policy specifically limits industries in industrial parks to
'activities that are conducted so the noise, dust, odor, and
glare of each operation is completely confined within an enclosed
building." County policies encourage "non-polluting industry
that produces a minimum of adverse environmental effects."

Punta Gorda has two industrial zones. They are as follows:

IP (Industrial Park) - This district is used for industrial
activity. Its purpose is to promote more efficient and
economical land use, harmony in physical design and
industrial relationships and variety and amenity in
industrial development while also protecting adjacent and
nearby existing and future non-industrial uses.

16 (Industrial, general) - This district covers light
manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing,
wholesaling, and distribution.

Punta Gorda applies the same industrial performance standards as
Charlotte County to non-residential uses. City policies are
identical to Charlotte County polities and are administered by a
joint City/County Planning Council. The larger-scale facilities,
when mentioned in zoning regulations, are prohibited.

In Lee County, there are also two industrial zones. They are

listed below.-

IL (Light industrial) - This district is suitable for
certain types of light manufacture, processing or
fabrication of non-objectionable products not involving the
use of materials, processes, or machinery likely to cause
undesirable effects upon nearby or adjacent residential or
commercial uses.

IG (General industrial) - This district provides areas where
various heavy extensive industrial operations can be
conducted without creating hazards or other undesirable
effects upon surrounding land uses.

Two industrial districts are used jin Fort Myers. They are as
follows:

Ind-1 (Industrial district 1) - Uses in this district are
generally limited to the assembly, packaging or processing
of previously prepared goods and materials, retail and
wholesale activities requiring extensive storage or
warehousing, the receiving, sorting, processing, storage,
packing, bottl-ing, and distribution of foods and beverages,
and related commercial and service activities.

Ind-2 (Industrial' district 2) - This district would cover
general manufacturing or processing of raw materials and
goods and the conduct of business or-storage of materials,
products, and equipment outside of buildings without being
enclosed with fences or walls.

Most City policies are quite general and encourage the growth of
tourism in the City. Such policies would appear to run counter to
large-scale industrial development. Most industrially-zoned
lands in Fort Myers are located away from the riverfront on the
City's east side.

4. Local Government Responses

Due to the location of the generating plant and the source of the
fuel supply, the use of rail transport for either oil or coal
will affect at least four local governments in Southwest Florida.
They would be Charlotte county, Punta Gorda, Lee County, and Fort
Myers.

Local governments have limited control over railroad operations.
In those cases where actual regulatory control does not exist,
local officials may be forced to utilize political pressure,
public outcry, or some similar mechanism of "friendly
persuasion." The success of such efforts will depend to a great
extent on the responsiveness of the railroad administration.
That responsiveness is itself dependent on several factors.
Among these are railroad company policy, legal and contractural
obligations and commitments, economic conditions, and
requirements and conditions imposed by state and federal

regulatory agencies.

An example of the successful resolution of a conflict between a
railroad and local residents occurred in the Sarasota area. The
Seaboard System Railroad changed some of its operational schedule
in March, 1983. That change resulted in trains being operated at
night. According to a railroad official, the decision led to
numerous complaints by people who were being awakened by the
passage of the train and its horn. At each street crossing, the
train was required by state and federal laws to blow its horn.
Railroad officials recognized the problems that caused for
sleeping residents, but felt that they could not discontinue the
practice due to legal and safety considerations.

The pressure of telephone calls, letters, and a petition from
Sarasota residents, however, led to a change in operations. The
trains that were operating at night were rescheduled for daylight
hours. Train horns still sound at each street crossing as
required by law but residents are not awakened.(5)

Other types of response mechanisms available for local
governments would be local zoning regulations and codes and
ordinances. As stated above, a major assumption of this study is
that, even if there is increased rail traffic due to the
transport of coal or o:il, that will not result in the
construction of new li@nes or other activities in other than
existing rights-of-way.

If this assumption is correct, the potential problems for local
governments and residents are considerably reduced when compared
to the alternative. (That would be the case in which entirely
new lines in new rights-of-way would be required.) Under this
assumption, the points of conflict will not be much increased
over those that currently exist. No new parcels will be bordered
by the railroad. Individuals who live or work there and firms
doing business there will, however, likely experience increased
impacts due to increased rail traffic.,

Thus, for the local government w;fh jurisdiction over the area,
there will generally be no need to address the impacts of
railroad traffic on previously unaffected parcels because there
will likely not be any significant increase in the impact area.
In reality, individual property owners, residents, and firms
occupying those affected parcels will bear the brunt of increased
impacts.

Some types of impacts, however, will require local government
attention. Those are the issues of delays for highway users,
safety, community barriers, and environmental degradation. the
first three of these are, at least.to some degree,
traffic-related. For a municipality faced with the prospect of a
significant increase in rail traffic and resulting impacts on
city street traffic, there should be a careful examination of the
potential,problems. A number of possible solutions are
available. Among these are the following:

a. traffic control,
b. physical alteration of the conflict site,
c. use of alternate traffic routes, and
d. construction of new traffic routes.

The applicability of these solutions would depend on the type of
impact, the severity of the impact, the extent of the impact, the
availability of funding, and the perception of the problem by
both local officials and residents.

As discussed above, unit trains could have significant impacts on
the street traffic. The impacts of unit trains as long as a mile'
would likely be felt most in the more urban areas along the train
route in Punta Gorda and Fort Myers. In addition to the four
solutions suggested above, those impacts could be reduced if the
trains were to move through those areas as quickly as possible
and if train passage were to occur at times of minimum street
traffic.

Train speeds, of course, must not exc eed those suitable for safe
operation in an urban area. Additionally, the physical
conditions of the railroad track and other equipment would limit
speeds.

The scheduling of trai/n movements may be very difficult to
arrange. The passage of the train through a single community
will be a relatively minor event when compared with the entire
unit train operation. The smoothness and success of that
operation would be affected by such factors as the source of the
coal supply, the availability of railroad equipment, coal demand
in other areas, and railroad traffic. If the coal is transported
from a source outside Florida, the complexity of the operation
-will increase. Therefore, a relatively simple change in
scheduling may be very difficult to achieve.

More than likely, none of the four affected local governments
would have to make any modifications or additions to the
comprehensive plans, rules, regulations, codes, or other
ordinances currently in force. The potential impacts that have
been discussed in this report can probably be addressed quite
adequately by those existing mechanisms.

References for Part VI

(1) Florida Department of Natural Resourcesq Charlotte Harbor
Aquatic Preserves Management Plan , 18 May, p. iii.

(2) Ibid.9 p. 1.

(3) Ibid., p, 5.

(4) Ibid., pp. 17-20.

(5) Deborah Zara, "Trains Back on the Right Track with Return of
Daytime Runs," Sarasota (Florida) Herald-Tribune 15 August
19839 p. 5-8.

VI I. Conclusions

The conversion of an oil-burning electrical generating plant to
coal would produce a variety of impacts, both on-site and
off-site. Those impacts would generally involve three phases.
They would be coal mining, transportation, and burning. Each
phase would have sub-phases, depending upon the particular
situation. For example, burning coal would involve
environmental impacts such as air pollution and solid waste
disposal.

This project has examined coal transportation in Southwest
Florida. Of all aspects of coal conversion, transportation
appears to be the one with the fewest negative impacts. Many
-of those impacts will not occur in Southwest Florida. In each
transportation Alternative, similar impacts occur all along the
route between the point of fuel production (coal mining) and
the point of fuel use. The major exception could occur in the
use of trucks, mainly due to the number needed. "If trucks were
used in the numbers estimated above, their impacts could be
significant and highly visible.

The use of a pipeline could also be an exception. The impacts
likely to occur along the pipeline route in normal operation
would be quite different and much less severe than those that
would occur at the termination of the pipeline. The major
difference would be the disposal of the water used in the
pipeline.

The impacts associated with the use of barges appear to be lest
harmful than those of other alternatives. Additionally, the
barges could be used in numbers comparable to those that apply
currently.

The physical differences between coal and oil make coal
generally a less harmful fuel for the environment of Southwest
Florida. (These statements apply only to the transportation.
of coal. They do not apply to its burning. They also do not
apply to any type of coal slurry.) Coal is a solid.
Consequently, it-would be far easier to confine it in case of
an accident than it would be to confine oil.

Coal would not be easily transported by wind, waves, or
current. It would not be washed among mangroves and along and
onto other sensitive environments in the same manner as would
oil. Coal dust, of course, could be carried about easil Y.

Spilled coal could be more easily collected than spilled oil.
If coal were spilled due to a barge accident, dredging might be
required to remove it. More coal could be recovered, with no
worse (and probably less) impact on benthic organisms, than if
a similar quantity of oil were spilled.

Coal storage would have different impacts than oil storage.
Oil is stored in weather-proof tanks. Coal, however, is

usually piled on the ground. As a result of this or similar
open storage, coal pile runoff would be a potential problem.
Provisions would have to be made to prevent this runoff from
escaping, leaching into the ground, and polluting local water
resources.

Windblown coal dust could be controlled by washing and wetting.
The washing would likely occur early in the overall process
before the coal would be transported from.the point of supply.
Wetting could be used at later points, as during handling and
storage at the point of use.

This study has addressed the transportation impacts of the coal
conversion of one unit of the FPL plant at Fort Myers. Some
general statements can be made, however, about a much broader
issue. That would be the development of a new generating
facility at the existing site.

As time passes, the units in use at the Fort Myers plant grow
older and less capable of meeting anti-pollution standards.
These units are also less efficient than newer ones. At some
point, replacement will have to be considered. Additionally,
this is a growing area and electrical consumption is expected
to continue to increase as population increases.

FPL currently has eighty-eight generating units in Florida.
<This includes all units in use. For example, there are two
fossil stream generators and twelve combustion turbines at the
Fort Myers plant. Therefore, that plant is counted as having
fourteen units.) Of these eighty-eight units, the one that has
been in service the longest began operation in 1946. The next
oldest unit went into service in 1953. The range of in-service
dates is as follows: 1940's-1, 1950's-7, 1960's-21, 1970's-57,
and 1980's-2.

The generating units currently in use at the Fort Myers plant
range in age from twenty-five years to ten years. Unit number
one was placed in service in December, 1958. Unit number two
began service in July, 1960. The twelve combustion turbines
were first operational in June, 1974.0) Thus, Fort Myers unit
number one (1958) is one of the eight oldest in the FPL system
'while unit number two (1969) is among the oldest third.

The age of these units means that the prospect of the
retirement of one or more must be considered. Even with a
theoretical operational lifetime of forty years, unit number
one could need replacement by 1998. (The expected retirement
years for these units are listed as "unknown" by FPL in its
Ten Year Power Plant S'ite Plan: 1983-1992

Electrical consumption will continue to grow in the Region.
Therefore, provisions must be made to meet the expected demand.
This can be done in several ways. The existing facility can
operate at maximum capacity as long as possible. Excess
electricity generated by other, existing plants can be supplied

to this Region New units and/or plants can be constructed,
either in this Region or elsewhere.

An option to be considered is the use of the Fort Myers site
for construction of new (coal-fired) generating units as
needed. The existing units could continue to generate power
while the new units were being constructed. The access to the
Caloosahatchee River and the barge facility at the plant could
facilitate the movement of machinery, equipment, and supplies
to be used for such a project.

As noted above, the FPL plant at Fort Myers is 460 acres in
area with 365.5 acres of the site in use.(2) That leaves about
104 acres not in use. Thus, not only does the site have good
transportation access, it also has land available for
expansion.

A new unit of greater efficiency and probably larger size could
be constructed with the latest technology. It would be
centrally located in a region that appears to have a steadily
growing appetite for electricity. To make use of the existing
site would generate fewer problems and objections than would
the development of a new site. To find another site for a
power plant in this or any other Region that would satisfy all
parties may be impossible.

The water route could continue to be used without cost to FPL
and almost without fear of congestion. As discussed above in
this report, the impact of the FPL barge traffic is relatively
minor. This is primarily a result of the virtual lack of other
industrial waterborne traffic on the Caloosahatchee River.
Also, the likely replacement of the Edison Bridge will
eliminate problems caused by opening that bridge to permit the
barges to pass.

If railroad transportation were to be considered, some long
range planning would have to be applied. One problem that must,
be addressed is the abandonment of rail routes in Southwest
Florida. Once the right-of-way is sold, the land is usually
converted to other uses. For example, rights-of-way may be
used for other transportation purposes such as streets. It is
possible, of course, that the right-of-way will not have been
converted to another use after its sale by the railroad. Even
so, it will have to be repurchased from the current owner(s).
Th,a-t will require additional effort, time, and expense.

It may be that new rights-of-way over different routes would
have to be developed. If that were necessary, the potential
time, costs (financial, environmental, and other), and
difficulty may make the development of new rights-of-way
unfeasible. In any case, the continued abandonment of railroad
rights-of-way may have negative repercussions if railroad
transportation of fuel is to be used in the future.

Overall, expande'd use of.the-existing generating site appears

to be less costly than the development of a new site. Due to
the likely costs involved in the development and operation of
any generating facility, however, no new facility should be
constructed until all reasonable alternatives have been
examined.

Re4erences for Part VII

(1) Florida Power & Light Company, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan:
1983-1992 , I April, 1983, pp. 28-30.

(2) Ibid., p. 31.

Recommendations

The results of the conversion of the FPL electrical generating
plant at Fort Myers to burn coal likely could be adequately
dealt with via existing regulatory mechanisms. All levels of
government--local, regional, state, and federal--should,
however, be aware of the potential changes (such as discussed
here) that could occur.

Local governments should be especially careful to review any
likely changes that might affect sensitive areas and issues.
For example, dredging impacts on water, railroad impacts on
traffic, and pipeline impacts on wetlands are three general
groups of impacts. Each transportation alternative has several
groups of impacts such as these. Each group has numerous
sub-groups of specific impacts (as discussed above in this
report).

No new policies are recommended for adoption by the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council. Existing Council policies
and po sitions should be adequate to address the potential
impacts discussed above. Even if impacts of a greater
magnitude were to occur, the Council occupies a unique position
in its capacity to focus local and state concerns on problems
of a regional nature. That regional perspective will, in turn,
permit the development of responses that efficiently
incorporate both local and state government concerns.

IX. Council Action

The draft version of this report was first presented to the
Southwest Florida Regional Plannng Council on June 21, 1984.
Council authorized staff to distribute the draft for review and
comment and to advertise for two hearings to receive public
comment. Information about the report was distributed to area
news media, the SWFRPC Citizens' Advisory Committee, local
governments in the Region, area libraries, and state agencies.
The two hearings were held as part of the Council meetings of
July 19 and September 20.

On October 18, 1984, the Council addressed this project for the
third time. At that meeting, Council unanimously accepted this
report and authorized its distribution.

APPENDIX A

Coal Conversion Feasibility Study

The U.S. Department of Ener,gy conducted a feasibilit y study of the
conversion of fourteen Florida generating stations from burning oil to
coal. ( Conversion of Florida Electric Powerplants from Oil to Coal
Burning: Engineering, Environmental, and Economic Feasibility Study SLf
14 Florida Generating Stations .) The study focused on fourteen
generating stations throughout Florida, one of which was unit number
two of the Florida Power and Light Company plant at Fort Myers. (See
Figure A-].) Three specific areas of feasibility (engineering,,
environment, and economics) were examined. Each was reviewed
separately. Then, a composite ranking was developed for the stations
under study. (The reader should note that reference to a generating
plant does not necessarily include all generating units. For the Fort
Myers plant, for example, it includes only unit number two.)

The examination of engineering feasibility included five areas: boiler
design and derating, space considerations, boiler size and year placed
in service, coal transportation and unloading facilities, and costs
and other considerations.

The first category, boiler design and derating, was the most heavily
weighted of the five engineering factors. This reflected the fact
that design factors could hot be readily or easily altered and would
have significant impacts on if and how well coal could be burned.
Derating referred to any loss in boiler efficiency that might occur if
the generating unit were converted to coal. Decreased efficiency was
assumed to mean decreased feasibility.

The space available at the site was reviewed. Coal conversion would
require adequate space for receiving and storing coal, equipment
location, ash storage and disposal, and pollution equipment. In some
cases, the utility company already possessed adequate excess land.
Where that was not true, additional land would have to be purchased
from adjacent property owners. That expense would increase the cost
of conversion. (While it is also possible that sufficient land might
not be located adjacent to or convenient to the conversion site, that
was considered to be unlikely.)

The size and age of the boiler were also considered. It was assumed
generally to be more feasible to convert a larger unit than a smaller
unit due to the higher efficiency of larger units. Newer boilers were
thought to be better suited to conversion than older ones due to the
longer expected service life.

Coal transportation and unloading facilities were of obvi ous
importance. A unit with such facilities for coal would have an
advantage over one without those facilities. Even if expa nsion were
required to handle larger quantities of coal, this would probably be
easier than to construct entirely new facilities.

The last engineering category, other considerations and costs,
included a variety of items. For each generating unit, an estimate

was developed of the cost in dollars per kilowatt to convert to burn
coal. The need for additional pollution control equipment (e.g., for
sulfur diox'ide) was examined. Also, burning coal could result in a
requirement for new or taller stacks to disperse emissions and handle
greater flue gas volumes. That potential cost was included if deemed
necessary.

Points were assigned to each of the fourteen stations for each of
these engineering categories. (See Table A-1.) The Fort Myers unit
was rated as a good candidate for coal conversion, based on this
engineering analysis.(l) (The specific ratings for that unit are
presented in Table A-2.)

In addition to the engineering analysis, an env ironmental analysis was
performed. That analysis included air quality, water quality
(groundwater and surface water), solid waste, land use, biotic
resources, historical, cultural and archaeological resources, and
socioeconomics. Information for each category was developed on a
worst-case basis to determine maximum environmental impacts. Using
that information, each site was then ranked by environmental experts
from various disciplines. (The environmental analysis dealt only with
the generating unit area, i.e., the site of the conversion. It did
not address environmental impacts either at the point of coal
production or at points along the transportation route.)

The air quality category was concerned with particulates, sulfur
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. These were addressed both for
short-term emissions and annual emissions.

Water quality impacts were examined for both surface water and
groundwater. Specific issues included ash sluice water, coal pile
runoff, flue gas desul4urization sludge, and coal slurry pipeline
effluent.

Solid waste disposal needs were reviewed. Adequate area was thought
to be available. This was a general review that did not address a
specific site.

Coal conversion impacts on land use were determined to be minimal.
This determination again, however, did not focus on specific sites.
It was thought to be generally accurate since the total land area of
the conversion sites was small in comparison to the total land area of
the state.

The biotic resources category focused on threatened or endangered
species. No significant impacts to plants or animals in either group
were found. Review of historical, cultural, and archaeological
resources led to the conclusion that there would be no direct impacts
(disruption or destruction) on these resources in the case of
conversion. The conclusion that impacts for both of these categories
of resources would be insignificant likely was due to the availability
of unused land at the conversion site.

Insignificant socioeconomic impacts were projected. Primarily this
concerned in-migration due td persons moving into an area to work at

one of the conversion sites.

Overall rankings for environmental impacts were assigned to all
fourteen units. (See Table A-3.) The Fort Myers unit was the first
of nine units judged to be good candidates from an environmental
perspective. Five units were ranked fair. None of the sites received
a poor ranking.(2)

The Fort Myers site was listed as having only one site-specific
environmental sensitivity in the worst-case situation. This was the
problem of groundwater contamination, a probtem that was shared by all
fourteen sites. (See Table A-4.) For that reason, i.e., the
sensitivity of the groundwater, the feasibility study recommended that
effluent not be discharged to the groundwater-at any of the sites.

The third analysis in the feasibility study*examined the economics of
coal conversion. Due to the importance of economic feasibility, the
information used was more specific for each generating unit than in
the other analyses. Among the items included were capital costs,
operating and maintenance costs, derating (loss of efficiency, if any,
due to conversion), fuel prices, inflation, taxes, rates, necessary
engineering changes and their costs, and remaining generating unit
life.

The Fort Myers unit was ranked as one of three with poor overall
economic potential. (See Table A-5.)(3) The feasibility study
indicated two areas in which the site suffered in comparison to the
thirteen other sites. First, unlike some sites, only one unit was
considered for conversion. This eliminated any economies that might
result from the conversion of multiple units at a single site. The
ratio of savings to cost (i.e., net return per dollar invested) was
lower for the Fort Myers site than for any of the other thirteen
sites. Additionally, that unit also had the longest period before
savings would begin (the sixth year of operation after conversion).
(Of the six other FPL stations studied, four units had four-year
periods,,one had a three-year period, and only one had a one-year
period.)

The second disadvantage for the Fort Myers unit was its geographic
location and resulting higher fuel cost for coal.(4) In the
analysis, the current oil price (delivered price as of June, 1982) for
the Fort Myers unit was among the lowest of the fourteen plants. On
the other hand, the estimated coal price was the highest.(5) This
seems to be somewhat inconsistent. The factors that result in a low
oil cost should have some effect on the coal cost. To state that the
Fort Myers unit would have higher coal price because of its geographic
location seems almost illogical--considering the low oil cost.

There may be some other costs that should have been included in the
fuel price but were not. The Fort Myers plant receives its oil via
barge from Port Boca Grande. Oil is tankered into the Port from
various sources. (The actual receipt, storage, and transloading of
the oil are handled by Belcher Oil Company.) In order for tankers to
enter the Port safely, an entrance channel from the Gulf of Mexico
through Boca Grande Pass must be redredged approximately once every

two years. The cost of that dredging is substantial. In 1980, it was
$741,503. It had cost $995,500 in 1978.(6) (For more discussion, the
reader is referred to the main body of this report.)

Florida Power & Light Company (owner of the Fort Myers unit) pays no
direct fee or part of that cost. The entire cost is paid for by
federal funds, i.e., iederal tax payers. Additionally, FPL pays no
fee for use of the Intracoastal Waterway and Okeechobee Waterway
(Caloosahatchee River). This latter statement is also true for all
other users of, the Waterways.(7)

There is-an additional cost of using Port Boca Grande. That is the
cost of maintaining adequate water depths for oil tankers to dock at
the facility. The docking area requires regular maintenance dredging.
In 1981, FPL requested a maintenance dredging permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for ten years for the tanker berth at Port
Boca Grande. In order to maintain the desired depth of 38 feet below
mean low water, it was estimated that the dredging of about 50,000
cubic yards of spoil would be needed once every two years. FPL also
sought USACE permission to construct a 300-foot groin at the
southwestern tip of Gasparilla Island to contain the spoil, minimize
beach erosion, and reduce the frequency of the required maintenance
dredging.(8)

The project was completed by October of 1983. Total cost was
$625,000. Lee County and the West Coast Inland Navigation District
each paid $90,000. FPL paid the remainder, $445,000. The dredged
sand was used to make a 75,000-square foot beach around the old Port
Boca Grande Lighthouse.(9)(10) (The lighthouse, built in 1890, was
placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980.)(11)

By May, 1984, however, there were reports of severe erosion in that
area. The dredged sand beach on the Gulf side of the groin has
generally remained in place. On the other side, however, the area
behind the groin has undergone significant erosion. Apparently, that
eroded sand has moved into the dredged area around the FPL dock and
likely will continue to do so.(12)

As shown here, there are monetary costs involved in using Port Boca
Grande that are borne both by,the public (via the federal government,
Lee County, and the West Coast Inland Navigation District) and by the
user (Florida Power and Light). Some of those costs are not so
apparent. This is true of the costs borne by the public. . I
After the engineering, environmental, and economic analyses were
completed, each unit was rated as a good, fair, or poor candidate for
coal conversion. (See Table A-6.) Five of the units were judged to
be good candidates while the remaining nine were found to be fair
candidates. Fort Myers was. placed in the fair group. None were rated
as poor.(13)

References for Appendix A

(1) U.S., Department of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs, Conversion of Florida Electric
Powerplants from Oil to Coal BurninQ: Engineerin_q.L
Environmental, and Economic Feasibility Study p� 14 Florida
Generating Stations , April 1983, p. 13.

12) Ibid*, p, 47,

(3) Ibid., p, 71.

(4) Ibid., pp. 67 and 68,

(5) Ibid., p. 54.

(6) Girlamo DiChiara, Department of the Army, Jacksonville District,
Corps of Engineers, letter, 26 October, 1983.

(7) Willy Canaday, Department of the Army, Gulf Coast Area Office
(Tampa), Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, telephone
interview, 11 October, 1983.

(8) U.S., Department of the Army, Jacksonville District, Corps of
Engineers, Public Notice For Permit Application No. SIK-1259
(applicant: Florida Power and Light Company).

(9) "New Groin Puts 75,000 Square Feet of Beach around Lighthouse,"
Boca Beacon (Boca Grande, Florida), October, 1983.

(10) The West Coast Inland Navigation District 'is primarily
responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of easements,
rights-of-way, and spoil areas for the West Coast Intracoastal
Waterway. Under 'legislation.passed by Congress in 1945, the
waterway was to have a 9-foot channel, 100-foot width, and
150-mile length from the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County to
the Anclote River in Pinellas County. The West Coast Inland
Navigation District itself was created by the Florida
legislature in 1947. Originally, it covered Lee@ Charlotte,
Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. In
1979, the latter two counties withdrew. WCIND is organized as a
special tax district with a governing board of one county
comissioner from each member county. The 1983 levy on each of
the four participa'ting counties was .005 mills. Source: West
Coast Inland Navigation District, Guide Map: West Coast
Intracoastal Waterway (Fort Myers to Tarpon Springs), 1983.

(11) Ju lius Karash, "Old Boca Grande Light-house in National Historic
Register," Fort Myers (Florida.) News-Press , 2 April, 1980.

(12) 'Groin Accelerates Erosion,* Boca Beacon (Boca Grande,
Florida), May, 1984.

(13) U.S., Department of Energy, p. 74.

APPENDIX B

A Long Range Perspective

This study focuses on a mode of transportation that is decreasing in
importance in Southwest Florida--railroads. A major factor in opening
much of Florida to settlement was the laying of railroad track. At
one time, railroad transportation was available as far south as
Everglades City in Collier County.

Florida had its first cross-state railroad in 1861 when a track was
finished between Fernandina (on the east coast in Nassau County) and
Cedar Key (on the Gulf Coast in Levy County). This provided an
alternative to sailing around the Florida peninsula to reach the Gulf
Coast.(1)

A railroad had been built to Orlando by 1880. Tampa had rail service
by 1884 (the South Florida Railroad). Trains entered Bartow (Polk
County) in 1885. By 1886, the line reached Fort Ogden (south of
Arcadia in DeSoto County). A few months later, on July 24, the
Florida Southern Railroad got to Punta Gorda. These and other
southern extensions were stimulated by tourism and the market for
winter fruits and vegetables.(2)

The citizens of Fort Myersihad to wait eighteen years, until 1904, for
that line (then the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) to be extended to
them.<3) For Naples, the wait was even longer. The Atlantic Coast.
Line Railroad did not reach the Naples area until 1926. The Seaboard
Air Line entered Naples proper in 1927. ACL extended south to Marco
Island in June of 1927.(4) Seaboard had reached Fort Myers in 1926
and'track was laid to LaBelle and Punta Rassa in 1927.(5)

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad route in Central Florida continued
moving south of Sebring (Highlands County) in the early 1900s. That
route arrived in Moore Haven in 1918. Construction of an extension to
Clewiston was completed in 1921.(6)

Even after rail service was available, train travel could be slow and
tiresome. A trip by train from Jacksonville to Punta Gorda (circa
1887) meant changing railroads five times. To travel from Palatka to
Punta Gorda took ten hours at that time.(7) For the Punta Gorda to
Fort Myers trip, about two hours were needed (circa 1904).(8) Quail
hunts were sometimes held while trains stopped for fuel or water.
Both passengers and railroad employees participated.

The Arcadia-Punta Gorda section held other possibilities. Since this
part of the trip usually occurred after dark, kerosene lanterns were
used by passengers in the train cars. These lights, swinging from the
ceiling, were sometimes used for target practice by cowboys along the
route. On days when farmhands and cowboys were off work (such as
Saturdays), they occasionally took the train from Arcadia to Punta
Gorda. Both legs of the trip could be quite boisterous if the
passengers celebrated their day off by having a few drinks.(9)

The Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railroad to Boca Grande was

completed in 1907 to transport phosphate ore from Central Florida to
Port Boca Grande. Before then, phosphate ore had been barged down the
Peace River to Port Boca Grande where it was loaded onto ships for
transport elsewhere. That railroad was acquired by the Seaboard
Airline Railroad in 1926.(10) In 1967, Seaboard and Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad merged to the Seaboard Coastline Railroad.

In addition to the main routes--some of which are still in use
today--there were smaller railroads. Those were designed to handle
specific operations, Privately owned, they were strictly utilitarian
affairs. Some transported wood products to and from lumber mills.
others carried fruits and vegetables. They penetrated parts of the
Region that other wise could only be reached by foot or on horseback,
One example was the Deep Lake Railway in Collier County. That line
was built around 1900 by a logging company to transport lumber to
Everglades City for shipment elsewhere. The tracks ran from Deep
Lake, through Jerome and Copeland, to Everglades City, along what is
now State Route 29.01)

The routes of those little lines are lost except in the memories of
older long-time residents and on some maps that show old railroad
grades. In most cases, the passage of time, the growth of trees and
vegetation, and changes due to development have eliminated the
remains.(12)
Currently, the railroad enters Southwest Florida via three routes.
The northernmost route passes into Sarasota County parallel to U.S.
301. A second route follows U.S. 17 from Arcadia in DeSoto County to
Punta Gorda in Charlotte County. From there it proceeds through Fort
Myers to terminate east of U.S. 41 in Collier County south of the
Lee-Collier line. The third route goes into Glades County with U.S.
27 and east through Moore Haven. From there it goes on to Clewiston
in Hendry County.

'As noted above, the railroad that passes through.Fort Myers once
extended into Naples and Marco Island. The Naples to Marto Island
portion was discontinued in 1944. Passenger service to Naples ended
in 1971. In May of 1980, after almost sixty years of service into
Naples, Seaboard ended all service and cut that route back to
Vanderbilt Beach (Collier County), just south of the Lee
County-Collier County line.(13)

The northernmost railroad enters the Region in Sarasota County and
runs south to Venice. There are no known plans for abandonment of
that track.

The third route (Moore Haven and Clewiston) formerly branched south at
Palmdale (in Glades County near the intersection of State road 29 and
U.S. 27). From there it ran through Immokalee and on to Everglades
City. Passenger service to Everglades City ended in 1959. All
service ended when the line was pulled back to Immokalee in the
1960s.(14) Seaboard Coast Line was granted permission by the
Interstate Commerce Commission to abandon that remaining portion of
the branch in January of 1984.05)

Seaboard Coast Line ended service to Port Bo ca Grande in 1979.06)
According to Seaboard, the track and the equipment at Boca Grande and
along the route were old and in need of significant repair. It also
claimed that the expense of repair was not justified because more
modern, efficient equipment was available in Tampa area.(17)

The overall picture of rail service in Southwest Florida is not
encouraging. The posture of the railroad seems to be one of
retrenchment. That may be reasonable from the perspective of a large
corporation with holdings in much of the eastern United States. It is
not as reasonable, however,.from the perspective of the Region. There
is, of course, the short-term immediate impact of forcing former
ra:ilroad users to seek other means of transporting goods. Some will
adapt their operations, although at a cost. Others will not be able
to do so and will cease operation. Some will move. All of those
actions will have economic impacts on this Region and those impacts
will generally be negative.

There is a long-term impact also. Those firms that close or move out
of the Region obviously will not contribute to the overall economy of
Southwest Florida. Other firms will also be affected Existing firms
that wish to expand and to use rail transport to ship or receive goods
will not be able to do so. Firms that require rail transport will not
locate here.

This Region will likely con;tinue to grow and develop. As it does, the
need for rail transport will also grow. If the reduction in rail
service continues, that need will be unmet.

References for Appendix B

(1) Edward A. Fernald, ed., Atlas of Florida (Tallahassee, Florida:
The Florida State University Foundation, Inc., 1961), p. 135.

(2) Vernon E. Peeples, "Charlotte Harbor Division of the Florida
Southern Railroad," Florida Historical Quarterly (January,
1980): 291-292.

(3) Karl H. Grismer, The Story of Fort Myers: The History of the
Land of the Caloosahatchee and Southwest Florida , a facsimile
reproduction of the 1949 edition, with a Foreword by Ernest W.
Hall (Fort Myers Beach, Florida; Island Press Publishers, 1982),
pp. 164 and 166.

(4) James Moses, "'Iron Horse' Linked Us to the North," Naples
(Florida) Paily News , I March, 1984, p. 3E.

(5) Karl H. Grismer, pp. 232 and 234.

(6) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council The Glades County
Comprehensive Plan , July, 1981, p. 4.

(7) Vernon E. Peeples, pp. 297-298.

(8) Karl H. Grismer, P. 166.

(9) Vernon E. Peeples, p. 297.

(10) Lee County (Florida) Division of Community Development, Port
Boca Grande: A Basic Study June, 1980, p. 2.

(11) James Moses.

(12) The reader is referred to articles such as "Railroading on the
Gulf Coast; A conversation with E.A. 'Frog' Smith," TamRa Bay
History 2 (Fall/Winter 1980): 41-60.

(13) James Moses.

(14) Ibid.

(15) Interstate Commerce Commission, Certificate and Decision, Docket
No. AB-55 (Sub-no. 88) Seaboard System Railroad,
Inc--Ab.andonment-in Collier,@Glades, and Hendry Counties,
Florida, 13 December 1983.

(16) Lee County Division of Community Development, p. B.

(17) Ibid., p. 4.

APPENDIX C

Glossary

acre7fOOt--the quantity o f water that would cover one acre to a
depth of one foot. It contains 43,560 cubic feet, 1,233
cubic meters, or 32,580 gallons.

aerobic--reie,rs to life or processes that can occur only in the
presence of oxygen.

anaerobic--refers to life or processes that occur in the absence
of oxygen.

anthracite--a hard black lustrous coal that burns efficiently,
containing a high percentage of carbon and a low percentage
of volatile matter.

aquifer--an underground bed or stratum of earth, gravel, or
porous stone that contains water.

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)--a measure of the amount of
oxygen consumed in the biological processes that break down
organic matter in water. Large amounts of organic waste use
up large amounts of dissolved oxygen. The greater the
degree of pollution, the greater the BOD.

bituminous-coal--a coal which-is high in carbonaceous matter,
having between 15 and 50 percent volatile matter. Soft coal
that is dark brown to black in color and burns with a smoky,
luminous flame.

British thermal unit (Btu)--the amount of heat required to raise
the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit
under stated conditions of pressure and temperature; equal
to 252 calories.

bunker C fuel oil-- heavy residual fuel oil used by ships,
industry, and large-scale heating installations; often
referred to as "No. 6 fuel oil."

coal slurry--finely crushed coal mixed with water (or oil) to
form a fluid.

dewatering--a pr ocess whereby water is removed from a slurry.

fossil fuel--any naturally occurring fuel of an organic nature,
such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

gondola car--a railway car with no top, designed for bulky
materials.

heat rate--a measure of generating station thermal efficiency,
generall.y expressed in Btu per net kilowatt-hour. It is
computed by dividing the total Btu contentlof fuel burned

for electric generation by the resulting net kilowatt-hour
generation.

hopper car--a railway car for coal, gravel, etc., shaped like an
inverted pyramid or cone (or series of such) with an opening
to discharge the contents.

mine-mouth generation--generation of electrical energy based on
the premise that it is cheaper to ship electricity than
coal.

particulates--solid particles, such as ash, which are released
from the combustion process in exhaust gases at fossil fuel
plants.

unit train--a combination of locomotives and coal cars (generally
100 cars, each with a capacity of 100 tons) used to
transport car. Moving from coal supply to power plant and
back, the unit train may travel long distances, stopping
only for servicing and crew changes. Even the loading and
unloading may be done without stoppi ng.

Relerences for Appendix C

Most of these entries are taken from the following source:

Thomas F.P. Sullivan, ed., Energy Reference Handbook 2d ed.
(Washington: Government Institutes, Inc., 1977).

APPENDIX D

Land Use Terminology

Agriculture Land uses such as crops, improved pastur e, ranch land,
groves, etc.

Residential Residential land uses are separated into two categories;
single-family and multiple-4amily. The single-family category
includes dwelling units that are not physically connected to
other units. These units include the typical suburban home and
the mobile home. The multiple-family classification includes
units which touch other dwelling units, such as duplexes and
apartments.

Commercial - Those uses related to retail and wholesale distribution
of goods and services, including associated warehousing, shopp in g
centers, office complexes and highway "strip" commercial
development.

Industrial - Industrial land uses include uses related to fabrication,
processing and manufacturing, as well as associated warehousing.
Typical examples in the Region include lumber yards and concrete
and cement plants.

Institutional - Institutional land uses include those public and
semi-public uses such as schools, governmental centers,
correctional facilities, hospitals and religious facilities.

Extractive - Those mining operations that are currently underway or
have ended without land restoration. Examples of extractive uses
include shell pits, quarries, mines, oil and gas wells, and
borrow pits for landfill,

Transportation, Communications, Utilities - Those operations such as
airports, ports, wellfields, transmission lines, large sewage
treatment plants, power plants, etc.

Mixed - This use refers to combinations of the land uses above in
which no one use constitutes 70% of the land coverage of a
20-acre parcel.

Open and other - This primarily refers to lands prepared for urban
development but not yet occupied. Other uses include parks,
golf courses, government-owned preserves, etc.

SOURCE: Based upon the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification
System.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX E

Literature Review

A careful review of all relevant reports, studies, and other documents
in the library and files of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council was conducted in the early stages of this project. Relatively
few materials were found to be specifically directed at the topic of
coal transportation. Council staff contacted other,agencies.
Personnel in those agencies, as well as individuals in private
companies, were very helpful in locating useful material. As the
project has progressed, additional information has been collected.
This has included reports done by other agencies in Florida, agencies
and organizations in other states, and federal agencies.

Through this process, Council staff have increased their knowledge of
the topic. That material has been added to the Council library as a
permanent resource. Most importantly, that information has been
applied to an issue of potential impact for Southwest Florida, coal
transportation, and has been used to produce a report with information
relevant to the needs and concerns of the Region. (All of the sources
used for this project are listed in this document.)

Appendix F
Tables

Number Title

1 Florida Power and Light Company, Fort Myers
Plant
2 Land Use in Southwest Florida (1980)
3 Freight Traffic (Short Tons), Boca Grande,
Florida
4 Bridges on Federally Maintained Waterways,
Southwest Florida
5 Commercial Statistics
6 Air Traffic, 1970-1983
7 Fuel for Net Electrical Generation, Florida,
1965-1981
8 Fuel for Electrical Generation, U.S.
9 Estimated Coal Usage, Electricity Generation,
Florida
10 Annual Fuel Transportation Requirements, Unit
Number 2
11 Typical Coal Cars
12 Typical Unloading Systems, Unit Trains
13 Impacts ofTransportation Alternatives
14 Edison Memorial Bridge openings
15 Unit Train Fuel Delivery
A-1 Engineering Analysis Results
A-2 Engineering Analysis - Fort Myers Unit 2
A-3 Environmental Ranking
A-4 Site-Specific Environmental Sensitivities
A-5 Overall Economic Potential
A-6 Composite Ranking

TABLE 1

Florida Power and Light Company,
Fort Myers Plant

Unit Number 1 2 1-12

Type Fossil Steam Fossil Steam Combustion
Turbine

Fuel Heav y oil Heavy Oil Light Oil

Commercial In-
service Date 12-58 7-69 6-74

Generating
Maximum 156,250 kw 402,050 kw 744,000 kw

Flue gas cleaning
particulates CSCF MC
sulfur oxide (So CSCF CSCF
nitrogen oxides @NOX) NS NS

Cooling Type OTS OTS

kw: kilowatt.
CSCF: controlled sulfur content of fuel.
MC: mechanical collectors.
NS: no state or federal NOx emission or ambient
standards for existing electric generating
facilities.
OTS: once through saline..

Source: Adapted from FPL Ten-Year Power Plant
Site Plan: 1983-1992, pp. 30-13.

TABLE 2
IN SO LAND USE
UTHWEST FLORIDA (1980)

Percent
Percent Of Total
Category* Acres -Urban Land Use

Total Lands 3,853,440 100.0

Agricultural Lands 1,638,750 42.5

Urban Lands 477,140 100.00 12.4

Residential
Single-Family 140,579 29.5
Multiple-Family 5,900 1.2
Commercial 10,216 2.1
Industrial 3,153 0.7
Institutional 4,894 1.0,
Extractive 7,383 1.5
Transportation, Communi-
cations & Utilities
(Less Transportation
Routes) 11,048 2.3
Mixed 2,210 0.5
Open and Other 291,757 61.2

Major Preserved Open 824,349 21.4
Space

Other and Vacant 913,201 23.7

These categories are defined in the appendix.

SOURCE: The Southwest Florida Economy - 1982, p. 3.

TABLE 3

FREIGHT TRAFFIC (Short Tons)
BOCA GRANDE, FLORIDA
Commodity 1970 1971 1972 1974 1975 1979

Phosphate Rock 1,125,843 827,185 517,796 511,625 85,967 136,1252

Chemical Fertilizers
Nitrogenous 2,180 9,117 -- --
Phosphatic 124,914 190,891 178,763 266,479 102,670 48,539
Potassic -- -- 5,200 -- 1,198 --
Other 123,241 162,076 210,224 273,841 196,333 57,634

Petroleum Products
Residual Fuel Oil 1,148,485 1,150,575 1,386,800 1,278,256 1,379,708 1,423,800
Lubricants 40,509 35,448 -- -- -- --
Asphalt, Tar Pitch 20,976 -- -- -- --
Distillate Fuel Oil -- 18,081 331,467 489,746 36,189
Jet Fuel 8,244 -- --
Gasoline -- -- -- 36,549 -- --

TOTALS 2,586,148 2,401,617 2,298,783 2,698,217 2,255,622 1,702,414

SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Waterborne
Commerce of the United States, 1970-79.

TABLE 4

BRIDGES ON FEDERALLY MAINTAINED
WATERWAYS, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

HORIZONTAL VERTICAL CLEAR-
NAME/LOCATION TYPE CLEARANCE ANCE AT CENTER

Ringling Causeway Bridge A bascule 89 feet 22 feet

Bay Island at northern
entrance to Roberts Bay bascule 90 feet 25 feet

Siesta Key at Stickney
Point bascule 90 feet 23 feet

Casey Key at Blackburn
Point Road swing 51 feet 9 feet
(east draw)
Casey Key at Albee Road
to Nokomis Beach bascule 90 feet 14 feet

Venice at US 41 bascule 90 feet 16 feet

Venice at Venice Avenue bascule 90 feet 30 feet

Venice at Tamiami Trail-'
near Venice Airport bascule 90 feet 25 feet

Manasota Key at Manasota
Beach Road bascule 90 feet 26 feet

Lemon Bay at Redfish Cove
and State Hwy. 776 bascule 86 feet 26 feet

Placida at State Hwy. 771
to Boca Grande swing 81 feet 9 feet

Placida at Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad* bascule 90 feet 55 feet open
55 feet closed

Cape Coral Bridge fixed 90 feet 56 feet
Caloosahatchee Bridge fixed 105 feet 55 feet

Edison memorial Bridge bascule 78 feet 9 feet

Railroad bridge at Beauti-
ful Island-Caloosahatchee bascule 100 feet 5 feet

1-75 fixed 107 feet 55 feet

*Maintained in the open position.

SOURCE: Nautical Chart 11425, Intracoastal Waterway, Char-
lotte Harbor to Tampa Bay (21st edition, July 10,
1982) and Nautical Chart 11427, Intracoastal-
Okeechobee W aterways, Fort Myers to Charlotte Harbor
and Wiggins Pass (20th edition, August 14, 1982).

TABLE 5

COMMERCIAL STATISTICS

Total Trips* Total Tons

1980

Okeechobee Waterway 11,086 972,424
New Pass 400 25
Caseys Pass -No statistics
Charlotte Harbor 11,524 1,353,114
Ft. Myers Beach 11,550 31,072
Naples Harbor No statistics --
Everglades Harbor 5,870 1,042
Intracoastal Waterway,
Caloosahatchee River-
Anclote River 46,573 1,215,318

1981

Okeechobee Waterway .3,717 933,999
New Pass None None
Caseys Pass None None
Charlotte Harbor 14,477 1,170,351
Ft. Myers Beach 11,770 36,673
Naples Harbor None None
Everglades Harbor 2,400 1,032
Intracoastal Waterway,
Caloosahatchee River-
Anclote River 85,131 1,328,030

*Includes inbound/outbound trips and trips both up and
down the waterway, i.e., east/west or north/south as-
the case may be.

SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communi-
cation, 26 October 1983.

TABLE 6

AIR TRAFFIC, 197:0-1983

1 Flight 2 Air Cargo
Passengers operations (pounds)
Page Field 3
1970 N/A 113,453 1,007,760
1971 170,878 100,763 883,140
1972 216,601 95,295 1,115,600
1973 272,981 91,681 1,,006,000
1974 N/A 95,163 N/A
1975 278,228 95,288 522,118
1976 454,666 104,355 278,517
1977 543,164 109,694 N/A
1978 676,146 127,676 2,949,472
1979 821,887 141,096 3,136,036
1980 1,129,056 139,075 3,642,477
1981 1,108il33 136,319 3,859,289
1982 1,168,475 139,165 3,192,216
19833 1,258,304 147,458 3,640,959
Sarasota-Bradenton Airport 4
1970 287,834 132,100 2,095,421
1971 389,325 126,768 2,476,584
1972 471,837 118,995 3,079,324
1973 535,794 123,474 3,605,450
1974 570,125 139,983 3,438,837
1975 585,498 133,595 2,824,850
1976 .683,137 142,484 2,858,224
1977 785,463 153,767 2,653,344
1978 905,278 159,495 2,478,170
1979 1,089,737 1612,237 3,220,760
1980 1,215,975 144,604 3,028,637
1981 1,066,541 142,665 2,711,241
1982 1,408,118 159,513 2,403,563
1983 1,471,454 158,295 2,989,477

1 includes enplanements and deplanements.
2 Includes landings and take-offs.
3 Southwest Florida Regional.Airport opened in May of 1983.
4 on-loading only.

Source: Information provided by airport personnel.

TAB LE 7
Fuel for Net Electrical Generation,
Florida, 1965-19811

2 1.965 1970 1975 1980 1981
Natural Gas GWH 7,556 17,954 12,586 14,859 15,829
bcf3 87.0 198.3 141.3 166.1@ 171.5
% 25.0 32.4 16.2 15.5 15.9
Coal GWH 5,339 11,394 12,592 19,739 21,874
1,000 short 2,323 5,145 5,764 8,785 9,763
tons
% 17.8 20.5 16.2 20.6 21.9
Fuel Oil GWH 17,019 25,8,29 44,045 44,354 47,446
1,000 bbls4 28,060 44,557 73,892 73,194 77,115
% 56.2 46.6 56.6 46.2 47.6
Hydroelec- GWH 298 292 232 .215 180
tric.
% 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2

Nuclear GWH 0 0 .8,370 16,737 14,448
kg5 0 0 1,218 80 0
% 0 0 10.8 17.5 14.5
Total GWH 30,272 55,469 77,825 95,904 99,777
% 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.1
1Net electrical generation equals gross generation less electricity
2 consumed out of gross generation for station use.
3GWH: gigawatt-hours or millions of kilowatt-hours.
4bcf: billion cubic feet.
The major portion of fuel oil burned is residual oil, while the
rest is distillate oil. The break-down in 1,000 barrels is as
follows:

1965 1970 1975 1980 1981
residual 27,685 43,895 6'9-,621 69,994 74,857
distillate 375 662 5,271 3,200 2,258
5kg: kilograms of U-235.

SOURCE: Adapted from Florida Statistical Abstract; data for
1965, 1970, a-n-d--T-975 from 1981 volume, pages 390
and 395; data for 1980 and 1981 from 1983 volume,
page 417.

Table 8

Fuel for Electrical Generation, U.S.

Petroleum Natural Gas Coal
-T,000 Billion % 1,000 %
Barrels Change Cubic Feet 'Change Short Tons Change

1960 92,000 -- 1,725 -- 177,000 --

1965 121,000 +31.5 2,321 +34.6 245,000 +38.4

1970 340,000 +181.0 3,932 +69.4 320,000 +30.6

1975 519,000 +52.7 3,158 -19.7 406,000 +26.9

1980 -18.1 3,682 +16.6 569,000 +40.2

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States:
E982-83, p. 725.

Table 9

EstimatedCoal Usage, Electricity
Generation, Florida

Tons Change

1982 10,930,000' --
19901 25,278,000 131%
19902 35,850,000 228%

Based on existing and planned generating plants only.
2 Includes both existing and planned plants and all
potential conversion candidates.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, The Florida Statewide
Coal Conversion Study; Coal_Supply and Transportation
Analysis, September, 1983, pp. 3-5 and 3-7.

98.

Table 10
Annual Fuel Transportation Requirements, 1
Unit Number 2

Year

2
Fuel Type 1982 1990
Heavy Oil 3 420 barges 4 ------ barges
4,959 tank cars ------ tank cars
17,192 tanker trucks ------ tanker trucks
Coal5 536-804 barges 274-410 barges
8,043 hopper cars 4,100 hopper cars
30,934 trucks 15,769 trucks
1These are estimates of the number of loads or trips likely to be
required, depending on the type of vehicle or craft used. They
were calculated on the following capacities:

Vehicle/craft oil Coal
barge 11,000 gallons 1,000-1,500 tons
tank car 26,000 gallons ----
tank truck 7,500 gallons ----
hopper car ------- 100 tons
truck ------- 26 tons

2
1990 coal numbers are calculated on the assumption that unit number
2 will operate at a lower capacity factor than if coal conversion
does not occur. A further explanation is given in the text.
3,070,003 barrels (128,940,126 gallons) of heavy oil were used by
unit number 2 in 1982. The total amount of heavy oil burned at
the generating plant was 4,536,111 barrels. The total amount
delivered to the plant was 4,610,964 barrels. Due to the small
difference.between the amount received and the amount burned, it
is assumed that any fuel, coal or oil, received will be burned
in the same year. It is recognized that small quantities may
remain in storage at the plant.
4100 shipments of one barge each an d 160 shipments of two barges each.
Calculated from information provided by Frank Balogh of FPL.
5All coal numbers for 1982 are computed on the basis of transporting
an amount of coal equivalent to the amount of heavy oil actually
used in 1982 by unit number 2. A coal equivalent of 804,263 tons
was calculated for 1982: 128,940,126 gallons of oil at 149,700
BTU/gallon; each ton of coal was assumed to have 24,000,000 BTUs.

TABLE 11

Typical Coal Cars

Capacity

Type Tons Cubic Feet

Hopper, two pocket 60 2,543

Hopper, three pocket 70 2,733-2,750

Hopper, three pocket 80 2,713-2,962

Hopper, three or more 100 3,301-3,600
pockets

SOURCE: Louisville & Nashville and. Clinchfield Rai17
roads Coal Mine Directory & Coal Transporta-
tion ruide,, 1981, p. 43.

100

TABLE 12

Typica-l...-Unloading Syptems,unit Trains

Unloading Capacity
Type Cars (Tons per hour) Comments

Trestle automated, 14,000 train in motion at 5 m.ph;
self-clearinq unit train locomotives and
crew utilized

Under- automated, 3,000 train in motion at 1/3 mph;
track self-clearing (minimum) unit train locomotives and
pit drew utilized

Rotary rotary, 3,000 plant locomotive or car
dumiDer coupler positioner utilized

Rotary random 2,000 plant locomotive utilized
dumper sizes (100 ton)

Under- random 2,000 plant locomotive utilized;
track sizes (100 ton) car shaker
pit

SOURCE: Louisville & Nashville and Clinchfield Railroads
Coal Mine Directory & Coal Transportation Guide,
1981, 45.

101

Table 13

Impacts of Transportation Alternatives

Impacts Barge(l) Barge(2) Rail Pipeline Truck

Environmental 0 + 0 0

Employment 0 0 0 - +

Urban conflict 0 0 - 0

Traffic congestion 0 0 0 0 -

Land use 0 - 0 0

Conflict with other
modes 0 0 0

Safety 0 + 0

Resource use 0 0 + 0

Barge(l): Transportation of oil from Boca Grande/other ports
Barge(2): Transportation of coal from Boca Grande/other ports
Rail: Transportation of oil/coal by rail
Pipeline: Transportation of coal by slurry pipeline
Truck: Transportation of coal/oil by truck

0 = existing level
+ = positive impact
= negative impact

(For a complete discussion of the impacts, the reader is
referred to main body-of this report.)

102

TABLE 14
Edison Memoria 1 Bridge Openingsl

1981 1982 1983 1984 Average

January 498 435 607 554 524
February 568 484 542 539 559
March 685 587 778 7362 697
April 712 573 458 --- 581
May 442 544 497 --- 495
June 373 559 482 --- 472
July 312 471 513 --- 432
August 323 456 388 389
September 332 344 388 --- 355
October 471 524 509
November 465 637 603 569
December 398 554 504 --- 486

Total 5,579 6,175 6,284 --- 6,013
Average 465 515 524 --- ---

1 The Edison Memorial Bridge (U.S. 41-Business and County Road 739)
crosses the Caloosahatchee River at Fort Myers.
2 Last month available from source.

SOURCE: Florida Department of Transportation, Maintenance
Department, Bartow, Florida, personal communication,
7 May, 1984.

103

TABLE 15

unit Train Fuel Delivery

Total 3,4
Number 2 Frequency Train 5
of Cars Capacity Per Year Per WeeW Length

30 3,000 tons 137 6 1,590 feet

70 7,000 tons 59 3 3,710 feet

100 10,000 tons 41 2 5,30,0 feet

1 To supply the estimated 1990 coal demand of 410,000 tons.
2 At 100 tons per car.
3 Includes both the south-bound (delivery) trip and the north bound
(return) trip.
4 Any fraction is counted as an additional unit.
5 At 53 feet per car. Locomotives and other cars not included.
.Source: Louisville & Nashville and Clinchfield Railroads Coal
Mine Directory & Coal Transportation Guide, 1981, p. 44.

104

TABLE A- 1

Engineering Analysis Results

el
o 011@1
VU
ej '&

0
0 0 el;y
^6 el
^Y C2
A::@
A; e" 0 C2
C'
C; 0 4@

!'Y
69
ej 1& 0
0
C@

Maximum Points
Available 40 15 15 15 15 100

Anclote 5 5 13 2 7 32 Poor
Bartow 37 11 10 12 12 82 Good
Cape Canaveral 35 7 9 10 8 69 Good
Deerhaven 34 14 7 14 11 80 Good
Fort Myers 35 10 9 10 9 73 Good
Hopkins 10 13 9 10 10 52 Fair
Indian River 5 12 10 10 6 43 Fair
Manatee 30 14 13 10 10 77 Good
Martin 30 14 15 10 8 77 Good
McIntosh 12 10 9 13 4 48 Fair
Northside 8 5 11 10 7 41 Fair
Port Everglades 35 7 9 10 8 69 Good
Sanford 35 9 11 10 10 75 Good
Turkey Point 35 9 9 10 10 73 Good

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 13.

105

TABLE A-2

Engineering Analysis
Fort Myers Unit 2

Maximum
Points
Item Rating Score-
Boiler Design/Derating: 40
Limited boiler modifications 35
required
No derating is anticipated while
burning coal

Space Considerations:
Adequate space available onsite for 10 15
coal storage and ash disposal
Area around boiler is not too
congested and coal handling
equipment can be installed
Space for particulate control is
available

Size/Year Placed in Service:
Boiler 2 - 402 MW; 1969 9 15

Coal Transportation/Unloading Facilities
Barge delivery of coal is feasible 10 15
Construction of coal unloading and
handling systems required

Other Considerations and Cost:
Stacks should be rebuilt to handle 9 15
increased flue gas volume
Approximate capital cost for coal
conversion is $149.2 million
($371/KW)
73 100

Fort Myers Unit 2 would require only limited boiler modifications to
burn coal. Also, no derating is expected while firing coal. The
boiler also has considerable remaining useful life. Adequate space
for coal storage and ashdisposal is available onsite. Space in
the vicinity of the boilers is available for coal handling and fir-
ing equipment and also for.particulate control equipment. The
stacks should be rebuilt because of the increased flue gas volume.
Because barge facilities exist for oil transport, this method of
delivery is feasible for coal movement to the site.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 18.

106

TABLE A-3

EnvironmentalRanking

Fort Myers G
Cape Canaveral G
Deerhaven G
Hopkins G
Martin G
Sanford G
Anclote G
Indian River G
Manatee G
Bartow F
McIntosh F
Northside F
Port Everglades F
Turkey Point F

G = Good
F = Fair
P = Poor

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 47.

107

TABLE A-4

Site-Specific Environmental Sensitivities

1-Y

C9
co CQ
-Y 'L@ co

.1y q)
^Y CO
I,/ .1C) -Y
ra C9 '@? -Q
,-r "@' qj 'ZY
0 ZY0 () (7)
,(::7 C) 10.4-1
_r1V (a (a ...Y
CC) ra
Site 4@ C6

Anclote x

Bartow x x

Cape Canaveral x
Deerhaven x2

Fort Myers x
Hopkins X2 x

Indian River x x

Manatee x

Martin x x
McIntosh X2 x

Northside x x x

Port Everglades x x x

Sanford x x

Turkey Point x x x

All the environmental sensitivities identified for air, water, and
solid waste can be ameliorated through the application or appro-
priate mitigative techniques.
2 Uncontrolled discharge could result in contamination of ground-
water in shallow aquifers at all sites, but only at Deerhaven,
Hopkins, and McIntosh could such uncontrolled discharge result
in.infiltration into deep aquifers.
C9
`9
IU
'Y

-Y

IU
1@y

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 48.

108

TABLE A-5

Overall Economic Potential

Good: Deerhaven
Hopkins
Manatee
Northside

Fair: Bartow
Cape Canaveral
Indian River
McIntosh
Port.Everglades
Sanford
Turkey Point

Poor: Anclote
Fort Myers
Martin

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 71.

109

TABLE A- 6

Composite Ranking

Engineering Environmental Economic Composite

Anclote P G p F

Bartow G F F F

Cape Canave ral G G F G

Deerhaven G G G G

Fort Myers G G P F

Hopkins F G G G

Indian River F G F F

Manatee G G G G

Martin G G P F

McIntosh F F F F

Northside F F G F

Port Everglades G F F F

Sanford G G F G

Turkey Point G F F F

G = Good
F = Fair
P = Poor

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, p. 74.

110

Appendix G
Figures

Number Title

1 Seaboard Coastline Railroad
2 Southwest Florida Region
3 Future Urban Areas, Southwest Florida
Region
4 Transportation
5 Waterways, Southwest Florida
6 Sunniland Pipeline
7 Charlotte Harbor Resource Management
Area
8 Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves
A-1 Conversion Generating Stations

ARASO

SARASOTA
VENICE
t

PALMDALE

UNTA GORDA
CHARLOTTE QLA
MOORE HAVEN
CLEWIS ON",-@,-

FORT MYERS
-.EE HENDRY

4- L

APLES
0

COLLIER

0 6 10 IS 20 25 MILES FIGURE I
RNC
LAD 6A
a7RE H VEN

SWFPPC SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD

112

Longb0at
Key Sarasota

Siesta Key-

SARASOTA CO.
!,.-j-.,Buckheod.,
Ridge-
Venice North Port Charlotte
jZ-1.P0,rt

Palmdale
p6hta
Englewood Gordo
Lake
Grove C CHARLOTTE CO.,@ IGLADES CO
ity J."

ae ven..
r Ho
N!
G U L F 0 F
M E X C 0 Cape
Alva
Coral N. Ft. Myer$ a Bel le
Boca Grande
.... .... Clewiston
Pine Fort
s Lehigh'
Myer
Island

0, HE y C 0.
LEE CO.

Captivo
@?t F,

Sanibel Ft My rs Bonito
-S Im okolee
Beac prings

0
0
mit
Beach

f
Vanderbilt
Beach
Golden ate
Naples

E. Naples COLLIER CO.
LEGEND'

-A
COUNTY SEAT
Marco
Island @4
Everglades City:
MUNICIPALITY @.Oncorporated)
Unincorporated
Chokot kee
Urban Area Island
APR 82

0 6 12 (Miles)
SWFRPC - rnc FIGURE 2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGION

113

SARASOTA

4.41(f
OKEECHosre
L
SR -3
'T,

7@
S
;:,HENDRY

L m@
I @ln
t LEE
Lw

cl
0
75
'Ji
ce
R 29', V

4 4:4;
NW
S'R 8 4
COLLIER@

SWFRPC84-RNC

0 6 12 (MILES)

SWFRPC

FIGURE 3

FUTURE URBAN AREAS
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGION

114

301 A BRADENTON-
SARASOTA

4)
-780

789

N 7

41
78,
77

76 74-
5, 771 APUNTA. LAKE
GORDA 27

.%
- ------------
7
165 41 27
29

-FIELD
PAGE'

67 7 R GIONAL
A RPORT-,
1 833
46--j

846
LEGEND

NAPLES

MAJOR AIRPORT
29
PORT BOCA GRANDE 41
INTRACOASTAL
951
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
FPL GENERATING PLANT

.29

SWFRPC-RNC

FIGURE 4
TRANSPORTATION
10 20

115

RINGLING.,
PASS

STICKNEY
PQIN
-BLACKBURN POINT
SARASOTA .

HATCHET CREEK
VENICE AVE.

MAN SOTA

ENGLEW
CHARLOTTE GLADES
PLACIDAa
SEABOARD
COAST LINE
OBEE.
1-75
EDISON
Ay
MEMORIA
@e SEABOARD
m cl@ A
jo
"SE . .....
fk
HENDRY
LEE
CAPE CORAL
"'FORT MYERS
BEACH

-7-NAPLES
LEGEND
0 BRIDGE COLLIER

WATERWAY

EVERGLADES
ITY",

FIGURE 5

o is io io 2o 2s MILES
RNC WATERWAYS
SWFRPC SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,

116

LAKE
OKEECHOBEE

HENDRY CO.

SUNNILAND*@

NAPLES PORT
EVERGLADES

BROWARD CO.
COLLIER CO.

lop" ce
LEGEND,

PIPELINE

FIGURE 6
SUNNILAND PIPELINE
x

SOURCE: J.J. St. John, Sunniland Pipe Line Company, Inc., 9 June, 1983

1-17

GLADES

.................................

................
..... . . . . . . . . . .
.... .. . . HENDRY

;i::::: ............

LEGEND COLLIER

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA

FIGURE 7
0 15 10 16 20 25 MILES
k!m FtNC CHARLOTTE HARBOR
SWFPPC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA

118

Part Charlotte

pea
Punic Gorda

Cape HMO
Aquatic Preserve
Gosparilla Sound-Chariollo Harbor
Aquatic Preserve

CHARLOTTE
N7

MIS"
LEE

matlacho Pass
c"a Casio
n@ Aquatic Preserve
67
4 1 .@t Fort Myers
Cape Carol

0.
Pint Island Sound 4A
Aquatic Preserve

C'
-0

04
Sambel

FIGURE 8
CHARLOTTE HARBOR .AOUATIC PRESERVES
SOURCE: Florida De partment of Natural Resources, Charlotte Harbor
Aquatic Preserves Management Plan, 18 May, 1983, p. 2.

119

HOPKINS

NORTHSIDE

DEERHAVEN
0610

SANFORD

NDIAN RIVER
CAPE CANAVERAL
MCINTOSH

ANCLOTE
LEGEND BARTOW

CONVERSION SITE

A CONVERSION SITE WITH
MARTIN
PLANNED EXPANSION

FORT MYERS

PORT
EVERGLADES

TURKEY
POINT

C-P

FIGURE A.71.
CONVERSION GENERATING STATIONS
SWFRPC

120

I j
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
f I
I
111101111milm" k-
@ 3 6668 14101 6602