Florida Southeast Connection, LLC v. 3.370 Acres of Land, More or Less, In Polk County, Florida et al

Filing 44

ORDER: FSC's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Immediate Possession (Doc. # 7 ) is GRANTED. Upon FSC posting a proper security bond with the Clerk of this Court in the amount agreed to by the parties, the following shall occur: a. FSC shall have immediate access to, and possession of, the Easements described in Composite Exhibit 3 to the Complaint, as amended (Doc. ## 31 , 39 ); and b. FSC may immediately begin pre-installation activities so that construction-related activities can commence by June 1, 2016, for the purposes of constructing the Project's pipelines and related facilities at the Easements described in Composite Exhibit 3 to the Complaint, as amended (Doc. ## 31 , 39 ). All pre-installation and construct ion-related activities shall be consistent with the Easements acquired by FSC and obligations agreed to by FSC as set forth in Composite Exhibit 3 to the Complaint, as amended (Doc. ## 31 , 39 ), the FERC Certificate, and all other required regulatory permits. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/11/2016. (BLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FLORIDA SOUTHEAST CONNECTION,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-676-T-36TBM

3.370 ACRES OF LAND, MORE
OR LESS, IN POLK COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MILMACK INC. et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Florida Southeast Connection, LLC’s
(FSC)

Motion

for

Preliminary

Injunction

for

Immediate

Possession filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65 and Middle District of Florida Local Rule 4.06, which was
referred to the undersigned for disposition (Doc. # 11). FSC
seeks

a

preliminary

injunction

granting

it

immediate

possession and use of the Easements in this case for preinstallation activities to begin as soon as possible so that
construction can begin by June 1, 2016. Similar motions have
been filed in the related or companion cases.
I.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717f,

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an

1

“Order Issuing Certificates and Approving Abandonment” on
February 2, 2016. 1 That order issued FSC a certificate of
public

convenience

and

necessity

(FERC

Certificate)

authorizing it to construct and operate the Florida Southeast
Connection Project (the FSC Project or Project). The Project
encompasses approximately 126 miles of new pipeline, and
related

facilities

that

will

transport

natural

gas

in

interstate commerce from central Florida to Florida Power &
Light Company’s (FPL) Martin Clean Energy Center in Martin
County, Florida (the Martin Clean Energy Center).
If FSC, as the holder of a FERC Certificate, “cannot
acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of
the property to the compensation to be paid,” it may acquire
the necessary right-of-way (including land or other property
necessary for the proper operation of the pipeline) “by the
exercise of the right of eminent domain in” the United States
district court in which the property is located. 15 U.S.C. §
717f(h).

1

As a public record issued and maintained by FERC, this Court
takes judicial notice of the FERC Certificate, the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) approved and adopted by
FERC, and all other records of the FERC proceedings relating
to the Project under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
Transmission Agency of N. Cal. V. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 295
F.3d 918, 924 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

Over the past two years, FSC purchased from landowners
approximately 87% of the easement interests necessary for the
Project. However, FSC has been unable to purchase all of the
required easement interests through voluntary acquisitions.
As a result, FSC filed this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
717f(h), and Rule 71.1, Fed. R. Civ. P., to condemn the rightof-way

and

other

property

interests

identified

in

the

Complaint (the Easements). 2 FSC has filed a number of related
cases to acquire other necessary easement interests in this
District and the Southern District of Florida.
In such NGA condemnation cases, the district court’s
role is limited to ordering “condemnation of property in
accord with a facially valid certificate.” Tenn. Gas Pipeline
Co. v. 104 Acres of Land More or Less, in Providence Cty. of
the State of R.I., 749 F. Supp. 427, 430 (D.R.I. 1990) (citing
Williams Nat. Gas Co. v. Okla. City, 890 F.2d 255, 262 (10th
Cir. 1989)). In other words, “[t]he District Court’s role is
to

evaluate

the

scope

of

the

certificate

and

to

order

condemnation of property as authorized in the certificate.”
Id. at 430; Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. An Easement to
Construct,

Operate

&

Maintain

2

a

24-Inch

Pipeline

Across

Service of process was effected pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3). (Doc. ## 13-14, 19).

3

Props. in Shenandoah Cty., Va., No. 5:07cv04009, 2008 WL
2439889, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 9, 2008).
II.

RELATED CASE PRECEDENT
“[O]nce a district court determines that a gas company

has the substantive right to condemn property under the NGA,
the court may exercise equitable power to grant the remedy of
immediate possession through the issuance of a preliminary
injunction.” E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. Sage (Sage), 361 F.3d
808, 828 (4th Cir. 2004). And, FSC is
entitled to a preliminary injunction if it show[s]:
“(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be
suffered unless the injunction is issued; (3) the
threatened injury to the moving party outweighs
whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause
the non-moving party; and (4) if issued, the
injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest.”
Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767, 774 (11th Cir.
2015) (quoting BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access
Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 968 (11th Cir. 2005)).
FSC satisfies each of the elements and, therefore, is entitled
to the injunction it seeks.
Granting
settled

law.

such
Courts

injunctions
throughout

is
the

consistent
country

with

have

well-

granted

preliminary injunctive relief when a natural gas pipeline
company holding a valid FERC Certificate, and which satisfied

4

the

standard

possession

of

for
the

injunctive
necessary

relief,

sought

right-of-way

immediate

interests.

See,

e.g., Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or
Less in Penn Twp., York Cty. Penn., Located on Tax ID No.
440002800150000000 Owned by Dwyane P. Brown & Ann M. Brown,
768 F.3d 300, 304 (3d Cir. 2014) (reversing district court
and

granting

immediate

possession

of

the

easement,

and

noting, “a certificate of public convenience and necessity
gives its holder the ability to obtain automatically the
necessary right of way through eminent domain, with the only
open issue being the compensation the landowner defendant
will receive in return for the easement.”); Sage, 361 F.3d at
828. 3

3

See also, e.g., Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC v. A
Permanent Easement for 1.29 Acres, & Temp. Easements for 1.58
Acres, in Jackson Twp., Susquehanna Cty., Penn. Tax Parcel
No. 092.00-2,056.00,000, No. 3:14-2453, 2015 WL 1219646, at
*4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2015); Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC
v. A Permanent Easement for 2.40 Acres & Temp. Easements for
3.13 Acres in Davenport, Del. Cty., N.Y., No. 3:14-cv2046(NAM/RFT), 2015 WL 1638211, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
2015); Columbia Gas Transmission LLC v. 0.85 Acres, More or
Less, in Harford Cty., Md., No. WDQ-14-2288, 2014 WL 4471541,
at *8 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2014); Nw. Pipeline Corp. v. 20' by
1,430' Pipeline Right of Way Easement 50’ x 1,560’ Temp.
Staging Area, No. CS-01-0246-FVS, 197 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1246
(E.D. Wash. 2002); Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. New England
Power, CTL, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 102, 104 (D. Mass. 1998);
Kern River Gas Transmission v. Clark County, Nev., 757 F.
Supp. 1110, 1116-17 (D. Nev. 1990); N. Border Pipeline Co. v.

5

III. FINDINGS ON THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
A.

FSC Has Established a Substantial Likelihood of
Success on the Merits

FSC has demonstrated it meets the requirements of 15
U.S.C. § 717f(h) necessary to exercise the federal power of
eminent

domain:

(1)

FSC

holds

a

certificate

of

public

convenience and necessity from FERC for the Project; (2) the
Easements

sought

to

be

acquired

are

Certificate; and (3) FSC is unable to

authorized

by

the

acquire the Easements

by contract, or agree with the owner of the property on the
compensation to be paid for those interests. E. Tenn. Nat.
Gas, LLC v. 1.28 Acres in Smyth Cty., Va. (E. Tenn. Nat. Gas),
Nos. 1:06-CV-00022, 1:06-CV-00028, 1:06-CV-00029, 1:06-CV00036, 1:06-CV-00037, 1:06-CV-00044, 2006 WL 1133874, at *10,
13 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2006) (“[I]t is undisputed that ETNG
has been granted a certificate of public convenience and
necessity from the FERC. As a certificate holder, the Act
grants ETNG the substantive right to condemn the property as
approved by the FERC.”); Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v.
370.393 Acres, More or Less in, Balt. Cty., Md., No. 1:140469-RDB, No. 1:14-0469-RDB, 2014 WL 5092880, at *2 (D. Md.

127.79 Acres of Land, More or Less in Williams Cty., N.D.,
520 F. Supp. 170, 172-73 (D.N.D. 1981).

6

Oct. 9, 2014) (“After obtaining the FERC Certificate of public
convenience and necessity, natural gas pipeline companies are
granted the authority to condemn property for the purpose of
constructing pipeline.”); 1.01 Acres, More or Less in Penn
Twp.,

York

Cty.

Penn.,

Located

on

Tax

ID

No.

440002800150000000 Owned by Dwyane P. Brown & Ann M. Brown,
768

F.3d

at

315

(“This

is

not

a

‘normal’

preliminary

injunction, where the merits await another day. In those
situations, the probability of success is not a certainty
such that weighing the other factors is paramount. Here, there
is no remaining merits issue; we have ruled that Columbia has
the right to the easements by eminent domain.”).
As

noted

earlier,

the

Court

acknowledges

that

its

examination here is limited because the findings in the FERC
Certificate—including the determination that the Project is
a matter of public convenience and necessity, and that the
lands along the Project path are necessary for use in the
Project—are conclusive in this condemnation proceeding, and
cannot be collaterally attacked here. E. Tenn. Nat. Gas, 2006
WL 1133874, at *13 (“The defendants in these cases have
introduced much evidence which attempts to call into question
the propriety of the FERC’s issuance of the Certificate and
the propriety of the approved route of the Jewell Ridge

7

Lateral pipeline. The defendants, however, cannot use these
cases to engage in an appellate review of the propriety of
this project.”); Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 529.42 Acres of
Land, More or Less, in Kendall & McHenry Ctys., Ill., 210 F.
Supp. 2d 971, 974 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“The jurisdiction of [a
district] court is limited to evaluating the scope of the
FERC Certificate and ordering condemnation as authorized by
that certificate”).
B.

FSC Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if an Injunction
is Not Issued, and in Turn FSC’s Customers and the
Public Will Suffer Harm

FSC has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm if
a preliminary injunction is not issued.
1.

The public need will not be timely addressed
if an injunction is not issued

Both FERC and the Florida Public Service Commission
determined that there is a public need for the natural gas
that the Project will provide. FERC Certificate at ¶¶ 85-87;
Declaration of Jay Brandli (Brandli Dec.) at ¶ 19.
A delay in obtaining access to the Easements would delay
the entire Project and cause FSC to significantly risk failing
to meet its May 1, 2017, in-service deadline. Brandli Dec. at
¶ 17. If FSC does not complete construction by the May 1,
2017, in-service date, it will be unable to timely transport

8

price-competitive, natural gas to the Martin Clean Energy
Center to help meet the growing demand of natural gas for
electric generation, distribution, and end use markets in
Florida. Id. at ¶ 19; FERC Certificate at ¶ 9. In particular,
if the May 1, 2017, in-service date is not met, there will
likely be insufficient natural gas capacity to meet the
growing electricity needs of Floridians, which means oil
would be utilized as an alternate fuel, contributing to
increased costs to Florida customers and detrimental air
emissions since natural gas is a lower emissions fuel than
oil. Brandli Dec. at ¶ 19; FERC Certificate at ¶¶ 85-87.
2.

FSC will suffer irreparable
injunction is not issued

harm

if

an

FSC has demonstrated it will suffer irreparable harm if
immediate access and possession is not granted. Other federal
courts have recognized the irreparable harm that results from
the inefficiencies and added costs incurred when pipeline
construction is halted, or when crews must move around certain
parcels where the necessary easements have not been secured.
In Sage, the Fourth Circuit deemed the harm irreparable upon
recognizing that:
[c]onstructing a ninety-four-mile pipeline is a
complex project that can only progress in phases.
Certain portions of the project have to be
completed before construction can begin on other

9

portions. . . . [A]ny single parcel has the
potential of holding up the entire project. . . .
[T]o require ETNG to build up to a parcel of land
it does not possess, skip that parcel, and then
continue on the other side would prove wasteful and
inefficient.
Sage, 361 F.3d at 828-29 (original alterations, internal
quotation marks, and citations omitted); see also, e.g., 0.85
Acres, More or Less, in Harford Cty., Md., 2014 WL 4471541,
at *6 (finding that undue delay and costs in construction
constituted irreparable harm); Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v.
0.018 Acres of Land in Sussex Cty. N.J., No. 10-4465(JLL),
2010 WL 3883260, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2010) (determining
that a natural gas company would suffer irreparable harm from
a move around because “working around one small property is
likely to [be] very difficult and result in large additional
construction costs . . . [which] would not be able to be
recovered”); N. Border Pipeline Co. v. 64.111 Acres of Land,
More or Less, in Will Cty., Ill., 125 F. Supp. 2d 299, 301
(N.D. Ill. 2000) (determining that construction would be
delayed unless the pipeline company was granted immediate
possession,

resulting

in

irreparable

harm

because

the

increased construction costs could not be recovered from
defendants); Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. v. 295.49 Acres of
Land, More or Less, in Brown Cty., Calumet Cty., Dodge Cty.,

10

Fond du Lac Cty., & Outagamie Cty., Wis., Nos. 08-C-0028, 08C-54, 08-C-29, 08-C-30, 2008 WL 1751358, at *22 (E.D. Wis.
Apr. 11, 2008) (“It is not economically feasible to skip over
properties scattered at various locations along the route and
then come back to them at a later time. To do so would require
Guardian to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses
to move the large amount of material, heavy equipment, and
personnel

from

property

to

property

as

they

become

available.”).
The

same

is

true

of

the

Project

here.

Without

a

preliminary injunction awarding immediate possession, FSC
will suffer the same wasteful and inefficient consequences
recognized by Sage and many other cases resulting from having
to halt the construction or move around properties where
necessary easements have not yet been obtained. Brandli Dec.
at ¶¶ 14-18. And, once construction begins, FSC will be liable
for any delays that occur if a contractor is unable to access
a property in sequential order. Id. at ¶ 18. In that event,
FSC could incur acceleration costs to recover lost time,
estimated

to

be

$45,000

or

more

per

day,

as

well

as

mobilization costs of up to $150,000 per crew. Id. The number
of composite crews required would be proportional to the
accumulated

delay.

Id.

If

there

11

is

a

move

around

of

a

property, FSC must pay the contractor move-around costs. Id.
Move-around costs will likely range between $400,000 and
$500,000 per full spread move-around. Id.
Further, for some portions of the Project, the pipeline
will be installed by the HDD method. Id. at ¶ 12. HDD
installation

requires

a

subsurface

crossing

of

multiple

properties with a single entry and exit point at each end of
the spread. Id. Since the use of the HDD method generally
involves

crossing

multiple

properties

across

the

FERC-

approved route, FSC must have simultaneous access to all of
those properties to begin use of the HDD method. Id. If FSC
does not have contiguous access to perform the HDD activities
along the Project route, it will have to relocate work to a
different location. Id. This would cause significant delay,
for which FSC would be liable. Id. at ¶ 18.
In addition, construction related uncertainties require
that FSC have immediate possession to meet its in-service
deadline. Id. at ¶ 17. Weather conditions, unexpected field
conditions, and other construction challenges, should they
arise, would require additional time to complete the Project,
further

increasing

the

risk

of

missing

the

in-service

deadline if immediate possession is not ordered. Id.

12

In looking at increased costs and delays, other federal
courts have found such harm in natural gas cases constitute
the

type

of

irreparable

harms

that

warrants

injunctive

relief. In Sage, for example, the Fourth Circuit determined
that a natural gas company would suffer irreparable harm
without

a

preliminary

injunction

because

the

pipeline

construction would suffer “‘undue delay’ and that this delay
would cause ‘significant financial harm to both [the natural
gas company] and some of its putative customers.’” 361 F.3d
at 828; see also A Permanent Easement for 2.40 Acres & Temp.
Easements for 3.13 Acres in Davenport, Del. Cty., N.Y., 2015
WL 1638211, at *5 (holding that the plaintiff natural gas
company

“demonstrated

it

will

sustain

immediate

and

irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction” relying on
the gas company’s affidavit that “explain[ed] in substantial
detail the construction schedule, the FERC requirements prior
to construction, and other restrictions on construction, as
well as potential monetary losses.”).
Here, FSC will suffer the same irreparable harm if
possession is delayed. If FSC is not granted possession and
use

until

all

of

the

related

condemnation

actions

are

ultimately tried to completion, it will miss the Project’s
in-service deadline. Brandli Dec. at ¶ 18; Transcon. Gas Pipe

13

Line Co., LLC v. Permanent Easement Totaling 2.322 Acres,
More or Less, & Temp. Easements Totaling 3.209 Acres, More or
Less,

Over

a

Parcel

of

Land

in

Brunswick

Cty.,

Va.

of

Approximately 83.00 Acres in Size, No. 3:14-cv-00400-HEH,
2014 WL 4365476, at *5-6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2014) (determining
that failing to meet an in-service deadline was sufficient to
establish irreparable harm); see also Sage, 361 F.3d at 828
(recognizing that “[s]cheduling and conducting those hearings
. . . ‘will obviously take an extended period of time.’”). To
meet its in-service deadline of May 1, 2017, recognized by
FERC, FSC must obtain immediate use and possession of the
necessary easements. Brandli Dec. at ¶ 17; FERC Certificate
at ¶ 31.
C.

The Threatened Injury to FSC Outweighs Whatever
Damage, if Any, the Proposed Injunction Might Cause
the Defendants

The Defendants will not be harmed if the injunction is
entered. The Defendants’ monetary relief is a matter of
timing, as the property at issue “would still be disturbed,
albeit at a later time, if just compensation was determined
first.”

Sage,

361

F.3d

at

829.

“[T]he

only

‘harm’

to

Defendants is that of compensation – an issue that will not
change depending on whether [the court] grant[s] or den[ies]
the

injunction.”

Columbia

Gas

14

Transmission

Corp.

v.

An

Easement to Construct, Operate, & Maintain a 24-inch Gas
Transmission Pipeline Across Props. in Greene Cty., Va.,
Owned by Michael E. Walker, Alan D. Ward, Judge Norman K.
Moon Norma J. Caron-Ward, Ronne Edward Lawson, Doris Jean
Lawson, David Roach, Donna L. Roach, Leonidas M. Schwartz,
Roslyn J. Schwartz, Winston D. Schwartz, Alice W. Vining and
George J. Vining III, No. 3:07cv00028, 2007 WL 2287673, at *4
(W.D. Va. July 20, 2007); 0.018 acre Acres of Land in Sussex
Cty., N.J., 2010 WL 3883260, at *3 (“The Court is sympathetic
to the [defendant’s] personal situation and understands that
this project will be a disruption for her family at this
challenging personal time. However, no evidence has been
submitted to support the conclusion that delaying access to
the property will alleviate this disruption.”).
Additionally, this Court will condition the preliminary
injunction on FSC posting a security bond in the amount agreed
to

by

the

parties.

That

bond

will

blunt

or

negate

any

potential claim of irreparable harm to Defendants. Sage, 361
F.3d at 829.
D.

Issuing the Injunction Furthers the Public Interest

The

FERC

Certificate

and

the

purpose

of

the

NGA

demonstrate that the public interest weighs in favor of
granting

FSC

immediate

possession

15

of

the

Easements.

“Congress passed the Natural Gas Act and gave gas companies
condemnation power to insure that consumers would have access
to an adequate supply of natural gas at reasonable prices.”
Sage, 361 F.3d at 830; 0.018 acre Acres of Land in Sussex
Cty., N.J., 2010 WL 3883260, at *3 (“With regard to the public
interest factor, the Court finds that this prong is easily
met under the circumstances of this case. By granting the
certificate, FERC made a determination that the pipeline is
necessary and in the public interest. This conclusion was
reached

after

an

extensive

administrative

process

that

weighed the harms to the public, including many individual
homeowners[’]

objections,

against

the

need

for

the

pipeline.”).
FERC made that same public interest determination here
when it issued the FERC Certificate to FSC. FERC found that
the two existing pipelines are either fully or nearly fully
subscribed. FERC Certificate at ¶ 74. It agreed with the
Florida Public Service Commission’s findings of public need
based on the demand for natural gas for natural gas-fired
power plants, and recognized that even “[t]he expansion of
existing pipelines in Florida will not satisfy the identified
need

of

a

new

transportation

option.”

Id.

at

¶¶

85-87.

Further, a delay in the in-service date will harm FSC’s

16

customer, FPL, and in turn, numerous members of the public
who are residential and commercial customers of this public
utility.
Granting FSC immediate possession of these easements has
additional public benefits. Supplying natural gas for clean
energy production is in the public interest. See Sage, 361
F.3d at 830 (“The project serves the public interest because,
among other things, it will bring natural gas to portions of
southwest Virginia for the first time. This will make gas
available to consumers, and it will help in the efforts of
local communities to attract much-needed new business. On a
larger

scale,

the

pipeline

will

make

gas

available

for

electric power generation plants.”); E. Tenn. Nat. Gas, 2006
WL 1133874, at *14 (“[T]here is a substantial public interest
at stake in this case – the need to capture and supply as
much natural gas to the market as soon as possible.”).
Additionally,

FERC

determined

that

“the

FSC

Project

would benefit the state and local economies by creating a
short-term stimulus to the affected areas through payroll
expenditures,

local

purchase

of

consumables

and

project-

specific materials, and sales tax.” FEIS at § 3.10.3.7. FSC
anticipates that the Project will hire up to 500 construction
workers for the job. Id. at § 3.10.3.1. FSC estimates that

17

between $3.6 million and $7.2 million of its total payroll on
the project would be received by local workers. Id. at §
3.10.3.7.

Additionally,

FSC

estimates

that

another

$91.2

million would be spent locally on consumables and projectspecific materials. Id. Postponing these benefits is not in
the public interest. See Sage, 361 F.3d at 829 (“[D]elay in
construction

of

the

pipeline

would

hinder

economic

development efforts in several Virginia counties.”). Thus,
the

public

interest

is

benefited

by

the

issuance

of

an

injunction permitting FSC to move forward with the Project.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds that FSC

is entitled to a preliminary injunction granting immediate
access to, and possession of, the Easements described in
Composite Exhibit 3 to the Complaint, as amended (Doc. ## 31,
39).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1.

FSC’s

Motion

for

Preliminary

Injunction

for

Immediate Possession (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED.
2.

Upon FSC posting a proper security bond with the
Clerk of this Court in the amount agreed to by the
parties, the following shall occur:

18

a.

FSC

shall

possession
Composite

have
of,

immediate
the

Exhibit

access

Easements
3

to

the

to,

and

described

in

Complaint,

as

amended (Doc. ## 31, 39); and
b.

FSC

may

immediately

activities

so

begin

that

pre-installation

construction-related

activities can commence by June 1, 2016, for
the purposes of constructing the Project’s
pipelines

and

related

facilities

at

the

Easements described in Composite Exhibit 3 to
the Complaint, as amended (Doc. ## 31, 39).
3.

All

pre-installation

and

construction-related

activities shall be consistent with the Easements
acquired by FSC and obligations agreed to by FSC as
set forth in Composite Exhibit 3 to the Complaint,
as amended (Doc. ## 31, 39), the FERC Certificate,
and all other required regulatory permits.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 11th
day of May, 2016.

19