TransWest Express Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0450), 16196-16203 [2017-06479]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
16196
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5051.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1307–000.
Applicants: Wisconsin River Power
Company.
Description: Tariff Cancellation:
Cancellation—Combustion Turbine
Power Purchase Contract to be effective
3/1/2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5136.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1308–000.
Applicants: Wabash Valley Power
Association, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
Amendment to Formulary Rate Tariff—
Optional Coop Solar Energy Rider to be
effective 6/1/2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5200.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1309–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Ameren Illinois Company.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2017–03–27_SA 2765 MidAmerican
Energy Company-Ameren Illinois TIA to
be effective 3/28/2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5211.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1310–000.
Applicants: New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
NYDPS section 205—cost allocation for
PPTPP to be effective 5/26/2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5213.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1311–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: Tariff Cancellation:
2017–03–27_SA 2884 Cancellation of
Amended G736 v32 to be effective 1/7/
2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5270.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1312–000.
Applicants: California Independent
System Operator Corporation.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
2017–03–27 Department of Market
Monitoring Oversight Committee
Amendment to be effective 4/1/2017.
Filed Date: 3/27/17.
Accession Number: 20170327–5272.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1313–000.
Applicants: NorthWestern
Corporation.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SA
808—LGIA with Orion Wind Resources,
LLC to be effective 3/31/2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5000.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1314–000.
Applicants: Arkwright Summit Wind
Farm LLC.
Description: Baseline eTariff Filing:
MBR Application to be effective 5/28/
2017.
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5070.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1315–000.
Applicants: Meadow Lake Wind Farm
V LLC.
Description: Baseline eTariff Filing:
MBR Application to be effective 5/28/
2017.
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5072.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1316–000.
Applicants: Quilt Block Wind Farm
LLC.
Description: Baseline eTariff Filing:
MBR Application to be effective 5/28/
2017.
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5073.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1317–000.
Applicants: Duke Energy Progress,
LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
DEC–DEP PBOP Filing to be effective 1/
1/2015.
Filed Date: 3/28/17.
Accession Number: 20170328–5075.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/17.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the
docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or
protest in any of the above proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–06470 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
TransWest Express Transmission
Project Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS–0450)
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision.
AGENCY:
The Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
acting as joint lead agencies, issued the
proposed TransWest Express
Transmission Project (Project) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
(DOE/EIS–0450) on May 1, 2015. The
Agency Preferred Alternative developed
by WAPA and the BLM through the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process and described in the
Final EIS is summarized in this Record
of Decision (ROD).
Because the BLM and WAPA were
joint lead agencies in the preparation of
the EIS, each agency will issue its own
ROD(s) addressing the overall Project
and the specific matters within its
jurisdiction and authority. This ROD
constitutes WAPA’s decision with
respect to the alternatives considered in
the Final EIS. The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR),
and Utah Reclamation Mitigation
Conservation Commission (URMCC) are
cooperating agencies in the proposed
Project based on their potential Federal
action to issue use permits across lands
under their respective management.
These agencies also will issue their own
decisions regarding their specific agency
actions. Additional cooperating agencies
include Federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies.
WAPA has selected the Agency
Preferred Alternative identified in the
Final EIS as the route for the Project.
This decision on the route will enable
design and engineering activities to
proceed and help inform WAPA’s
Federal action(s) to consider any
received or anticipated loan application
permitted under its borrowing authority
and/or exercise its options for
participation in the Project. These
considerations are contingent on the
successful development of participation
agreements as well as any and all
documentation and commitments
needed to satisfy financial underwriting
standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on WAPA’s participation in
the Project contact Stacey Harris, Public
Utilities Specialist, Transmission
Infrastructure Program (TIP) Office
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
A0700, Headquarters Office, Western
Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
281213, Lakewood, CO 80228–8213,
telephone (720) 962–7714, facsimile
(720) 962–7083, email sharris@
wapa.gov. For information about the
Project EIS process or to request a CD
of the document, contact Steve Blazek,
NEPA Document Manager, Natural
Resources Office A7400, Headquarters
Office, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 281213,
Lakewood, CO 80228–8213, telephone
(720) 962–7265, facsimile (720) 962–
7263, email sblazek@wapa.gov. The
Final EIS and this ROD are also
available at https://energy.gov/nepa/
downloads/eis-0450-finalenvironmental-impact-statement.
For general information on the
Department of Energy (DOE) NEPA
process, please contact Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202)
586–4600 or (800) 472–2756.
TransWest
Express LLC (TransWest) is the
TransWest Express (TWE) Transmission
Project (Project) proponent. The Project
is proposed as an extra high voltage,
direct current (DC) transmission system
extending from south-central Wyoming
to southern Nevada. The proposed
transmission line (and alternatives)
would cross four states (Wyoming,
Colorado, Utah, and Nevada)
encompassing lands owned or
administered by the BLM, USFS, BOR,
URMCC, National Park Service, various
state agencies, Native American tribes,
municipalities, and private parties. The
Project would provide the transmission
infrastructure and capacity necessary to
deliver approximately 3,000 megawatts
(MW) of electric power from renewable
and/or non-renewable energy resources
in south-central Wyoming to southern
Nevada. The TransWest proposed action
would consist of an approximately 725mile-long, 600–kilovolt (kV), DC
transmission line and two terminals,
each containing a converter station that
converts alternating current (AC) to DC
or vice-versa. The northern AC/DC
converter station would be located near
Sinclair, Wyoming, and the southern
AC/DC station near the Marketplace
Hub in the Eldorado Valley,
approximately 25 miles south of Las
Vegas, Nevada. The Project would retain
an option for a future interconnection
with the existing Intermountain Power
Project (IPP) transmission system in
Millard County, Utah.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
In April 2009, TransWest submitted a
Statement of Interest (SOI) to WAPA for
consideration of its Project under the
authority provided to WAPA under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 amendment of the Hoover
Power Plant Act of 1984. WAPA is
considering whether to use its
borrowing authority, if a loan
application is submitted and
successfully underwritten, to finance
and/or exercise its options for partial
ownership in the proposed Project.
TransWest’s SOI prompted WAPA to
initiate a request to the BLM to become
a joint lead agency for the development
of the EIS to determine the
environmental impacts of the Project.
TransWest also filed a Right-Of-Way
(ROW) application with the BLM
pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, proposing to construct,
operate, maintain, and eventually
decommission a high-voltage electric
transmission line on land managed by
the BLM. The BLM initiated its own
NEPA process to address whether to
grant a ROW permit. Because both
agencies had NEPA decisions to
consider, WAPA and the BLM agreed to
be joint lead agencies in accordance
with NEPA, 40 CFR 1501.5(b), for the
purpose of preparing the EIS for the
Project. The agencies issued the Final
EIS for the Project on November May 1,
2015.
Each agency will issue its own ROD(s)
addressing the overall Project and the
specific matters within its jurisdiction
and authority. While WAPA’s potential
involvement relates to use of its
borrowing authority, the decision at
hand is a selection of project route.
Project Description
TransWest’s Proposed Action would
include:
• A 600-kV DC line, approximately
725 miles in length, extending across
public and private lands in Wyoming,
Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. The
transmission line ROW would be
approximately 250 feet wide;
• Two terminal stations located at
either end of the transmission line; the
Northern Terminal located near
Sinclair, Wyoming, and the Southern
Terminal at the Marketplace Hub in the
Eldorado Valley, within Boulder City,
Nevada. Terminal facilities would
include converter stations and related
substation facilities necessary for
interconnections to existing and
planned regional AC transmission
systems;
• Access routes, including
improvements to existing roads, new
overland access, and new unpaved
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16197
roads to access the proposed Project
facilities and work areas during the
construction, operation, and
maintenance Project phases;
• Ancillary facilities including a
network of 15 to 20 fiber optic
communication regeneration sites and
two ground electrode facilities; and
• Temporary construction sites that
would include wire pulling/fly yards,
material storage and concrete batch
plant sites.
TransWest also identified and
retained two design options to provide
the Project with flexibility to adapt to
potential regional transmission changes.
The design options do not currently
meet the interests and objectives of the
Project; however, they could be
considered if/when capacity becomes
available on the Southern Transmission
Systems.
Alternatives
An iterative, adaptive process was
used for this Project to identify an
adequate range of alternative
transmission corridors that directly
respond to addressing potential resource
or siting constraints and help inform
decision-makers. Due to the length of
the transmission line, the alternative
transmission routes were split into four
distinct regions for the purpose of
presenting clear impact comparisons
between alternative segments:
• Region I: Sinclair, Wyoming, to
Northwest Colorado near Rangely,
Colorado;
• Region II: Northwest Colorado to
IPP near Delta, Utah;
• Region III: IPP to North Las Vegas,
Nevada; and
• Region IV: North Las Vegas to
Marketplace Hub in Boulder City,
Nevada.
One alternative within each of these
regions is combined with the others to
define a distinct end-to-end route from
Wyoming to Nevada. A depiction of the
four regions and the alternatives can be
found as Figures 2–22 through 2–25 in
Chapter 2 of the Final EIS.
Alternatives Facilities and
Transmission Line Routes for Four
Regions
Region I
Northern Terminal
The Northern Terminal would be
located approximately three miles
southwest of Sinclair, Wyoming (Carbon
County) on private lands. The terminal
would include an AC/DC converter
station and adjacent AC substation. The
AC/DC converter station would include
a 600–kV DC switchyard; AC/DC
conversion equipment; transformers;
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
16198
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
and multiple equipment, control,
maintenance, and administrative
buildings. Two buildings would house
the AC/DC conversion equipment;
smaller buildings would house the
control room, control and protection
equipment, auxiliary equipment; and
cooling equipment. Connections to the
existing transmission infrastructure also
would be constructed. The three major
components (AC/DC converter station,
500/230–kV AC substation, and 230–kV
AC substation) are planned to be colocated and contiguous.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Alternative I–A Transmission Line
Route (Proposed Action)
TransWest’s proposed alignment
would begin in Sinclair, Wyoming, and
would travel west just south of the
Interstate 80 (I–80) corridor to
Wamsutter. At Wamsutter, it would turn
south and generally follow the CarbonSweetwater county line along a corridor
preferred by the Wyoming Governor’s
Office and Carbon and Sweetwater
counties. It then would continue southsouthwest across the WyomingColorado state line and south along a
corridor preferred by Moffat County and
coordinated with the BLM Northwest
Colorado District Office’s ongoing
greater sage-grouse planning effort. It
would then intersect with U.S. Highway
40 (U.S.–40) just west of Maybell,
Colorado. The alignment would then
generally parallel U.S.–40, turning
southwest toward the Colorado-Utah
border.
Alternative I–A is approximately 156
miles in length, 66 percent of which
would be located on BLM lands. There
would be 24 miles would be in BLM
Resource Management Plan (RMP)
utility corridors and 25 miles would be
in West Wide Energy Corridors
(WWECs). There would be
approximately 201 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative I–B Transmission Line
Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative I–B as considered in the
Final EIS would be the same as
Alternative I–A for nearly its entire
length, with one exception just north of
the Wyoming-Colorado state line. A
length of approximately 8 miles of
Alternative I–B diverges to the southeast
from Alternative I–A in this area to
minimize potential impacts to areas
eligible for historic trail designation.
Alternative I–B includes is
approximately 158 miles in length, 67
percent of which would be located on
BLM lands. There would be 24 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors
and 25 miles would be in WWECs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
There would be approximately 204
miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative I–C Transmission Line
Route
This alternative was developed to
reduce the overall proliferation of utility
corridors and associated impacts by
following existing designated utility
corridors. Alternative I–C would begin
by following Alternative I–A to near
Creston, Wyoming, where Alternative I–
C would turn south and parallel
Wyoming State Highway 789 (SH–789)
toward Baggs, Wyoming. From there,
Alternative I–C would continue south,
deviating from SH–789 to the east and
passing east of Baggs. After crossing into
Colorado, this alternative would parallel
Colorado State Highway 13 into Craig,
Colorado. Alternative I–C would pass
east and south of Craig, turning to the
west after crossing U.S.–40, generally
paralleling the highway and joining
with Alternative I–A to the end of
Region I.
Alternative I–C is approximately 186
miles in length, 44 percent of which
would be located on BLM lands. There
would be 53 miles would be in BLM
RMP utility corridors and 60 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
237 miles of access roads associated
with this alternative.
Alternative I–D Transmission Line
Route
Alternative I–D was developed to
reduce multiple resource concerns,
including impacts to visual resources
and greater sage-grouse. It would follow
the route of Alternative I–A, going west
from Sinclair, Wyoming (Carbon
County, Wyoming), basically paralleling
I–80 in a designated WWEC, until
turning south near Wamsutter. It would
follow Alternative I–A south for
approximately 15 miles. Alternative I–D
then would diverge to the east, where it
generally would parallel SH–789 at an
offset distance of 2 to 5 miles to the
west. Before reaching the Baggs area,
Alternative I–D would turn west and
follow the Shell Creek Stock Trail road
for approximately 20 miles, where it
would cross into Sweetwater County
and again join Alternative I–A while
turning south into Colorado (Moffat
County).
Alternative I–D is approximately 168
miles in length, 70 percent of which
would be located on BLM lands. There
would be 24 miles would be in BLM
RMP utility corridors and 25 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
213 miles of access roads associated
with this alternative.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and
Micro-Siting Options
There are no alternative variations
within Region I. The Region I alternative
connectors were removed from further
consideration at the request of the lead
agencies in response to public
comments received on the Draft EIS.
Two micro-siting options have been
developed to address specific land use
concerns in all Region I alternative
routes related to the Tuttle Ranch
Conservation Easement and the Cross
Mountain Ranch proposed conservation
easement:
• Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3;
and
• Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4.
Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3
would avoid the Tuttle Ranch
Conservation Easement, but would cross
the NPS Deerlodge Road west of U.S.–
40 and would cross the largest portion
of the Cross Mountain Ranch property.
Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4
would avoid the Tuttle Ranch
Conservation Easement and the NPS
Deerlodge Road, and would cross the
least amount of the Cross Mountain
Ranch property.
Ground Electrode Locations
One ground electrode system would
be required within approximately 100
miles of the Northern Terminal to
establish and maintain electrical current
continuity during normal operations,
and any unexpected outage of one of the
two poles (or circuits) of the 600–kV DC
terminal or converter station equipment.
The ground electrode facility would
consist of a network of approximately
60 deep earth electrode wells arranged
along the perimeter of a circle expected
to be about 3,000 feet in diameter. All
wells at a site would be electrically
interconnected and wired via
approximately 10 low-voltage
underground cable ‘‘spokes’’ to a small
control building. A low voltage
electrode line would connect the ground
electrode facilities to the AC/DC
converter stations. General siting areas
and conceptual alternative site locations
have been identified in Regions I;
selection of specific location of the
ground electrode systems would be
identified during final engineering and
design stages.
There are four potential locations for
ground electrode systems in Region I
(Bolten Ranch, Separation Flat,
Separation Creek, and Eight Mile Basin).
All locations would apply to all
alternatives.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
Region II
Alternative II–A Transmission Line
Route (Proposed Action)
The TransWest proposed alignment
would continue into Utah in a westerly
direction, and then deviate south from
U.S.–40 toward Roosevelt, Utah. From
Roosevelt, it would pass north of
Duchesne, again paralleling U.S.–40 for
several miles, then turn southwest and
cross the Uinta National Forest Planning
Area 1 generally within a designated
WWEC, then turn west along U.S.
Highway 6 (U.S.–6) and Soldier Creek.
At the junction with U.S. Highway 89
(U.S.–89), Alternative II–A would then
turn south generally along U.S.–89
where it would cross a portion of the
Manti-La Sal National Forest. The
alignment would pass through Salt
Creek Canyon then north around Nephi.
It would continue west and then turn
southwest following a path north of and
adjacent to IPP. Portions of this corridor
have been identified as preferred in a
joint resolution by representatives of
Juab and Millard counties.
Alternative II–A would be
approximately 258 miles in length, 45
percent of which would be located on
BLM/USFS lands. There would be
approximately 34 miles in BLM RMP
utility corridors and 63 miles would be
in WWECs. There would be
approximately 395 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Alternative II–B Transmission Line
Route
Alternative II–B was developed to
address impacts to private lands and to
generally follow established utility
corridors. These corridors are
designated for underground utilities
only and use of the corridor for the
transmission line would require a plan
amendment. The route would travel
southwest in Colorado from the
beginning of Region II, cross the Yampa
River, and pass east of Rangely,
Colorado. It would continue southwest
where it would cross the Colorado-Utah
state line and turn generally south,
crossing back into Colorado in the
Baxter Pass area. At that location, it
would intersect the Interstate 70 (I–70)
corridor, turning in a southwesterly and
westerly direction, paralleling I–70.
After passing south of Green River,
1 In March 2008, the Uinta National Forest and
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest were combined
into one administrative unit (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache
National Forest). Each of these forests continues to
operate under individual forest plans approved in
2003. The term Uinta National Forest Planning Area
is used to refer to that portion of the Uinta-WasatchCache National Forest managed under the Uinta
National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
Utah, Alternative II–B would diverge
from I–70 and turn to the north along
U.S. Highway 191 (U.S.–191). This
highway generally would be followed
until just south of the Emery-Carbon
county line, where Alternative II–B
would turn west and pass near the
county line for approximately 25 miles.
Then it would generally would turn
south, pass west of Huntington, Utah,
turn northwest, cross a portion of the
Manti-La Sal National Forest, and pass
northeast of Mount Pleasant, Utah. From
there, it would pass through Salt Creek
Canyon to Nephi, and then south
around Nephi. It then would turn
southwest and west adjacent to IPP,
following a path south of Alternative II–
A across a portion of the Fishlake
National Forest.
Alternative II–A would be
approximately 346 miles in length, 65
percent of which would be located on
BLM/USFS lands. There would be
approximately 136 miles would be in
BLM RMP utility corridors and 33 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
492 miles of access roads associated
with this alternative.
Alternative II–C Transmission Line
Route
Alternative II–C also would decrease
impacts to private lands and generally
would follow established utility
corridors as well as avoid USFS IRAs.
Alternative II–C would follow
Alternative II–B through Colorado,
along I–70 into Utah, and north at US–
191. Approximately 15 miles north on
US–191, Alternative II–C would diverge
from Alternative II–B and turn in a
general westerly direction toward Castle
Dale. Approximately 3 miles east of
Castle Dale, this alternative would turn
south and roughly parallel Utah State
Highway 10 at a distance of
approximately 3 miles to the east. The
alternative would cross Utah State
Route 10 near the Emery-Sevier county
line and turn west, again generally
following the I–70 corridor across a
portion of the Fishlake National Forest
into the Salina, Utah, area. Alternative
II–C would pass south of Salina, turn
north, and parallel U.S. Highway 50
toward Scipio, Utah. The alternative
would turn west and pass Scipio on the
south, again crossing a portion of the
Fishlake National Forest, then turn
north, passing east of Delta, Utah,
continuing into IPP.
Alternative II–C would be
approximately 365 miles in length, 67
percent of which would be located on
BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 146
miles would be in BLM RMP utility
corridors and 17 miles would be in
WWECs. There would be 488 miles of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16199
access roads associated with this
alternative.
Alternative II–D Transmission Line
Route
This alternative was developed to
avoid USFS IRAs and to provide
additional northern route options to
avoid impacts to historic trails and areas
designated for special resource
management along the southern routes
(Alternatives II–B and II–C). It would
begin along the same route as
Alternative II–A. However, as it would
enter Utah, it would diverge briefly to
follow a designated utility corridor,
causing it to zigzag once across
Alternative II–A. It then would diverge
to the south of the designated utility
corridor and turn west-southwest,
skirting the edge of the Ashley National
Forest. Alternative II–D would cross
into Carbon County northwest of Price,
and then turn southwest in the Emma
Park area along US–191. It would follow
this highway west of Helper, across a
portion of the Manti-La Sal National
Forest and then turn west toward Salt
Creek Canyon where it would join and
follow Alternative II–B, skirt the edge of
the Uinta National Forest Planning
Area, then join and follow Alternative
II–A into IPP.
Alternative II–D is approximately 259
miles in length, 57 percent of which
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
Approximately 71 miles would be in
BLM RMP utility corridors and 46 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
422 miles of access roads associated
with this alternative.
Alternative II–E Transmission Line
Route
Alternative II–E also was developed to
provide additional northern route
options to address the previously
mentioned resource impacts from the
southern routes. This alternative would
follow Alternative II–D into Utah and
along the designated utility corridor,
zigzagging across Alternative II–A. It
then would rejoin Alternative II–A to
continue west across the Uintah/
Duchesne county line. Approximately
10 miles east of Duchesne, Alternative
II–E would turn southwest and
generally parallel SH–191, offset by 1 to
6 miles, through a utility window of the
Ashley National Forest. At the UtahCarbon county line, this alternative
would turn west through the Emma Park
area, then northwest along US–6
through a utility window of the Uinta
National Forest Planning Area until
rejoining Alternative II–A and following
its siting through the Manti-La Sal
National Forest to Salt Creek Canyon. At
this canyon, Alternative II–E would
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
16200
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
begin to follow the alignment of
Alternative II–B south of Nephi, then
join and follow Alternative II–A
adjacent and into IPP.
Alternative II–E is approximately 268
miles in length, 44 percent of which
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
Approximately 40 miles would be in
BLM RMP utility corridors and 66 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
approximately 412 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative II–F Transmission Line
Route
Alternative II–F was adjusted in the
Final EIS at the request of the lead
agencies in response to public
comments on the Draft EIS. This
alternative combines portions of other
alternatives in the region and contains
unique segments in the Emma Park area
that together would minimize impacts
to USFS IRAs, Tribal and private lands,
greater sage-grouse habitat, and avoid
impacts to National Historic Trails
(NHT). It would begin in southwest
Moffat County (Colorado) by following
Alternative II–A in designated WWEC
and BLM utility corridors. As it enters
Utah (Uintah County), it would separate
from Alternative II–A to the northwest
and follow the designated utility
corridors, which then turn southwest
and cross Alternative II–A. It then
would diverge to the south off of the
designated WWEC (still following the
BLM-designated corridor) and turn
west-southwest, crossing the Uintah and
Ouray Indian Reservation. It then would
cross into Duchesne County, where it
would turn west-southwest out of the
BLM utility corridor, skirt the Ashley
National Forest and generally follow the
southern county line. The alternative
would follow Argyle Ridge west and
US–191 to the southwest for a short
distance and then would turn west and
follow the base of Reservation Ridge. It
would then turn northwest and cross
US–6 at Soldier Summit where it would
turn west-northwest and follow US–6 to
Thistle (Utah County) through a portion
of designated WWEC and BLM utility
corridors and a utility window of the
Uinta National Forest Planning Area. It
then would turn south, following US–89
for about 10 miles and through a portion
of the Manti-La Sal National Forest
before cutting south-southwest (Sanpete
County) to Utah State Route 132. At this
highway, it would turn west into Nephi
(Juab County) and follow a path south
around the community and continue
west until turning southwest where it
would parallel US–6 north of Lynndyl
for a short distance, then diverging west,
southwest and finally west along the
southern edge of the Millard-Juab
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
county line into IPP north of Delta
(Millard County); the end of Region II.
Alternative II–F is approximately 265
miles in length, 55 percent of which
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
Approximately 72 miles would be in
BLM RMP utility corridors and 31 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
approximately 455 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative II–G Transmission Line
Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative II–G is a reconfiguration
of segments that are also included in
multiple other alternatives, mainly
Alternatives II–A and II–F. This specific
alternative configuration was not
included in the Draft EIS, but was added
to the Final EIS to reflect the Agency
Preferred Alternative in Region II. This
alternative avoids crossing Tribal trust
lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation, while also avoiding NHT,
maximizing avoidance of potential
habitat of Federally protected plant
species, and maximizing co-location
with existing above-ground utilities. It
would begin in southwest Moffat
County (Colorado) by following the
other alternatives in designated WWEC
and BLM utility corridors. After
entering Utah, this alternative would
follow Alternatives II–F, II–D, and II–E
and continue along the designated
utility corridor, zigzagging across
Alternative II–A. At this point, it would
follow Alternative II–E to the northwest,
and rejoin Alternative II–A to continue
west across the Uintah/Duchesne
county line. Alternative II–G would
continue to follow Alternative II–A to
near Fruitland. East of Fruitland it
would diverge from Alternative II–A,
but parallel closely to the south for
several miles avoiding a conservation
easement, and then rejoin Alternative
II–A. The alignment would then turn
southwest and cross portions of the
Uinta National Forest Planning Area,
then turn west along US–6 and Soldier
Creek, rejoining Alternative II–F. At the
junction with US–89, Alternative II–G
would then turn south generally along
US–89 where it would cross a portion
of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The
alignment would pass through Salt
Creek Canyon. Here Alternative II–G
would again diverge from Alternative
II–A and pass south around Nephi. It
would continue west and then turn
southwest following a path north of and
adjacent to IPP. Portions of this corridor
have been identified as preferred in a
joint resolution by representatives of
Juab and Millard counties.
Alternative II–G is approximately 252
miles in length, 45 percent of which
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
Approximately 32 miles would be in
BLM RMP utility corridors and 63 miles
would be in WWECs. There would be
approximately 395 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and
Micro-Siting Options
One alternative variation (Reservation
Ridge Alternative Variation) was
developed to address potential impacts
to greater sage-grouse issues along
comparable portions of Alternative II–F.
Micro-siting options for Alternative II
A and Alternative II–G have been
developed to address concerns with
construction in Uinta National Forest
Planning Area IRAs at a location where
the designated WWEC offsets from a
continual corridor: Strawberry IRA
Micro-siting Option 2 and Strawberry
IRA Micro-siting Option 3.
Three micro-siting options for
Alternative II–A and Alternative II–G
were also developed and to address
conflicts with siting through the Town
of Fruitland, a Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources conservation easement, and
greater sage-grouse habitat:
• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 1;
• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 2;
and
• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 3.
Five alternative connectors were
developed in Region II to provide the
flexibility to combine alternative
segments to address resource conflicts.
One connector could be used with
Alternative II–B, two connectors could
be used with Alternative II–C and one
could be used with Alternative II–E.
Region III
Alternative III–A Transmission Line
Route (Proposed Action)
The TransWest proposed alignment
would leave IPP to the west and turn
south toward Milford, Utah, following
the WWEC. For the remainder of Utah,
the alignment roughly would parallel
Interstate 15 (I–15) approximately 20
miles west of the highway. The
alignment would pass west of Milford,
then generally trend south-southwest,
passing east of Enterprise, Utah, across
a portion of the Dixie National Forest,
and directly west of Central, Utah;
exiting Utah just north of the southwest
corner of the state. In Nevada, the
alignment would cross I–15 west of
Mesquite, Nevada, and remain on the
south side of I–15 until reaching the
North Las Vegas area northeast of Nellis
Air Force Base.
Alternative III–A is approximately
276 miles in length, 84 percent of which
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
Approximately 67 percent of the route
would be within a designated RMP or
WWEC (107 miles and 158 miles,
respectively). There would be
approximately 335 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Alternative III–B Transmission Line
Route
Alternative III–B was developed to
decrease resource impacts in
southwestern Utah (including potential
impacts to the Mountain Meadows
National Historic Landmark and Site
and IRAs in the Dixie National Forest).
It would begin following Alternative III–
A through Millard and Beaver counties.
Near the Beaver-Iron county line, it
would diverge toward the west.
Alternative III–B would follow a westsouthwest course, crossing into Lincoln
County, Nevada, near Uvada, Utah,
where it would turn to a general
southerly direction, rejoining
Alternative III–A to the northwest of
Mesquite. It then would diverge to the
west from Alternative III–A
approximately 16 miles west of
Mesquite, cross into Clark County, pass
southeast of Moapa, Nevada, pass
through the designated utility corridor
on the Moapa Reservation, and rejoin
Alternative III–A approximately 4 miles
north of the end of Region III.
Alternative III–B is approximately 284
miles in length, 74 percent of which
would be located on BLM lands.
Approximately 54 percent of the route
would be within a designated RMP or
WWEC (103 miles and 80 miles,
respectively). There would be
approximately 320 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative III–C Transmission Line
Route
Alternative III–C also was developed
to address the same resource impacts as
Alternative III–B and to take advantage
of an existing corridor with existing
transmission line development, thereby
potentially consolidating cumulative
transmission line impacts. This
alternative would follow Alternatives
III–A and III–B before diverging from
them shortly after traveling west out of
IPP, where it would follow the existing
IPP power line to the south for
approximately 30 miles and then rejoin
Alternative III–B to the Utah-Nevada
state line. After passing into Nevada at
Uvada, Alternative III–C would turn
west away from Alternative III–B,
passing north of Caliente, Nevada;
turning south approximately 15 miles
west of Caliente. This alternative would
follow that southern course, intersecting
with U.S. Highway 93 and paralleling
the highway for all but the last 15 miles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
into North Las Vegas. Alternative III–C
would rejoin Alternative III–A northeast
of Nellis Air Force Base at the end of
Region III.
Alternative III–C is approximately 308
miles in length, 83 percent of which
would be located on BLM lands.
Approximately 63 percent of the route
would be within a designated RMP or
WWEC (160 miles and 121 miles,
respectively). There would be
approximately 338 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative III–D Transmission Line
Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative III–D was developed as a
minor reconfiguration to Alternative III–
B for the purpose of decreased resource
impacts in southwestern Utah
(including potential impacts to the
Mountain Meadows NHL and Site and
IRAs in the Dixie National Forest) as
well as addressing concerns raised by
the DOD. Alternative III–D would begin
following Alternative III–B, and then
diverge through Millard County to
maintain co-location with the existing
IPP power line to the south for
approximately 30 miles, and then rejoin
Alternative III–B through the remainder
to the Region III.
Alternative III–D is approximately 281
miles in length, 75 percent of which
would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
Approximately 55 percent of the route
would be within a designated RMP or
WWEC (137 miles and 50 miles,
respectively). There would be
approximately 303 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and
Micro-Siting Options
Three alternative variations were
developed to address potential impacts
to the Mountain Meadows National
Historic Landmark resulting from
Alternative III–A: The Ox Valley East
Variation, the Ox Valley West and the
Pinto Alternative Variation.
Three alternative connectors were
also developed in Region III to provide
the flexibility to combine alternative
segments to address resource conflicts.
One connector could be used with
Alternative III–A, two connectors could
be used with Alternative III–B and III–
D and one could be used with
Alternative III–C.
Ground Electrode Locations
There are eight potential locations for
ground electrode systems in Region III.
Three of the locations would only apply
to Alternative III–A (Mormon Mesa-Carp
Elgin Rd, Halfway Wash-Virgin River,
and Halfway Wash East); three would
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16201
apply only to Alternative III–B or
Alternative III–D (Mormon Mesa-Carp
Elgin Rd, Halfway Wash-Virgin River,
and Halfway Wash East), one would
apply only to Alternative III–C (Meadow
Valley 2) and one would apply only to
Design Option 2 as discussed in the
Final EIS.
Region IV
Southern Terminal
The Southern Terminal facilities
would be located in the Eldorado Valley
on private land, within the city limits of
Boulder City, in Clark County, Nevada.
The Southern Terminal would include
an AC/DC converter station and
adjacent AC substation. The AC/DC
converter station would include a 600–
kV DC switchyard and a converter
building containing power electronics
and control equipment.) The Southern
Terminal would connect to all four of
the existing 500–kV substations
(Eldorado, Marketplace, Mead, and
McCullough) located at the Marketplace
Hub. Connections to the existing
transmission infrastructure at the Mead
and Marketplace substations would be
via the existing Mead–Marketplace 500–
kV transmission line, and connections
to the Eldorado and McCullough
substations also would be constructed.
The three major components (AC/DC
converter station, 500/230–kV AC
substation, and 230–kV AC substation)
are planned to be co-located and
contiguous.
Alternative IV–A Transmission Line
Route (Proposed Action and Final EIS
Agency Preferred Alternative)
The TransWest proposed action
would follow a designated WWEC
following existing transmission lines
running to the south, passing North Las
Vegas to the east, and through the
Rainbow Gardens area. It would run
between Whitney, Nevada, and the Lake
Las Vegas development skirting the edge
of Henderson, Nevada. It would then
turn in a general southwest direction at
Railroad Pass, and then in a southern
direction to the Marketplace endpoint.
Alternative IV–A is approximately 37
miles in length, 92 percent of which
would be located on Federally managed
lands. There would be 11 miles of BLM
RMP corridors and 14 miles of
designated WWEC. There would be 49
miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative IV–B Transmission Line
Route
Alternative IV–B would follow the
proposed alternative for approximately
seven miles, diverge to the southeast as
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
16202
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
it passed directly east of Nellis Air
Force Base and travel south through the
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
(NRA), passing between the Lake Las
Vegas development and Lake Mead.
Along the south edge of Lake Las Vegas,
it would turn southwest, north of the
Boulder City, Nevada, then turn west
and join with Alternative IV–A west of
Henderson to the Marketplace endpoint.
This alternative was originally
developed to provide an alternative that
did not require crossing the recent
congressionally released Sunrise
Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA).
Alternative IV–B is approximately 40
miles in length, 55 percent of which
would be located on Federally managed
lands. There would be 5 miles of BLM
RMP corridors and 5 miles of designated
WWEC. There would be 51 miles of
access roads associated with this
alternative.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Alternative IV–C Transmission Line
Route
Alternative IV–C would decrease
impacts to populated areas. This
alternative would follow Alternative IV–
B through the Lake Mead NRA and
between the Lake Las Vegas
development and Lake Mead to north of
the Boulder City. It would then continue
south before it turned southwest around
the southeast edge of the metropolitan
area of Boulder City, and into the
Marketplace endpoint. It also was
originally developed to provide an
alternative that did not require crossing
the recent congressionally released
Sunrise Mountain ISA. Alternative IV–
C is approximately 44 miles in length,
55 percent of which would be located
on Federally managed lands. There
would be 5 miles of BLM RMP corridors
and 5 miles of designated WWEC. There
would be 54 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and
Micro-Siting Options
One alternative variation (the
Marketplace Variation) was developed
to address impacts to private lands
located on Alternative IV–B.
Five alternative connectors were
developed in Region IV to provide the
flexibility to combine alternative
segments to address resource conflicts.
Each of the five connectors could be
used with Alternative IV–B and four
would be used with Alternative IV–C.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the
BLM and USFS would not issue ROW
grants or special use permits and the
Project would not be constructed. Under
the No Action Alternative, WAPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
would not assume ownership interest or
provide funding to the Project. No RMPs
or Forest Plans would need to be
amended if the No Action Alternative
were selected.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR
1505.2(b)) require the ROD to identify
one or more environmentally preferred
alternatives. An environmentally
preferred alternative is an alternative
that causes the least damage to the
biological and physical environment
and best protects, preserves, and
enhances historic, cultural, and natural
resources.
Because it would cause the least
damage to the biological and physical
environment, WAPA has determined
that the No Action Alternative is the
environmentally preferable alternative.
However, the No Action Alternative
would not allow development of a
project that would potentially transmit
renewable and conventional energy, and
would not meet WAPA’s purpose and
need, including the facilitation of
delivery of renewable energy. For these
reasons WAPA has not selected the No
Action Alternative.
Identification of the environmentally
preferable alternative among the action
alternatives involves some difficult
judgments regarding tradeoffs between
different natural and cultural impacts
and values. After considering these
tradeoffs, WAPA has determined that
the Agency Preferred Alternative is the
environmentally preferable action
alternative. Among other things, WAPA
selected the Agency Preferred
Alternative because it:
• Maximizes use of existing utility
corridors and co-location with existing
transmission to the extent practicable;
• Avoids or minimizes impacts to
physical, biological, and cultural
resource that are regulated by law
(Endangered Species Act, Clean Water
Act, etc.);
• Minimizes impacts to sage-grouse
habitat;
• Minimizes impacts to big game
crucial winter range;
• Avoids desert tortoise habitat in
Utah, and minimizes impacts to desert
tortoise in Nevada;
• Avoids potential habitat for
threatened and endangered plant
species, including Uintah Basin
hookless cactus;
• Minimizes impacts to modeled
potentially suitable clay phacelia
habitat;
• Minimizes impacts to the Overland
Trail and Cherokee trail by crossing the
trails at segments that are not eligible for
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP);
• Minimizes impacts to important
and sensitive cultural and historic
resources in southwestern Utah by
avoiding the crossings in and near the
Dixie National Forest, which has the
highest known and expected density of
archaeological sites among the
alternatives. These resources include
three sites of particular cultural
importance: Yellow-Springs cultural
complex, Mountain Meadows National
Historic Landmark, and the Old Spanish
NHT; and
• Avoids the Old Spanish NHT in the
Moab and Price BLM Field Office areas.
Section 7 and Section 106 Consultation
The BLM, as the main affected
Federal land management agency,
retained the lead role for Section 7 and
Section 106 consultation. Consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
resulted in the issuance of a final
Biological Opinion on November 10,
2015. The requirements of the Biological
Opinion will apply to the entire Project.
The Biological Opinion is provided as
Appendix C of the BLM ROD. WAPA
executed the Project Programmatic
Agreement as an invited signatory to the
Section 106 process. The Programmatic
Agreement will govern Section 106
actions as they apply to the entire
Project and is provided as Appendix E
of the BLM ROD.
Mitigation Measures
Minimization of environmental
impacts was an integral part of Project
design, routing, and planning.
Appendix C to the Final EIS was a
compilation of all involved Federal
agencies’ best management practices,
design features, specific stipulations,
standards, and guidelines to minimize
Project impacts that were considered by
the appropriate agencies. Informed by
Appendix C to the Final EIS, TransWest
and the BLM have developed an
extensive Plan of Development (POD)
(Appendix B to the BLM ROD). All
practicable means have been adopted to
avoid or minimize environmental harm.
WAPA may implement applicable
provisions of the POD and its attached
framework plans on State and private
lands as appropriate.
WAPA’s Decision
Informed by the analyses and
environmental impacts documented in
the Final EIS, WAPA has selected 2 the
2 On November 16, 2011, DOE’s Acting General
Counsel restated the delegation to WAPA’s
Administrator all the authorities of the General
Counsel respecting environmental impact
statements.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Notices
Agency Preferred Alternative identified
in the Final EIS as the route for the
Project. The Agency Preferred
Alternative route will be the basis for
design and engineering activities that
will finalize the centerline, ROW, and
access road locations. Additionally, this
ROD commits WAPA and TransWest to
implement mitigation measures
committed to in the project POD, as
practicable, to minimize environmental
impacts. WAPA will continue
coordination of the detailed POD with
TransWest, the BLM and other
applicable land-managing agencies.
Selection of the Agency Preferred
Alternative will help inform WAPA’s
Federal action(s) to consider any
received or anticipated loan application
permitted under its borrowing authority
and/or exercise its options for
participation in the Project. These
considerations are contingent on the
successful development of participation
agreements as well as any and all
documentation and commitments
needed to satisfy customary financial
underwriting standards. This ROD was
prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the CEQ regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1508) and DOE NEPA regulations
(10 CFR part 1021).
Dated: January 12, 2017.
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–06479 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9959–98–OECA]
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council; Notification of
Public Meeting, Public Teleconference
and Public Comment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification of public meeting.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) hereby provides notice that the
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on
the dates and times described below. All
meetings are open to the public.
Members of the public are encouraged
to provide comments relevant to the
specific issues being considered by the
NEJAC. For additional information
about registering to attend the meeting
or to provide public comment, please
see ‘‘Registration’’ under
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to a
limited space, seating at the NEJAC
meeting will be on a first-come, first
served basis. Pre-registration is highly
suggested.
DATES: The NEJAC will convene
Tuesday, April 25, 2017, through
Thursday, April 27, 2017, starting at
6:00 p.m., Central Time Tuesday, April
25, 2017. The meeting will convene
April 26–27, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until
5:00 p.m., Central Time.
One public comment period relevant
to the specific issues being considered
by the NEJAC (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION) is scheduled for Tuesday,
April 25, 2017, starting at 6:00 p.m.,
Central Time. Members of the public
who wish to participate during the
public comment period are highly
encouraged to pre-register by 11:59
p.m., Central Time on Monday, April
17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The NEJAC meeting will be
held at the Crowne Plaza Minneapolis
Northstar Downtown, 618 Second
Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions or correspondence
concerning the public meeting should
be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by
mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
(MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by
telephone at 202–564–0203; via email at
martin.karenl@epa.gov; or by fax at
202–564–1624. Additional information
about the NEJAC is available at https://
www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
national-environmental-justiceadvisory-council.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee ‘‘will provide
independent advice and
recommendations to the Administrator
about broad, crosscutting issues related
to environmental justice. The NEJAC’s
efforts will include evaluation of a
broad range of strategic, scientific,
technological, regulatory, community
engagement and economic issues related
to environmental justice.’’ The meeting
discussion will focus on several topics
including, but not limited to,
environmental justice concerns of
communities in Minneapolis, MN and
surrounding areas and proactive efforts
of states to advance environmental
justice.
Registration
Registration for the April 25–27, 2017,
pubic face-to-face meeting will be
processed at https://nejac-spring-publicmeeting-april-2017.eventbrite.com. Preregistration is highly suggested.
Registration for the April 26–27, 2017,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16203
pubic meeting teleconference option
will be processed at https://nejacspring-public-teleconference-april2017.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is
required. Registration for the April 26–
27, 2017, meeting closes at 11:59 p.m.,
Central Time on Monday, April 17,
2017. The deadline to sign up to speak
during the public comment period, or to
submit written public comments, is
11:59 p.m., Central Time on Monday,
April 17, 2017. When registering, please
provide your name, organization, city
and state, email address, and telephone
number for follow up. Please also
indicate whether you would like to
provide public comment during the
meeting, and whether you are
submitting written comments before the
Monday, April 17, 2017, deadline.
A. Public Comment
Individuals or groups making remarks
during the public comment period will
be limited to seven (7) minutes. To
accommodate the number of people
who want to address the NEJAC, only
one representative of a particular
community, organization, or group will
be allowed to speak. Written comments
can also be submitted for the record.
The suggested format for individuals
providing public comments is as
follows: Name of speaker; name of
organization/community; city and state;
and email address; brief description of
the concern, and what you want the
NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written
comments received by registration
deadline, will be included in the
materials distributed to the NEJAC prior
to the teleconference. Written comments
received after that time will be provided
to the NEJAC as time allows. All written
comments should be sent to Karen L.
Martin, EPA, via email at
martin.karenl@epa.gov.
B. Information About Services for
Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English Language Translation
Assistance
For information about access or
services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Karen L.
Martin, at (202) 564–0203 or via email
at martin.karenl@epa.gov. To request
special accommodations for a disability
or other assistance, please submit your
request at least fourteen (14) working
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA
sufficient time to process your request.
All requests should be sent to the
address, email, or phone/fax number
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16196-16203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
TransWest Express Transmission Project Environmental Impact
Statement (DOE/EIS-0450)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), acting as joint lead agencies, issued
the proposed TransWest Express Transmission Project (Project) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0450) on May 1, 2015. The
Agency Preferred Alternative developed by WAPA and the BLM through the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and described in the
Final EIS is summarized in this Record of Decision (ROD).
Because the BLM and WAPA were joint lead agencies in the
preparation of the EIS, each agency will issue its own ROD(s)
addressing the overall Project and the specific matters within its
jurisdiction and authority. This ROD constitutes WAPA's decision with
respect to the alternatives considered in the Final EIS. The U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Utah
Reclamation Mitigation Conservation Commission (URMCC) are cooperating
agencies in the proposed Project based on their potential Federal
action to issue use permits across lands under their respective
management. These agencies also will issue their own decisions
regarding their specific agency actions. Additional cooperating
agencies include Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies.
WAPA has selected the Agency Preferred Alternative identified in
the Final EIS as the route for the Project. This decision on the route
will enable design and engineering activities to proceed and help
inform WAPA's Federal action(s) to consider any received or anticipated
loan application permitted under its borrowing authority and/or
exercise its options for participation in the Project. These
considerations are contingent on the successful development of
participation agreements as well as any and all documentation and
commitments needed to satisfy financial underwriting standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on WAPA's
participation in the Project contact Stacey Harris, Public Utilities
Specialist, Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP) Office
[[Page 16197]]
A0700, Headquarters Office, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (720) 962-7714, facsimile
(720) 962-7083, email sharris@wapa.gov. For information about the
Project EIS process or to request a CD of the document, contact Steve
Blazek, NEPA Document Manager, Natural Resources Office A7400,
Headquarters Office, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (720) 962-7265, facsimile
(720) 962-7263, email sblazek@wapa.gov. The Final EIS and this ROD are
also available at https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0450-final-environmental-impact-statement.
For general information on the Department of Energy (DOE) NEPA
process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4600
or (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TransWest Express LLC (TransWest) is the
TransWest Express (TWE) Transmission Project (Project) proponent. The
Project is proposed as an extra high voltage, direct current (DC)
transmission system extending from south-central Wyoming to southern
Nevada. The proposed transmission line (and alternatives) would cross
four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada) encompassing lands
owned or administered by the BLM, USFS, BOR, URMCC, National Park
Service, various state agencies, Native American tribes,
municipalities, and private parties. The Project would provide the
transmission infrastructure and capacity necessary to deliver
approximately 3,000 megawatts (MW) of electric power from renewable
and/or non-renewable energy resources in south-central Wyoming to
southern Nevada. The TransWest proposed action would consist of an
approximately 725-mile-long, 600-kilovolt (kV), DC transmission line
and two terminals, each containing a converter station that converts
alternating current (AC) to DC or vice-versa. The northern AC/DC
converter station would be located near Sinclair, Wyoming, and the
southern AC/DC station near the Marketplace Hub in the Eldorado Valley,
approximately 25 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Project would
retain an option for a future interconnection with the existing
Intermountain Power Project (IPP) transmission system in Millard
County, Utah.
In April 2009, TransWest submitted a Statement of Interest (SOI) to
WAPA for consideration of its Project under the authority provided to
WAPA under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 amendment
of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984. WAPA is considering whether to
use its borrowing authority, if a loan application is submitted and
successfully underwritten, to finance and/or exercise its options for
partial ownership in the proposed Project. TransWest's SOI prompted
WAPA to initiate a request to the BLM to become a joint lead agency for
the development of the EIS to determine the environmental impacts of
the Project.
TransWest also filed a Right-Of-Way (ROW) application with the BLM
pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended, proposing to construct, operate, maintain, and
eventually decommission a high-voltage electric transmission line on
land managed by the BLM. The BLM initiated its own NEPA process to
address whether to grant a ROW permit. Because both agencies had NEPA
decisions to consider, WAPA and the BLM agreed to be joint lead
agencies in accordance with NEPA, 40 CFR 1501.5(b), for the purpose of
preparing the EIS for the Project. The agencies issued the Final EIS
for the Project on November May 1, 2015.
Each agency will issue its own ROD(s) addressing the overall
Project and the specific matters within its jurisdiction and authority.
While WAPA's potential involvement relates to use of its borrowing
authority, the decision at hand is a selection of project route.
Project Description
TransWest's Proposed Action would include:
A 600-kV DC line, approximately 725 miles in length,
extending across public and private lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,
and Nevada. The transmission line ROW would be approximately 250 feet
wide;
Two terminal stations located at either end of the
transmission line; the Northern Terminal located near Sinclair,
Wyoming, and the Southern Terminal at the Marketplace Hub in the
Eldorado Valley, within Boulder City, Nevada. Terminal facilities would
include converter stations and related substation facilities necessary
for interconnections to existing and planned regional AC transmission
systems;
Access routes, including improvements to existing roads,
new overland access, and new unpaved roads to access the proposed
Project facilities and work areas during the construction, operation,
and maintenance Project phases;
Ancillary facilities including a network of 15 to 20 fiber
optic communication regeneration sites and two ground electrode
facilities; and
Temporary construction sites that would include wire
pulling/fly yards, material storage and concrete batch plant sites.
TransWest also identified and retained two design options to
provide the Project with flexibility to adapt to potential regional
transmission changes. The design options do not currently meet the
interests and objectives of the Project; however, they could be
considered if/when capacity becomes available on the Southern
Transmission Systems.
Alternatives
An iterative, adaptive process was used for this Project to
identify an adequate range of alternative transmission corridors that
directly respond to addressing potential resource or siting constraints
and help inform decision-makers. Due to the length of the transmission
line, the alternative transmission routes were split into four distinct
regions for the purpose of presenting clear impact comparisons between
alternative segments:
Region I: Sinclair, Wyoming, to Northwest Colorado near
Rangely, Colorado;
Region II: Northwest Colorado to IPP near Delta, Utah;
Region III: IPP to North Las Vegas, Nevada; and
Region IV: North Las Vegas to Marketplace Hub in Boulder
City, Nevada.
One alternative within each of these regions is combined with the
others to define a distinct end-to-end route from Wyoming to Nevada. A
depiction of the four regions and the alternatives can be found as
Figures 2-22 through 2-25 in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS.
Alternatives Facilities and Transmission Line Routes for Four Regions
Region I
Northern Terminal
The Northern Terminal would be located approximately three miles
southwest of Sinclair, Wyoming (Carbon County) on private lands. The
terminal would include an AC/DC converter station and adjacent AC
substation. The AC/DC converter station would include a 600-kV DC
switchyard; AC/DC conversion equipment; transformers;
[[Page 16198]]
and multiple equipment, control, maintenance, and administrative
buildings. Two buildings would house the AC/DC conversion equipment;
smaller buildings would house the control room, control and protection
equipment, auxiliary equipment; and cooling equipment. Connections to
the existing transmission infrastructure also would be constructed. The
three major components (AC/DC converter station, 500/230-kV AC
substation, and 230-kV AC substation) are planned to be co-located and
contiguous.
Alternative I-A Transmission Line Route (Proposed Action)
TransWest's proposed alignment would begin in Sinclair, Wyoming,
and would travel west just south of the Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor
to Wamsutter. At Wamsutter, it would turn south and generally follow
the Carbon-Sweetwater county line along a corridor preferred by the
Wyoming Governor's Office and Carbon and Sweetwater counties. It then
would continue south-southwest across the Wyoming-Colorado state line
and south along a corridor preferred by Moffat County and coordinated
with the BLM Northwest Colorado District Office's ongoing greater sage-
grouse planning effort. It would then intersect with U.S. Highway 40
(U.S.-40) just west of Maybell, Colorado. The alignment would then
generally parallel U.S.-40, turning southwest toward the Colorado-Utah
border.
Alternative I-A is approximately 156 miles in length, 66 percent of
which would be located on BLM lands. There would be 24 miles would be
in BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) utility corridors and 25 miles
would be in West Wide Energy Corridors (WWECs). There would be
approximately 201 miles of access roads associated with this
alternative.
Alternative I-B Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative I-B as considered in the Final EIS would be the same as
Alternative I-A for nearly its entire length, with one exception just
north of the Wyoming-Colorado state line. A length of approximately 8
miles of Alternative I-B diverges to the southeast from Alternative I-A
in this area to minimize potential impacts to areas eligible for
historic trail designation.
Alternative I-B includes is approximately 158 miles in length, 67
percent of which would be located on BLM lands. There would be 24 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 25 miles would be in WWECs.
There would be approximately 204 miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative I-C Transmission Line Route
This alternative was developed to reduce the overall proliferation
of utility corridors and associated impacts by following existing
designated utility corridors. Alternative I-C would begin by following
Alternative I-A to near Creston, Wyoming, where Alternative I-C would
turn south and parallel Wyoming State Highway 789 (SH-789) toward
Baggs, Wyoming. From there, Alternative I-C would continue south,
deviating from SH-789 to the east and passing east of Baggs. After
crossing into Colorado, this alternative would parallel Colorado State
Highway 13 into Craig, Colorado. Alternative I-C would pass east and
south of Craig, turning to the west after crossing U.S.-40, generally
paralleling the highway and joining with Alternative I-A to the end of
Region I.
Alternative I-C is approximately 186 miles in length, 44 percent of
which would be located on BLM lands. There would be 53 miles would be
in BLM RMP utility corridors and 60 miles would be in WWECs. There
would be 237 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative I-D Transmission Line Route
Alternative I-D was developed to reduce multiple resource concerns,
including impacts to visual resources and greater sage-grouse. It would
follow the route of Alternative I-A, going west from Sinclair, Wyoming
(Carbon County, Wyoming), basically paralleling I-80 in a designated
WWEC, until turning south near Wamsutter. It would follow Alternative
I-A south for approximately 15 miles. Alternative I-D then would
diverge to the east, where it generally would parallel SH-789 at an
offset distance of 2 to 5 miles to the west. Before reaching the Baggs
area, Alternative I-D would turn west and follow the Shell Creek Stock
Trail road for approximately 20 miles, where it would cross into
Sweetwater County and again join Alternative I-A while turning south
into Colorado (Moffat County).
Alternative I-D is approximately 168 miles in length, 70 percent of
which would be located on BLM lands. There would be 24 miles would be
in BLM RMP utility corridors and 25 miles would be in WWECs. There
would be 213 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-Siting Options
There are no alternative variations within Region I. The Region I
alternative connectors were removed from further consideration at the
request of the lead agencies in response to public comments received on
the Draft EIS.
Two micro-siting options have been developed to address specific
land use concerns in all Region I alternative routes related to the
Tuttle Ranch Conservation Easement and the Cross Mountain Ranch
proposed conservation easement:
Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3; and
Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4.
Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3 would avoid the Tuttle Ranch
Conservation Easement, but would cross the NPS Deerlodge Road west of
U.S.-40 and would cross the largest portion of the Cross Mountain Ranch
property. Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4 would avoid the Tuttle
Ranch Conservation Easement and the NPS Deerlodge Road, and would cross
the least amount of the Cross Mountain Ranch property.
Ground Electrode Locations
One ground electrode system would be required within approximately
100 miles of the Northern Terminal to establish and maintain electrical
current continuity during normal operations, and any unexpected outage
of one of the two poles (or circuits) of the 600-kV DC terminal or
converter station equipment. The ground electrode facility would
consist of a network of approximately 60 deep earth electrode wells
arranged along the perimeter of a circle expected to be about 3,000
feet in diameter. All wells at a site would be electrically
interconnected and wired via approximately 10 low-voltage underground
cable ``spokes'' to a small control building. A low voltage electrode
line would connect the ground electrode facilities to the AC/DC
converter stations. General siting areas and conceptual alternative
site locations have been identified in Regions I; selection of specific
location of the ground electrode systems would be identified during
final engineering and design stages.
There are four potential locations for ground electrode systems in
Region I (Bolten Ranch, Separation Flat, Separation Creek, and Eight
Mile Basin). All locations would apply to all alternatives.
[[Page 16199]]
Region II
Alternative II-A Transmission Line Route (Proposed Action)
The TransWest proposed alignment would continue into Utah in a
westerly direction, and then deviate south from U.S.-40 toward
Roosevelt, Utah. From Roosevelt, it would pass north of Duchesne, again
paralleling U.S.-40 for several miles, then turn southwest and cross
the Uinta National Forest Planning Area \1\ generally within a
designated WWEC, then turn west along U.S. Highway 6 (U.S.-6) and
Soldier Creek. At the junction with U.S. Highway 89 (U.S.-89),
Alternative II-A would then turn south generally along U.S.-89 where it
would cross a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The
alignment would pass through Salt Creek Canyon then north around Nephi.
It would continue west and then turn southwest following a path north
of and adjacent to IPP. Portions of this corridor have been identified
as preferred in a joint resolution by representatives of Juab and
Millard counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In March 2008, the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest were combined into one administrative unit
(Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest). Each of these forests
continues to operate under individual forest plans approved in 2003.
The term Uinta National Forest Planning Area is used to refer to
that portion of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest managed
under the Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative II-A would be approximately 258 miles in length, 45
percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. There would be
approximately 34 miles in BLM RMP utility corridors and 63 miles would
be in WWECs. There would be approximately 395 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative II-B Transmission Line Route
Alternative II-B was developed to address impacts to private lands
and to generally follow established utility corridors. These corridors
are designated for underground utilities only and use of the corridor
for the transmission line would require a plan amendment. The route
would travel southwest in Colorado from the beginning of Region II,
cross the Yampa River, and pass east of Rangely, Colorado. It would
continue southwest where it would cross the Colorado-Utah state line
and turn generally south, crossing back into Colorado in the Baxter
Pass area. At that location, it would intersect the Interstate 70 (I-
70) corridor, turning in a southwesterly and westerly direction,
paralleling I-70. After passing south of Green River, Utah, Alternative
II-B would diverge from I-70 and turn to the north along U.S. Highway
191 (U.S.-191). This highway generally would be followed until just
south of the Emery-Carbon county line, where Alternative II-B would
turn west and pass near the county line for approximately 25 miles.
Then it would generally would turn south, pass west of Huntington,
Utah, turn northwest, cross a portion of the Manti-La Sal National
Forest, and pass northeast of Mount Pleasant, Utah. From there, it
would pass through Salt Creek Canyon to Nephi, and then south around
Nephi. It then would turn southwest and west adjacent to IPP, following
a path south of Alternative II-A across a portion of the Fishlake
National Forest.
Alternative II-A would be approximately 346 miles in length, 65
percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. There would be
approximately 136 miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 33
miles would be in WWECs. There would be 492 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative II-C Transmission Line Route
Alternative II-C also would decrease impacts to private lands and
generally would follow established utility corridors as well as avoid
USFS IRAs. Alternative II-C would follow Alternative II-B through
Colorado, along I-70 into Utah, and north at US-191. Approximately 15
miles north on US-191, Alternative II-C would diverge from Alternative
II-B and turn in a general westerly direction toward Castle Dale.
Approximately 3 miles east of Castle Dale, this alternative would turn
south and roughly parallel Utah State Highway 10 at a distance of
approximately 3 miles to the east. The alternative would cross Utah
State Route 10 near the Emery-Sevier county line and turn west, again
generally following the I-70 corridor across a portion of the Fishlake
National Forest into the Salina, Utah, area. Alternative II-C would
pass south of Salina, turn north, and parallel U.S. Highway 50 toward
Scipio, Utah. The alternative would turn west and pass Scipio on the
south, again crossing a portion of the Fishlake National Forest, then
turn north, passing east of Delta, Utah, continuing into IPP.
Alternative II-C would be approximately 365 miles in length, 67
percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 146
miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 17 miles would be in
WWECs. There would be 488 miles of access roads associated with this
alternative.
Alternative II-D Transmission Line Route
This alternative was developed to avoid USFS IRAs and to provide
additional northern route options to avoid impacts to historic trails
and areas designated for special resource management along the southern
routes (Alternatives II-B and II-C). It would begin along the same
route as Alternative II-A. However, as it would enter Utah, it would
diverge briefly to follow a designated utility corridor, causing it to
zigzag once across Alternative II-A. It then would diverge to the south
of the designated utility corridor and turn west-southwest, skirting
the edge of the Ashley National Forest. Alternative II-D would cross
into Carbon County northwest of Price, and then turn southwest in the
Emma Park area along US-191. It would follow this highway west of
Helper, across a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest and then
turn west toward Salt Creek Canyon where it would join and follow
Alternative II-B, skirt the edge of the Uinta National Forest Planning
Area, then join and follow Alternative II-A into IPP.
Alternative II-D is approximately 259 miles in length, 57 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 71 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 46 miles would be in WWECs.
There would be 422 miles of access roads associated with this
alternative.
Alternative II-E Transmission Line Route
Alternative II-E also was developed to provide additional northern
route options to address the previously mentioned resource impacts from
the southern routes. This alternative would follow Alternative II-D
into Utah and along the designated utility corridor, zigzagging across
Alternative II-A. It then would rejoin Alternative II-A to continue
west across the Uintah/Duchesne county line. Approximately 10 miles
east of Duchesne, Alternative II-E would turn southwest and generally
parallel SH-191, offset by 1 to 6 miles, through a utility window of
the Ashley National Forest. At the Utah-Carbon county line, this
alternative would turn west through the Emma Park area, then northwest
along US-6 through a utility window of the Uinta National Forest
Planning Area until rejoining Alternative II-A and following its siting
through the Manti-La Sal National Forest to Salt Creek Canyon. At this
canyon, Alternative II-E would
[[Page 16200]]
begin to follow the alignment of Alternative II-B south of Nephi, then
join and follow Alternative II-A adjacent and into IPP.
Alternative II-E is approximately 268 miles in length, 44 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 40 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 66 miles would be in WWECs.
There would be approximately 412 miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative II-F Transmission Line Route
Alternative II-F was adjusted in the Final EIS at the request of
the lead agencies in response to public comments on the Draft EIS. This
alternative combines portions of other alternatives in the region and
contains unique segments in the Emma Park area that together would
minimize impacts to USFS IRAs, Tribal and private lands, greater sage-
grouse habitat, and avoid impacts to National Historic Trails (NHT). It
would begin in southwest Moffat County (Colorado) by following
Alternative II-A in designated WWEC and BLM utility corridors. As it
enters Utah (Uintah County), it would separate from Alternative II-A to
the northwest and follow the designated utility corridors, which then
turn southwest and cross Alternative II-A. It then would diverge to the
south off of the designated WWEC (still following the BLM-designated
corridor) and turn west-southwest, crossing the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation. It then would cross into Duchesne County, where it would
turn west-southwest out of the BLM utility corridor, skirt the Ashley
National Forest and generally follow the southern county line. The
alternative would follow Argyle Ridge west and US-191 to the southwest
for a short distance and then would turn west and follow the base of
Reservation Ridge. It would then turn northwest and cross US-6 at
Soldier Summit where it would turn west-northwest and follow US-6 to
Thistle (Utah County) through a portion of designated WWEC and BLM
utility corridors and a utility window of the Uinta National Forest
Planning Area. It then would turn south, following US-89 for about 10
miles and through a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest before
cutting south-southwest (Sanpete County) to Utah State Route 132. At
this highway, it would turn west into Nephi (Juab County) and follow a
path south around the community and continue west until turning
southwest where it would parallel US-6 north of Lynndyl for a short
distance, then diverging west, southwest and finally west along the
southern edge of the Millard-Juab county line into IPP north of Delta
(Millard County); the end of Region II.
Alternative II-F is approximately 265 miles in length, 55 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 72 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 31 miles would be in WWECs.
There would be approximately 455 miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative II-G Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative II-G is a reconfiguration of segments that are also
included in multiple other alternatives, mainly Alternatives II-A and
II-F. This specific alternative configuration was not included in the
Draft EIS, but was added to the Final EIS to reflect the Agency
Preferred Alternative in Region II. This alternative avoids crossing
Tribal trust lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, while
also avoiding NHT, maximizing avoidance of potential habitat of
Federally protected plant species, and maximizing co-location with
existing above-ground utilities. It would begin in southwest Moffat
County (Colorado) by following the other alternatives in designated
WWEC and BLM utility corridors. After entering Utah, this alternative
would follow Alternatives II-F, II-D, and II-E and continue along the
designated utility corridor, zigzagging across Alternative II-A. At
this point, it would follow Alternative II-E to the northwest, and
rejoin Alternative II-A to continue west across the Uintah/Duchesne
county line. Alternative II-G would continue to follow Alternative II-A
to near Fruitland. East of Fruitland it would diverge from Alternative
II-A, but parallel closely to the south for several miles avoiding a
conservation easement, and then rejoin Alternative II-A. The alignment
would then turn southwest and cross portions of the Uinta National
Forest Planning Area, then turn west along US-6 and Soldier Creek,
rejoining Alternative II-F. At the junction with US-89, Alternative II-
G would then turn south generally along US-89 where it would cross a
portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The alignment would pass
through Salt Creek Canyon. Here Alternative II-G would again diverge
from Alternative II-A and pass south around Nephi. It would continue
west and then turn southwest following a path north of and adjacent to
IPP. Portions of this corridor have been identified as preferred in a
joint resolution by representatives of Juab and Millard counties.
Alternative II-G is approximately 252 miles in length, 45 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 32 miles
would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 63 miles would be in WWECs.
There would be approximately 395 miles of access roads associated with
this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-Siting Options
One alternative variation (Reservation Ridge Alternative Variation)
was developed to address potential impacts to greater sage-grouse
issues along comparable portions of Alternative II-F.
Micro-siting options for Alternative II A and Alternative II-G have
been developed to address concerns with construction in Uinta National
Forest Planning Area IRAs at a location where the designated WWEC
offsets from a continual corridor: Strawberry IRA Micro-siting Option 2
and Strawberry IRA Micro-siting Option 3.
Three micro-siting options for Alternative II-A and Alternative II-
G were also developed and to address conflicts with siting through the
Town of Fruitland, a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources conservation
easement, and greater sage-grouse habitat:
Fruitland Micro-siting Option 1;
Fruitland Micro-siting Option 2; and
Fruitland Micro-siting Option 3.
Five alternative connectors were developed in Region II to provide
the flexibility to combine alternative segments to address resource
conflicts. One connector could be used with Alternative II-B, two
connectors could be used with Alternative II-C and one could be used
with Alternative II-E.
Region III
Alternative III-A Transmission Line Route (Proposed Action)
The TransWest proposed alignment would leave IPP to the west and
turn south toward Milford, Utah, following the WWEC. For the remainder
of Utah, the alignment roughly would parallel Interstate 15 (I-15)
approximately 20 miles west of the highway. The alignment would pass
west of Milford, then generally trend south-southwest, passing east of
Enterprise, Utah, across a portion of the Dixie National Forest, and
directly west of Central, Utah; exiting Utah just north of the
southwest corner of the state. In Nevada, the alignment would cross I-
15 west of Mesquite, Nevada, and remain on the south side of I-15 until
reaching the North Las Vegas area northeast of Nellis Air Force Base.
Alternative III-A is approximately 276 miles in length, 84 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands.
[[Page 16201]]
Approximately 67 percent of the route would be within a designated RMP
or WWEC (107 miles and 158 miles, respectively). There would be
approximately 335 miles of access roads associated with this
alternative.
Alternative III-B Transmission Line Route
Alternative III-B was developed to decrease resource impacts in
southwestern Utah (including potential impacts to the Mountain Meadows
National Historic Landmark and Site and IRAs in the Dixie National
Forest). It would begin following Alternative III-A through Millard and
Beaver counties. Near the Beaver-Iron county line, it would diverge
toward the west. Alternative III-B would follow a west-southwest
course, crossing into Lincoln County, Nevada, near Uvada, Utah, where
it would turn to a general southerly direction, rejoining Alternative
III-A to the northwest of Mesquite. It then would diverge to the west
from Alternative III-A approximately 16 miles west of Mesquite, cross
into Clark County, pass southeast of Moapa, Nevada, pass through the
designated utility corridor on the Moapa Reservation, and rejoin
Alternative III-A approximately 4 miles north of the end of Region III.
Alternative III-B is approximately 284 miles in length, 74 percent
of which would be located on BLM lands. Approximately 54 percent of the
route would be within a designated RMP or WWEC (103 miles and 80 miles,
respectively). There would be approximately 320 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative III-C Transmission Line Route
Alternative III-C also was developed to address the same resource
impacts as Alternative III-B and to take advantage of an existing
corridor with existing transmission line development, thereby
potentially consolidating cumulative transmission line impacts. This
alternative would follow Alternatives III-A and III-B before diverging
from them shortly after traveling west out of IPP, where it would
follow the existing IPP power line to the south for approximately 30
miles and then rejoin Alternative III-B to the Utah-Nevada state line.
After passing into Nevada at Uvada, Alternative III-C would turn west
away from Alternative III-B, passing north of Caliente, Nevada; turning
south approximately 15 miles west of Caliente. This alternative would
follow that southern course, intersecting with U.S. Highway 93 and
paralleling the highway for all but the last 15 miles into North Las
Vegas. Alternative III-C would rejoin Alternative III-A northeast of
Nellis Air Force Base at the end of Region III.
Alternative III-C is approximately 308 miles in length, 83 percent
of which would be located on BLM lands. Approximately 63 percent of the
route would be within a designated RMP or WWEC (160 miles and 121
miles, respectively). There would be approximately 338 miles of access
roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative III-D Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative III-D was developed as a minor reconfiguration to
Alternative III-B for the purpose of decreased resource impacts in
southwestern Utah (including potential impacts to the Mountain Meadows
NHL and Site and IRAs in the Dixie National Forest) as well as
addressing concerns raised by the DOD. Alternative III-D would begin
following Alternative III-B, and then diverge through Millard County to
maintain co-location with the existing IPP power line to the south for
approximately 30 miles, and then rejoin Alternative III-B through the
remainder to the Region III.
Alternative III-D is approximately 281 miles in length, 75 percent
of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Approximately 55 percent
of the route would be within a designated RMP or WWEC (137 miles and 50
miles, respectively). There would be approximately 303 miles of access
roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-Siting Options
Three alternative variations were developed to address potential
impacts to the Mountain Meadows National Historic Landmark resulting
from Alternative III-A: The Ox Valley East Variation, the Ox Valley
West and the Pinto Alternative Variation.
Three alternative connectors were also developed in Region III to
provide the flexibility to combine alternative segments to address
resource conflicts. One connector could be used with Alternative III-A,
two connectors could be used with Alternative III-B and III-D and one
could be used with Alternative III-C.
Ground Electrode Locations
There are eight potential locations for ground electrode systems in
Region III. Three of the locations would only apply to Alternative III-
A (Mormon Mesa-Carp Elgin Rd, Halfway Wash-Virgin River, and Halfway
Wash East); three would apply only to Alternative III-B or Alternative
III-D (Mormon Mesa-Carp Elgin Rd, Halfway Wash-Virgin River, and
Halfway Wash East), one would apply only to Alternative III-C (Meadow
Valley 2) and one would apply only to Design Option 2 as discussed in
the Final EIS.
Region IV
Southern Terminal
The Southern Terminal facilities would be located in the Eldorado
Valley on private land, within the city limits of Boulder City, in
Clark County, Nevada. The Southern Terminal would include an AC/DC
converter station and adjacent AC substation. The AC/DC converter
station would include a 600-kV DC switchyard and a converter building
containing power electronics and control equipment.) The Southern
Terminal would connect to all four of the existing 500-kV substations
(Eldorado, Marketplace, Mead, and McCullough) located at the
Marketplace Hub. Connections to the existing transmission
infrastructure at the Mead and Marketplace substations would be via the
existing Mead-Marketplace 500-kV transmission line, and connections to
the Eldorado and McCullough substations also would be constructed. The
three major components (AC/DC converter station, 500/230-kV AC
substation, and 230-kV AC substation) are planned to be co-located and
contiguous.
Alternative IV-A Transmission Line Route (Proposed Action and Final EIS
Agency Preferred Alternative)
The TransWest proposed action would follow a designated WWEC
following existing transmission lines running to the south, passing
North Las Vegas to the east, and through the Rainbow Gardens area. It
would run between Whitney, Nevada, and the Lake Las Vegas development
skirting the edge of Henderson, Nevada. It would then turn in a general
southwest direction at Railroad Pass, and then in a southern direction
to the Marketplace endpoint.
Alternative IV-A is approximately 37 miles in length, 92 percent of
which would be located on Federally managed lands. There would be 11
miles of BLM RMP corridors and 14 miles of designated WWEC. There would
be 49 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative IV-B Transmission Line Route
Alternative IV-B would follow the proposed alternative for
approximately seven miles, diverge to the southeast as
[[Page 16202]]
it passed directly east of Nellis Air Force Base and travel south
through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA), passing between
the Lake Las Vegas development and Lake Mead. Along the south edge of
Lake Las Vegas, it would turn southwest, north of the Boulder City,
Nevada, then turn west and join with Alternative IV-A west of Henderson
to the Marketplace endpoint. This alternative was originally developed
to provide an alternative that did not require crossing the recent
congressionally released Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA).
Alternative IV-B is approximately 40 miles in length, 55 percent of
which would be located on Federally managed lands. There would be 5
miles of BLM RMP corridors and 5 miles of designated WWEC. There would
be 51 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
Alternative IV-C Transmission Line Route
Alternative IV-C would decrease impacts to populated areas. This
alternative would follow Alternative IV-B through the Lake Mead NRA and
between the Lake Las Vegas development and Lake Mead to north of the
Boulder City. It would then continue south before it turned southwest
around the southeast edge of the metropolitan area of Boulder City, and
into the Marketplace endpoint. It also was originally developed to
provide an alternative that did not require crossing the recent
congressionally released Sunrise Mountain ISA. Alternative IV-C is
approximately 44 miles in length, 55 percent of which would be located
on Federally managed lands. There would be 5 miles of BLM RMP corridors
and 5 miles of designated WWEC. There would be 54 miles of access roads
associated with this alternative.
Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-Siting Options
One alternative variation (the Marketplace Variation) was developed
to address impacts to private lands located on Alternative IV-B.
Five alternative connectors were developed in Region IV to provide
the flexibility to combine alternative segments to address resource
conflicts. Each of the five connectors could be used with Alternative
IV-B and four would be used with Alternative IV-C.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and USFS would not issue
ROW grants or special use permits and the Project would not be
constructed. Under the No Action Alternative, WAPA would not assume
ownership interest or provide funding to the Project. No RMPs or Forest
Plans would need to be amended if the No Action Alternative were
selected.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR
1505.2(b)) require the ROD to identify one or more environmentally
preferred alternatives. An environmentally preferred alternative is an
alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical
environment and best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources.
Because it would cause the least damage to the biological and
physical environment, WAPA has determined that the No Action
Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative.
However, the No Action Alternative would not allow development of a
project that would potentially transmit renewable and conventional
energy, and would not meet WAPA's purpose and need, including the
facilitation of delivery of renewable energy. For these reasons WAPA
has not selected the No Action Alternative.
Identification of the environmentally preferable alternative among
the action alternatives involves some difficult judgments regarding
tradeoffs between different natural and cultural impacts and values.
After considering these tradeoffs, WAPA has determined that the Agency
Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferable action
alternative. Among other things, WAPA selected the Agency Preferred
Alternative because it:
Maximizes use of existing utility corridors and co-
location with existing transmission to the extent practicable;
Avoids or minimizes impacts to physical, biological, and
cultural resource that are regulated by law (Endangered Species Act,
Clean Water Act, etc.);
Minimizes impacts to sage-grouse habitat;
Minimizes impacts to big game crucial winter range;
Avoids desert tortoise habitat in Utah, and minimizes
impacts to desert tortoise in Nevada;
Avoids potential habitat for threatened and endangered
plant species, including Uintah Basin hookless cactus;
Minimizes impacts to modeled potentially suitable clay
phacelia habitat;
Minimizes impacts to the Overland Trail and Cherokee trail
by crossing the trails at segments that are not eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP);
Minimizes impacts to important and sensitive cultural and
historic resources in southwestern Utah by avoiding the crossings in
and near the Dixie National Forest, which has the highest known and
expected density of archaeological sites among the alternatives. These
resources include three sites of particular cultural importance:
Yellow-Springs cultural complex, Mountain Meadows National Historic
Landmark, and the Old Spanish NHT; and
Avoids the Old Spanish NHT in the Moab and Price BLM Field
Office areas.
Section 7 and Section 106 Consultation
The BLM, as the main affected Federal land management agency,
retained the lead role for Section 7 and Section 106 consultation.
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the
issuance of a final Biological Opinion on November 10, 2015. The
requirements of the Biological Opinion will apply to the entire
Project. The Biological Opinion is provided as Appendix C of the BLM
ROD. WAPA executed the Project Programmatic Agreement as an invited
signatory to the Section 106 process. The Programmatic Agreement will
govern Section 106 actions as they apply to the entire Project and is
provided as Appendix E of the BLM ROD.
Mitigation Measures
Minimization of environmental impacts was an integral part of
Project design, routing, and planning. Appendix C to the Final EIS was
a compilation of all involved Federal agencies' best management
practices, design features, specific stipulations, standards, and
guidelines to minimize Project impacts that were considered by the
appropriate agencies. Informed by Appendix C to the Final EIS,
TransWest and the BLM have developed an extensive Plan of Development
(POD) (Appendix B to the BLM ROD). All practicable means have been
adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm. WAPA may implement
applicable provisions of the POD and its attached framework plans on
State and private lands as appropriate.
WAPA's Decision
Informed by the analyses and environmental impacts documented in
the Final EIS, WAPA has selected \2\ the
[[Page 16203]]
Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS as the route
for the Project. The Agency Preferred Alternative route will be the
basis for design and engineering activities that will finalize the
centerline, ROW, and access road locations. Additionally, this ROD
commits WAPA and TransWest to implement mitigation measures committed
to in the project POD, as practicable, to minimize environmental
impacts. WAPA will continue coordination of the detailed POD with
TransWest, the BLM and other applicable land-managing agencies.
Selection of the Agency Preferred Alternative will help inform WAPA's
Federal action(s) to consider any received or anticipated loan
application permitted under its borrowing authority and/or exercise its
options for participation in the Project. These considerations are
contingent on the successful development of participation agreements as
well as any and all documentation and commitments needed to satisfy
customary financial underwriting standards. This ROD was prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the CEQ regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE NEPA regulations (10
CFR part 1021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On November 16, 2011, DOE's Acting General Counsel restated
the delegation to WAPA's Administrator all the authorities of the
General Counsel respecting environmental impact statements.
Dated: January 12, 2017.
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-06479 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P