TransWest Express Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0450), 16196-16203 [2017-06479]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Western Area Power Administration

[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