[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77171-77174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21279]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Cross-Tie 500-kV Transmission Project in Beaver, 
Juab, and Millard Counties, Utah, and Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine 
Counties, Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 
the United States Department of Agriculture--Forest Service (USDA 
Forest Service) announce the availability of the Cross-Tie 500-kilovolt 
(kV) Transmission Project (Cross-Tie Project or Project) Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

DATES: The BLM will not issue a decision on the proposal for a minimum 
of 30 days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FEIS in the Federal 
Register. The EPA usually publishes its NOAs on Fridays. The USDA 
Forest Service may issue a Record of Decision (ROD) after the pre-
decisional administrative review process, also known as the objection 
process, has ended and the Reviewing Officer has responded in writing 
to all objections, and all concerns and instructions identified by the 
Reviewing Officer in the objection response have been addressed by the 
Responsible Official. The availability period and objection filing 
period will run concurrently. Following the conclusion of that 
availability period and objection process, RODs signed by the BLM and 
USDA Forest Service will document both agency's final decisions and 
identify any conditions of approval.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS and documents pertinent to this 
proposal are electronically available for review on the BLM ePlanning 
project website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2018636/510 and copies of the Final EIS may be examined at the 
following locations:
     BLM Bristlecone Field Office and Ely District Office, 702 
North Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada 89301;
     BLM Caliente Field Office, 1400 Front Street, Caliente, 
Nevada, 89008;
     BLM Cedar City Field Office and Color Country District 
Office, 176 East D.L. Sargent Drive, Cedar City, Utah 84721;

[[Page 77172]]

     BLM Fillmore Field Office, 95 East 500 North, Fillmore, 
Utah 84631;
     BLM West Desert District Office, 491 North John Glenn 
Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
     Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Ely Ranger 
District, 825 Avenue E, Ely, Nevada, 89301; and
     Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada, 89431.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Koski, BLM Project Manager, 
telephone 435-743-3125, address 95 East 500 North, Fillmore, Utah 
84631, or [email protected]. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deaf blind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability, please dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunication relay services. Individuals outside the United States 
should use the relay services offered within their country to make 
international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applicant, TransCanyon LLC 
(TransCanyon), submitted an Application for Transportation and Utility 
Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Standard Form 299) and a draft 
Plan of Development to the BLM and USDA Forest Service for a permanent 
facility BLM right-of-way (ROW) and a Forest Service special use permit 
(SUP) for the construction, operation and maintenance (O&M), and 
decommissioning of the Cross-Tie 500-kV Transmission Project.
    The BLM Fillmore Field Office, in coordination with cooperating 
agencies, prepared an EIS to analyze potential impacts from the Project 
and alternatives. New permanent and temporary land authorizations would 
be required to construct, operate, and maintain Project components. In 
Utah, TransCanyon's Proposed Action would cross 110 miles of BLM land, 
14 miles of State land, and 18 miles of private land, totaling 141 
miles. In Nevada, TransCanyon's Proposed Action would cross 63 miles of 
BLM land, eight miles of National Forest System land, four miles of 
private land, and one mile of State land, totaling 76 miles. 
TransCanyon would obtain these land rights through ROW grants from the 
BLM, a SUP from the Forest Service, and easements or fee purchases for 
non-Federal lands.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of this BLM Federal action is to respond to the ROW 
application submitted by TransCanyon for the construction, O&M, and 
decommissioning of the proposed transmission line between central Utah 
and east-central Nevada. The need for Federal action is established by 
the BLM's responsibilities under title V of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761), the 
BLM's ROW regulations at 43 CFR part 2800, and other applicable Federal 
laws and policies to grant ROWs over public land.
    The purpose and need of the Forest Service Federal action is to 
respond to an application for a SUP submitted by TransCanyon for the 
construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the proposed 500-kV 
transmission line on National Forest System land in east-central Nevada 
in compliance with FLPMA and the National Forest Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1601-1614), as well as the Humboldt National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan, as amended, which provides forest-wide 
standards and guidelines for management of National Forest System land 
crossed by the Project. The SUP will govern use and occupancy of 
National Forest System land that is in the public interest while 
avoiding and minimizing adverse effects and ensuring consistency with 
land and resource management plans.
    FLPMA provides both the BLM and the Forest Service with discretion 
to authorize use of land they administer via ROWs or SUPs, taking into 
consideration impacts on natural and cultural resources. In doing so, 
the BLM and the Forest Service both must endeavor ``to minimize damage 
to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and 
otherwise protect the environment.'' (43 U.S.C. 1765). The BLM and the 
Forest Service are reviewing the Proposed Action and other alternatives 
and will decide whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny 
TransCanyon's application, and may include terms, conditions, and 
stipulations authorized by law and regulation.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    TransCanyon's Proposed Action includes an approximately 214-mile, 
1,500-megawatt, 500-kV high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) overhead 
transmission line which would be constructed between the Clover 
Substation in central Utah and the Robinson Summit Substation in east-
central Nevada. The Project would be situated within a 250-foot-wide 
ROW, 125 feet from centerline, which would maintain separation from 
other existing extra-high-voltage transmission lines as required by the 
North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The Project facilities 
would include a 500-kV HVAC overhead transmission line, new substation 
equipment at the Clover Substation in central Utah (within the existing 
substation footprint) and at the Robinson Summit Substation in east-
central Nevada (within a 46-acre proposed expansion), regeneration 
stations near the line for the fiber optic ground wire, series 
compensation station(s), temporary and permanent access roads, and 
temporary work areas associated with construction activities.
    In addition to the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative (i.e., 
not granting the ROW/SUP), alternatives include modifications to the 
proposed route. Three alternative routes to reduce impacts on resources 
of concern were developed before the public scoping period during 
workshops with agency interdisciplinary teams and cooperating agencies. 
A fourth alternative was developed after the public scoping period in 
response to Tribal concerns.

Alternative A (Agency Preferred Alternative)

    Alternative A would replace a portion of the Proposed Action in 
southeastern Juab County and northeastern Millard County, Utah, which 
would minimize potential effects to private landowners and their 
viewsheds in the area near Leamington, Utah, and would minimize 
potential effects to the Sevier River and agricultural property.
    Alternative A would largely follow the approved but currently 
unbuilt TransWest Express Transmission Project (TransWest Express) ROW, 
deviate from the Proposed Action in the east, and cross BLM-
administered land and pass through a Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) General 
Habitat Management Area, where the line is not co-located with the 
approved TransWest Express ROW. It would then follow the route of the 
approved TransWest Express ROW until it rejoins the Proposed Action at 
the line between Juab and Millard Counties. A 23-mile-long segment of 
the Proposed Action would be replaced with the 27-mile-long segment of 
Alternative A, which would increase the total length of the route from 
214 miles to 218 miles.

Alternative B

    Alternative B would replace a portion of the Proposed Action 
alignment in central and western Millard County, Utah, which would 
minimize crossings of the Sevier A and Sevier B Military Operating Area 
(low-level flight training areas) that are part of the Department of 
Defense's Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR).
    Alternative B would cross into Beaver County, Utah, following 
identified

[[Page 77173]]

utility corridors to the Milford, Utah, area, then turn west and north 
following an identified utility corridor (with no current aboveground 
utilities) back to the Proposed Action alignment near the Utah-Nevada 
State line. A 69-mile-long segment of the Proposed Action would be 
replaced with the 158-mile-long segment of Alternative B, which would 
increase the total length of the route from 214 miles to 304 miles.

Alternative C

    Alternative C would replace a portion of the Proposed Action 
alignment in eastern White Pine County, Nevada, and was developed in 
consideration of concerns regarding the culturally sensitive Swamp 
Cedars Area of Critical Concern and Bahsahwahbee Traditional Cultural 
Property.
    This alternative would diverge from the Proposed Action alignment 
and follow U.S. Highway 6/50 southwest, then follow State Route 893 
northwest back to the Proposed Action alignment. A 7-mile-long segment 
of the Proposed Action would be replaced with the 13-mile-long segment 
of Alternative C, which would increase the total length of the route 
from 214 miles to 221 miles.

Alternative D

    Alternative D was developed to avoid sensitive resource areas in 
Spring Valley, Nevada. Alternative D would replace a portion of the 
Proposed Action alignment in Millard County, Utah, and eastern White 
Pine County, Nevada. Alternative D would follow Alternative B through 
Beaver County, Utah, then depart from Alternative B shortly after 
reentering Millard County, Utah. It would then head west, north of the 
county line, rerouted in the southwest corner of Millard County, Utah, 
to avoid the Lands with Wilderness Characteristic (LWC) Inventory Unit 
Jackson Wash (UT-C010-121), and cross into Lincoln County, Nevada. From 
there, the route would head west, then southwest to an Ely District 
resource management plan (RMP) corridor near Atlanta, Nevada. The route 
would then follow the RMP corridor west and south until it intersects 
the Section 368 Energy Corridor that contains the existing One Nevada 
Transmission Line. It would then follow the One Nevada Transmission 
Line north to the Robinson Summit Substation. A 145-mile-long segment 
of the Proposed Action route would be replaced with the 297-mile-long 
segment of Alternative D, which would increase the total length of the 
route from 214 miles to 366 miles.

Key Mitigation Measures

    The Project is anticipated to cause direct and indirect impacts 
during construction, O&M, and decommissioning. During construction, 
impacts would occur from land disturbance; operation of construction 
equipment; installation of towers, access roads, and other facilities; 
and presence of work forces. During O&M, impacts would occur from 
continued presence of Project facilities and from maintenance 
activities. Impacts from decommissioning would be similar to those 
expected from the construction phase. Cumulative impacts from relevant 
reasonably foreseeable future actions are disclosed in the FEIS.
    Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures (ACEPMs) are 
included as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative and have been 
identified to reduce impacts on environmental resources. These measures 
would apply to all action alternatives. TransCanyon and its contractors 
would adhere to the ACEPMs identified during the engineering/design 
phase and to the measures addressing construction and O&M activities. A 
full list of the ACEPMs can be found in Appendix A: Plan of 
Development. Additionally, direct and indirect impacts to GRSG habitat 
have been analyzed and used to determine compensatory mitigation 
requirements.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The BLM, as the lead Federal agency for preparing the EIS, invited 
Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies to serve as cooperating 
agencies. In total, 56 agencies were invited. The following entities 
accepted the invitation and are participating as cooperating agencies:
Federal Agencies
 Forest Service (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger 
District)
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Department of Defense, Military Aviation and Installation 
Assurance Siting Clearinghouse
 Department of Defense, UTTR
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Agencies
 Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, with multiple 
State of Utah entities participating through this office:
    [cir] University of Utah Telescope Array Project
    [cir] Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
    [cir] Utah Department of Transportation
    [cir] Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
    [cir] Utah Trust Lands Administration
 Nevada Department of Wildlife
 Nevada Division of Minerals
 Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Program
 Nevada Division of State Lands
 Nevada N-4 State Grazing Board
Local Agencies
 Beaver County, Utah
 Juab County, Utah
 Millard County, Utah
 Lincoln County, Nevada
 Nye County, Nevada
 White Pine County, Nevada
 City of Ely, Nevada
 Lincoln County Conservation District
Tribal Governments
 Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
 Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone-Elko Band

    The BLM and Forest Service have also engaged in government-to-
government consultation with affected Tribes and will continue Tribal 
engagement during all phases of the planning process in accordance with 
applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and other authorities, 
including the National Historic Preservation Act, the American Indian 
Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and Executive Order 13007 
(Indian Sacred Sites).

Public Involvement

    The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS in 
the Federal Register on May 2, 2022 (87 FR 25656). The scoping process 
began with the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register, and ran 
from May 2, 2022, to June 1, 2022. During the scoping period, the BLM 
sought public comments to identify issues to be addressed in the EIS.
    Two virtual public scoping meetings were held on May 17 and May 18, 
2022. In total, 59 letter submissions were received from the public 
during the scoping period either via the U.S. Postal Service, email, 
recorded telephone line, or via telephone to the BLM Project Manager.
    The BLM published a Draft EIS Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 
Federal Register on November 9, 2023 (88 FR 77358). Although the NOA 
defined the end date of the public comment period as January 2, 2024, 
the BLM extended the comment period through January 9, 2024. The BLM 
held four in-person meetings and one virtual meeting in November and 
December 2023. Meetings were held in Nephi, Milford, and Delta, Utah, 
and Ely, Nevada. The BLM also met with the Leamington, Utah town 
council in December 2023.
    The BLM received a total of 583 submissions during the public 
comment

[[Page 77174]]

period. Of the submissions, 420 were identical copy letters, 89 were 
form letters with additional text, 73 were unique letters, and one was 
a duplicate submission. Principle comment issues included:
     Wildlife impact concerns, including birds, bats, big game, 
amphibians, pollinators and insects, general wildlife, special-status 
species, and GRSG;
     Lands with Wilderness Characteristics impact concerns;
     Visual resource impact concerns; and
     Cultural resource impact concerns.
    Public and stakeholder comments also provided specific edits and 
corrections to EIS sections and general support or opposition to the 
proposed Project.

Final EIS Revisions

    Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM 
review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Final 
EIS. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifications and 
analysis, but comments did not identify significant new circumstances 
or information relevant to environmental concerns that have bearing 
upon the proposed action.
    In response to public comments on the Draft EIS, revisions were 
made to the Final EIS. The agency made micrositing changes within the 
0.5-mile wide siting corridor at Marjum Pass in Millard County, Utah, 
which is analyzed as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative within 
the Final EIS. The LWC, Transportation, Visual Resources, and 
Wilderness Study Areas sections of the Final EIS include updated 
analysis for the Agency Preferred Alternative micrositing at Marjum 
Pass. Impacts from the Agency Preferred Alternative would be the same 
as described under the Proposed Action for the following: air quality; 
climate change/greenhouse gases; cultural and heritage resources; fire 
and fuels management; geology, minerals, and renewable energy 
production; inventoried roadless areas; land use; livestock grazing; 
noxious and invasive weeds; paleontology; recreation; socioeconomics 
and environmental justice; soils; vegetation; water resources; 
wildlife; and woodlands.
    In addition to micrositing in Marjum Pass, the agency widened the 
0.5-mile-wide siting corridor in two specific areas (Utah-Nevada border 
west of Garrison, Utah; and Steptoe Valley, Nevada) where public 
comments noted administrative constraints that would preclude or 
interfere with existing infrastructure, private lands, and specially 
managed areas. Widening the siting corridor in these locations allows 
for the flexibility of the centerline to shift. The 0.5-mile-wide 
siting corridor was also reduced after publication of the Draft EIS in 
multiple locations across Nevada to remove locations outside designated 
utility corridors. These are locations where siting of the transmission 
line would not be in conformance with the Nevada and Northeastern 
California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 
Amendment (Nevada-California ARMPA) (BLM 2015b), as described below. 
The 0.5-mile-wide siting corridor and centerline were also shifted in 
the southwest corner of Millard County, Utah, to avoid the LWC 
Inventory Unit Jackson Wash (UT-C010-121).
    In early 2024, the United States Geological Survey issued a draft 
annual update report related to GRSG that disclosed an adaptive 
management trigger identified in the Nevada-California ARMPA that was 
tripped for the third year in a row for a lek cluster within the area 
near the western terminus of the Project at Robinson Summit Substation 
(Prochazka et al. 2024). The individual annual triggers are defined as 
soft triggers in the Nevada-California ARMPA, and the plan provided 
that tripping three soft triggers in consecutive years (2021, 2022, and 
2023) equates to a hard trigger. In response to tripping a hard 
trigger, the ARMPA identifies any land outside designated utility 
corridors and within GRSG habitat management areas as exclusion areas 
for new high-voltage transmission. There is an approximately 1-mile-
long segment of the proposed Project and action alternatives that would 
be located outside the designated utility corridor across GRSG habitat 
management areas and whose authorization would not conform to the 
approved Nevada-California ARMPA based on this new information. Through 
a separate process, the BLM is currently reconsidering its 2015 GRSG 
planning decisions, including its management of the lands being 
considered for this proposed Project segment. The BLM published a NOA 
for the draft GRSG RMP amendments on March 15, 2024. The BLM will 
ensure that its decision responding to the application for the Project 
will conform to the land use plans approved at the time of the record 
of decision, consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5-3.
    Additional updates were made to address public concerns within the 
following resource sections: renewable energy resources, visual 
resources, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions and cumulative 
impacts, GRSG, and LWC.

Agency Decisions

    Based on the environmental analysis in this Final EIS, the BLM Utah 
State Director will decide whether to authorize the ROW grant, 
authorize with modifications, or deny the application based on the 
proposed Project, alternatives, or any combination thereof on Public 
Lands. The Forest Service will issue a separate ROD specific to its 
decision whether to authorize a SUP on National Forest System land.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10)

Christina Judd,
Acting State Director, Utah.
[FR Doc. 2024-21279 Filed 9-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-25-P