Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 

• Appendix F-1: BLM Plan Amendments 

• Appendix F-2: Forest Service Plan Amendments 
Appendix F-1

Proposed RMP and MFP Amendments

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. 

Submitted To:

Bureau of Land Management 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-iii

Plan Amendments 

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................F.1-1

2 PLANNING PROCESS.....................................................................................F.1-1

2.1 PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA......................................................F.1-2

2.1.1 Planning Issues ...........................................................................F.1-2

2.1.2 Planning Criteria ..........................................................................F.1-3

3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ...........................................................................F.1-3

3.1 CASPER RMP AMENDMENT.................................................................F.1-4

3.1.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Casper RMP ...........................F.1-4

3.1.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ................................................F.1-5

3.1.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Casper RMP..........................F.1-5

3.1.4 Effects..........................................................................................F.1-6

3.2 RAWLINS RMP AMENDMENT ...............................................................F.1-7

3.2.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Rawlins RMP ..........................F.1-7

3.2.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ................................................F.1-9

3.2.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Rawlins RMP.........................F.1-9

3.2.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-10

3.3 GREEN RIVER RMP AMENDMENT .....................................................F.1-11

3.3.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Green River RMP .................F.1-11

3.3.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-13

3.3.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Green River RMP................F.1-13

3.3.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-15

3.4 KEMMERER RMP AMENDMENT .........................................................F.1-16

3.4.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Kemmerer RMP....................F.1-16

3.4.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-18

3.4.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Kemmerer RMP ..................F.1-20

3.4.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-26

3.5 MALAD MFP AMENDMENT..................................................................F.1-27

3.5.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Malad MFP ...........................F.1-27

3.5.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-28

3.5.3 Proposed Plan Amendments to the Malad MFP........................F.1-29

3.5.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-30

3.6 CASSIA RMP AMENDMENT.................................................................F.1-30

3.6.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Cassia RMP..........................F.1-31

3.6.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-31

3.6.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Cassia RMP ........................F.1-32

3.6.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-33

3.7 TWIN FALLS MFP AMENDMENT .........................................................F.1-34

3.7.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Twin Falls MFP.....................F.1-35

3.7.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-36

3.7.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Twin Falls MFP ...................F.1-37

3.7.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-38

3.8 JARBIDGE RMP AMENDMENT............................................................F.1-38

3.8.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Jarbidge RMP.......................F.1-39

3.8.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-40
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-iv

Plan Amendments 

3.8.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Jarbidge RMP .....................F.1-41

3.8.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-43

3.9 SRBOP RMP AMENDMENT .................................................................F.1-43

3.9.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the SRBOP RMP ........................F.1-44

3.9.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-46

3.9.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the SRBOP RMP.......................F.1-47

3.9.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-50

3.10 BENNETT HILLS/TIMMERMAN HILLS MFP AMENDMENT.................F.1-51

3.10.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills 

MFP...........................................................................................F.1-51

3.10.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-52

3.10.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills 

MFP...........................................................................................F.1-53

3.10.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-53

3.11 WELLS RMP AMENDMENT..................................................................F.1-54

3.11.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Existing Wells RMP ..............F.1-54

3.11.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-55

3.11.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Wells RMP.............F.1-55

3.11.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-56

3.12 BRUNEAU MFP AMENDMENT.............................................................F.1-57

3.12.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Brueau MFP..........................F.1-57

3.12.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-58

3.12.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Bruneau MFP ........F.1-59

3.12.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-59

3.13 KUNA MFP AMENDMENT ....................................................................F.1-60

3.13.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Kuna MFP.............................F.1-60

3.13.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives ..............................................F.1-61

3.13.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Kuna MFP ...........................F.1-61

3.13.4 Effects........................................................................................F.1-62
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-v

Plan Amendments 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AOI area of interest

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

CA Conservation Agreement

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FO Field Office

I Interstate

KOP Key Observation Point

kV kilovolt

LUP Land Us Management Plan

MFP Management Framework Plan

MP milepost

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NHT National Historic Trail

NOI Notice of Intent

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ORV outstandingly remarkable value

Project Gateway West Transmission Line Project

R. Range

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW rights-of-way

SMA Special Management Area

SR State Route

SRBOP Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation 

Area
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-vi

Plan Amendments 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

T. Township

TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM visual resource management

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WWE West-wide Energy
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-1

Plan Amendments 

1 Introduction 

The Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Gateway West or Project) starts in 

Wyoming at the Windstar Substation and takes two paths to the Aeolus Substation—

one that swings to the east (Segment 1E) and one (Segment 1W) that for the most part 

follows or parallels the West-Wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230-kilovolt 

(kV) line (proposed for reconstruction as Segment 1W[c]). It then proceeds as a 

double-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to Populus (though in Segments 2 and 3 with one 

of the circuits initially energized at 230 kV between the Aeolus and Anticline 

Substations). At Populus, the Project splits into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly

parallel paths. Segments 5, 6, and 8 travel on a more northerly route toward the 

Hemingway Substation through the Borah and Midpoint Substations, while Segments 7 

and 9 travel a more southerly route through the Cedar Hill Substation to the Hemingway 

Substation. Segment 10 provides an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and 

Midpoint Substations and also provides an interconnection between the more northerly 

and more southerly routes. 

The Project crosses federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Actions that occur on these lands, including the granting of rights-of-ways (ROWs) 

under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), are 

guided by decisions recorded in the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP) or 

Management Framework Plan (MFP) for each unit. The BLM has determined that, 

depending on the route selected, the proposed Project would not conform to certain 

aspects of the Casper, Rawlins, Green River, Kemmerer, Cassia, Jarbidge, Morley 

Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (SRBOP), and Wells 

RMPs and with the Malad, Bruneau, Kuna, Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills, and Twin 

Falls MFPs. Approval of a project-specific proposal that is inconsistent with the existing 

land use plan requires that a land use plan amendment be completed (BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1)1

. Any decisions to amend a plan would be made 

concurrent with a decision on the proposed Project. 

2 Planning Process 

The planning action is to consider amending 13 BLM land use management plans 

(LUPs) as a part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This action is being 

considered under the BLM 1600 manual guidance (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1), Wyoming State BLM instruction memoranda, and the planning regulations 

published as 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (including 1610.5-5, Amendments). 

Scoping meetings have been held for this Project, where the public, as well as state, 

local, tribal, and federal governments, were invited to participate in the planning 

process. Public scoping was initiated with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on May 16, 2008 (73 Federal Register 28425). 

The NOI was followed by a series of nine public meetings held in 2008. Four of these 

meeting were held in Wyoming and five were held in Idaho:

• Tuesday, June 3, 2008, in SRBOP, Idaho;

 

1 BLM. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. U.S. Department of Interior. March 11.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-2

Plan Amendments 

• Tuesday, June 3, 2008, in Murphy, Idaho;

• Wednesday, June 4, 2008, in Pocatello, Idaho;

• Wednesday, June 4, 2008, in Boise, Idaho;

• Thursday, June 5, 2008, in Montpelier, Idaho;

• June 9, 2008, in Casper, Wyoming;

• June 10, 2008, in Rawlins, Wyoming;

• June 11, 2008, in Rock Springs, Wyoming; and

• June 12, 2008, in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

Multiple meetings were also held between 2008 and 2009 with private landowners 

located within 2 miles of the Project’s Proposed Route and Route Alternatives. The 

public has been given the opportunity to comment on and provide additional information 

regarding the Project, including the possibility of BLM Plan amendments, during these 

meetings. This public input has brought to light additional issues and prompted more 

comprehensive analysis, which has been included in the Draft EIS. 

A report (Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis, 2010) was compiled documenting 

compliance with the 20 federal land use plans that provide direction for federal lands 

crossed by the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives. This report was included as 

Appendix F in the Administrative Draft EIS submitted to the BLM and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service for review on March 15, 2010. From this analysis, needs 

for potential amendments were identified and analyzed based on planning issues and 

criteria.

2.1 Planning Issues and Criteria 

The NOI listed the planning issues the BLM anticipated and invited the public, other 

federal agencies, as well as state, local, and Tribal governments to identify additional 

concerns or issues during scoping meetings and the comment period that followed. 

2.1.1 Planning Issues 

The issues identified through public scoping and used to develop alternatives are as 

follows: 

• Objection to location on private lands (“If the project is for the general public 

good, it should be on public lands.”);

• Reliability and proposed separation distances of transmission lines;

• Avoiding sensitive areas such as National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges, 

military operating areas, National Conservation Areas, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs), and State Parks;

• Effects to Native American traditional cultural properties and respected 

places;

• Effects to paleontological resources;
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-3

Plan Amendments 

• Effects on wildlife habitat, plants, and animals including threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species;

• Effects to visual resources and existing viewsheds;

• Effects to National Historic Trails (NHTs) and their viewsheds;

• Land use conflicts and consistency with land use plans;

• Effects to soils and water from surface-disturbing activities;

• Effects to agriculture lands;

• Effect on local and regional socioeconomic conditions; and

• Management of invasive plant species and effective reclamation

2.1.2 Planning Criteria 

The following general planning criteria are being considered in the development of the 

proposed plan amendment: 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

• Existing laws, regulations, and BLM policies;

• Plans, programs and policies of other federal, state and local governments, 

and Indian Tribes;

• Public input;

• Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities 

and values;

• Past and present use of public and adjacent lands;

• Environmental impacts;

• Social and economic values;

• Public welfare and safety; and

• President’s National Energy Policy.

3 Proposed Amendments 

Amendments to BLM’s management plans may be needed to bring the Project into 

compliance with the applicable RMPs and MFPs for BLM-managed lands crossed by 

the Project, depending on the final route selected. The final text of the amendment(s) 

would depend on final conditions of approval for the Project. Instances where the 

Project may not be in conformance with applicable RMPs and MFPs include:

• Developing a new ROW outside of approved corridors,

• Building additional roads where motorized access is limited,

• Crossing NHTs,

• Crossing ACECs,

• Crossing National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) eligible segments,
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-4

Plan Amendments 

• Modifying wildlife habitat requirements,

• Allowing surface disturbance near scenic rivers,

• Allowing new roads near special status plant species,

• Changing VRM classifications, and

• Allowing incompatibility with established Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

classes. 

Effects on visual resources were determined through the use of computer modeling, 

field visits, and site-specific knowledge by local BLM staff. The analysis and effects 

determinations on visual resources are documented in Appendix G-1 for the Casper, 

Rawlins, Green River, Kemmerer, Cassia, Jarbidge, SRBOP, and Wells RMPs and the 

Malad, Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills, Twin Falls, and Bruneau MFPs. These proposed 

amendments reference the analysis, maps of the locations (referred to as the areas of 

inconsistency [AOIs]), photographs, and simulations included in Appendix G-1. The 

visual analysis pertains only to the public lands, as the BLM does not establish visual 

management objectives for lands it does not administer.

3.1 Casper RMP Amendment 

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Casper Field Office (FO), including the 

granting of ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the 

Casper RMP approved in December 2007. The RMP identifies VRM classes and 

manages visual resources based on these VRM classes. Portions of the proposed 

Project are inconsistent with the Casper RMP.

3.1.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Casper RMP 

The Project’s Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segments 1E and 1W would 

cross through areas covered by the Casper RMP. Approximately 43 miles of segment 

1E and 16 miles each for Alternatives 1E-A and 1E-C are within the Planning Area. 

Approximately 52 miles of 1W(a) and 38 miles of 1W(c) are within the Planning Area as 

well as the 16-mile Alternative 1W-A. Approximately 3.5 miles of Segment 1E, 4.6 miles 

of 1W(a), 4.9 miles of 1W(c), and 4.5 miles of Alternative 1E-C cross BLM-administered 

lands managed by the Casper FO. Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) consist of a rebuild of 

an existing line for portions of their routes. Alternatives 1E-A and 1W-A are not on 

BLM-managed land. The location of the Proposed Route was identified to comply with 

Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) requirements for siting transmission 

lines and to protect resources to the greatest extent feasible. These include, but are not 

limited to, threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species, sensitive lands,

cultural resources, and visual resources. A short portion of Segment 1E of the 

Proposed Route crosses land that may have wilderness characteristics.

Portions of the Project do not conform to the direction on managing visual resources 

provided in the Casper RMP and cannot be mitigated to the extent needed to be in 

conformance with the RMP; therefore, the Project could not be approved unless the 

RMP is amended. The amendment would be needed for new sections of the Proposed 

Routes 1W(a), 1W(c), and 1E or Route Alternative 1E-C if any of these are selected.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-5

Plan Amendments 

The Casper RMP Decision 5019 (Casper RMP 2-30) emphasizes the following with 

regard to visual resources: 

“Visual resource values will be managed under the VRM classes defined as 

mapped in the Caper Field Office GIS database. Changes in the number of 

acres within each VRM Class depict a balance between development activities 

and protection of visual resources. The foreground/middle ground of NHTs will 

be managed as Class II until inventories are completed. Trail segments 

contributing to the overall eligibility that have integrity of setting will be managed 

as VRM Class II. Where integrity of setting is lacking, the foreground/middle 

ground of NHTs, will be managed as Class III. Manage 367,151 acres of BLMmanaged surface and 816,310 acres of federal mineral estate as VRM Class II. 

Manage 433,799 acres of BLM-managed surface and 1,211,145 acres of federal 

mineral estate as VRM Class III. Manage 560,627 acres of BLM-managed 

surface and 2,629,717 acres of federal mineral estate as VRM Class IV.”

The Segment 1E, 1W(a), and 1W(c) Proposed Routes cross approximately 1.9 miles, 

0.7 mile (0.6 mile comprising the rebuilt line) and 1.3 miles (almost all of which 

comprises a newly constructed line), respectively, of areas classified as VRM Class II. 

Alternative 1E-C crosses approximately 1.2 miles of areas classified as VRM Class II.

The proposed and alternative routes would not be consistent with management 

objectives of VRM Class II. 

3.1.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Proposed Route includes Segments 1E, 1W(a), and 1W(c). 1E would be new 

single-circuit 230-kV lines.. The Proposed Route 1W(a) would consist of a new 

transmission line from the Windstar Substation to about milepost (MP) 30 

(approximately 2 miles north of where the route enters the Medicine Bow National 

Forest) and again from near MP 39 to the substation. Between these two points, it 

would consist of a rebuild of an existing 230-kV line. Proposed Route 1W(c) would 

consist of a rebuild of an existing 230-kV line from the Dave Johnston Power Plant to 

about MP 25 and from about MP 34 to the end of the segment. Between these two 

points, the route would consist of a new 230-kV line transmission line. Routes 1W(a) 

and 1W(c) follow the existing utility corridor southwest across scattered BLM-managed 

parcels through the eastern portion of the Bates Hole area; while the 1E line would run 

southeast from a point in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests (NF; Section 24, 

Township [T] 30N, Range [R] 78W) to the Albany County line near the North Fork of the 

Little Medicine Bow River. The Proposed Route and Route Alternatives are described 

in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these routes. 

Appendix A, Figure A-2 of the Draft EIS shows the Proposed Route and Route 

Alternatives for Segment 1.

3.1.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Casper RMP 

The Proposed Routes, Segments 1E and 1W(c), 1W(a) , and Alternative 1E-C would 

require a plan amendment to the Casper RMP if selected. There is currently a Decision

in the Casper RMP that protects visual resources in VRM Class II and VRM Class III 

with the following objectives (Casper RMP 2-29): 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-6

Plan Amendments 

Objective HR:5.1 Class II: Retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change should be low. Management activities should be seen, but not 

attract attention of the casual observer. The basic elements of form, line color, 

and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape should be repeated. 

VRM Class III has the following objective: 

Objective HR:5.2 Class III: Partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate 

the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Decision 5019 would need to be rewritten, permitting a one-time allowance for the 

project in some areas and changing the VRM classification in another, in order to 

approve any of these routes to allow development of this Project while staying in 

compliance with the Objectives of the RMP. The amended decision would read (new 

language is in italics): 

“Visual resource values will be managed under the VRM classes defined as 

mapped in the Casper Field Office GIS database, except include the 

reclassification of the 630 acres of VRM Class II land, associated with AOI C-1, 

to VRM Class III. A single-use visually altering action will be allowed for the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project (0.1 mile 1W[c], 0.04 1W[a],1.4 miles 

for 1E and 1.3 miles for 1E-C) without changing the VRM classification in AOIs 

C-2 and C-3.1 through C-3.4. Changes in the number of acres within each VRM 

Class depict a balance between development activities and protection of visual 

resources. 

The foreground/middle ground of NHTs will be managed as Class II until 

inventories are completed. Trail segments contributing to the overall eligibility 

that have integrity of setting will be managed as VRM Class II. Where integrity of 

setting is lacking, the foreground/middle ground of NHTs, will be managed as 

Class III. Manage 366,521 acres of BLM-managed surface and 815,680 acres of 

federal mineral estate as VRM Class II. Manage 434,429 acres of BLMmanaged surface and 1,211,775 acres of federal mineral estate as VRM Class 

III. Manage 560,627 acres of BLM-managed surface and 2,629,717 acres of 

federal mineral estate as VRM Class IV.”

3.1.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Section 4.1.3.1. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 

for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections

3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.3.2 and 

3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

Approximately 630 acres of BLM-managed surface lands (as well as 799 acres of 

federal mineral estate) in AOI C-1 would be reclassified from VRM Class II to VRM III.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-7

Plan Amendments 

This amendment would result in this area being managed at a lower protection level.

Amending the RMP to lower the VRM classification may encourage additional 

development in the area; however, the new transmission lines would occupy the 

majority of the developable land under BLM management, resulting in little remaining 

room for additional development (see Section 4.1.3.1). In AOIs C-2 and C-3.1 through 

C-3.4, allowing the Project without changing the VRM class would preclude meeting 

RMP Objective HR:5.1 (maintaining the character of the landscape) but it would not 

change the management requirements for the area; therefore, future projects would still 

need to meet current direction. 

Segment 1E of the Proposed Route and Alternative 1E-B would cross an NHT. 

Although this crossing is not on BLM-managed land, amending the RMP to allow the 

Project could impact the experience of trail users in AOI C-2.

Along Segment 1E of the Proposed Route, the transmission line would cross land that is 

core sage-grouse nesting area and crucial winter range for mule deer. In addition, it 

would permit construction within just over 0.5 mile of a historically active raptor nest.

Proposed Route 1W(a) and Alternative 1E-C would also cross big game habitat, nesting 

habitat for sage-grouse, and would be within the 0.5 mile buffer for raptor nests, the 

majority of these occurrences are not on BLM-managed land. Except for AOI C-2, the 

proposed amendments are for areas adjacent to an existing powerline. Construction of 

the transmission line would result in additional impacts on wildlife, scenery, and cultural 

resources. These impacts are described in their respective sections of the Draft EIS. 

3.2 Rawlins RMP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Rawlins FO, including the granting of ROW 

under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the Rawlins RMP;

approved in December 2008. The RMP manages visual resources based on mapped 

VRM classes as shown on Map 2-50 of the Rawlins RMP. Portions of the proposed 

Gateway West Project do not conform to the Rawlins RMP; thus, an amendment to the 

plan would be needed. 

3.2.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Rawlins RMP 

The Project’s Proposed Route and Route Alternatives would cross through areas 

covered by the Rawlins RMP. Approximately 8 miles of Segment 1E of the Proposed

Route, 8.6 miles of Alternative 1E-B, and 21 miles of Alternative 1E-C cross land 

managed under the Rawlins RMP, as do approximately 22 miles of Segments 1W(a) 

and 19 miles of 1W(c) of the Proposed Route. Also, approximately 37 miles of Segment 

2 of the Proposed Route, 9.0 miles of Alternative 2A, 2.5 miles of 2B, and 10 miles of 

2C cross land managed under the Rawlins RMP. Approximately 12 miles of Segment 3 

cross land managed under the Rawlins RMP.

The location of the Proposed Route was identified to comply with WECC requirements 

for siting transmission lines and to protect resources to the greatest extent feasible.

These include, but are not limited to, TES species, sensitive lands, cultural resources,

and visual resources.

Approximately 2.8 miles of the Proposed Route 1E and approximately 2.6 miles of the 

Alternative 1E-B cross areas mapped as VRM Classes II and III on Map 2-50 of the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-8

Plan Amendments 

Rawlins RMP. The portions of the route segments that cross VRM Class II areas do not 

conform to the RMP. In some cases, the Project may not conform to VRM Class III.

The Rawlins RMP visual resource management goals are: “1) Establish VRM classes 

for the RMPPA;” and “2) Maintain the overall integrity of visual resource classes while 

allowing for development of existing and future uses.” Management actions for 

obtaining these objectives are: “1) Manage visual resources to meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 2) VRM classes are designated as shown on Map 

2-50 (Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).” 

The Rawlins RMP VRM emphasizes the following with regards to visual resources: 

“Class II

o Retains the existing character of the landscape

o Allows management activities to be seen; however, activities should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer

o Requires changes to repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the predominant features of the characteristic landscape

o Requires modifications to a proposal if the proposed change cannot be 

adequately mitigated to retain the character of the landscape. 

Class III 

o Partially retains the existing character of the landscape 

o Requires that areas where a management activity causes changes in the 

basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) do not dominate the view of 

the casual observer 

o Requires that changes remain subordinate to the visual strength of the 

existing character.”

The RMP management goal for the North Platte River Special Recreation Management 

Area (SRMA) is to “Manage to ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreation 

opportunities associated with the North Platte and Encampment Rivers.” The associated 

management objectives are to: 

“1) Maintain or enhance recreation opportunities to accommodate existing niche 

activities, including hunting, fishing, camping, wildlife viewing, OHV touring, and 

other uses appropriate to the prescribed setting. 

2) Mitigate conflicts with other resource values and uses as appropriate, in 

coordination and cooperation with affected interests. 

3) Maintain or improve the quality of river-related recreational experience along 

the North Platte and Encampment Rivers to continue to provide high-quality 

recreational experiences and benefits to local residents and visitors to the area 

(Table 2-11). 

4) Maintain, restore, and enhance areas within the North Platte River area to 

meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.”

Management Action 9 for the North Platte River SRMA management objectives states 

that:
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-9

Plan Amendments 

“Surface-disturbing activities on public lands within 0.25 mile on either side of the 

North Platte River will be intensively managed to maintain the quality of the visual 

resource” (Rawlins RMP 2008: 2-27). 

Segment 2 of the Proposed Route crosses the North Platte River SRMA area and 

therefore would not be in conformance with the RMP.

3.2.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Proposed Route includes Segment 1E, which would be a single-circuit 230-kV line, 

and Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c), which would each partly consist of a new single-circuit 

230-kV line and a rebuild of an existing 230-kV line. Within the Rawlins Planning Area, 

1W(a) is a new single-circuit 230-kV line and 1W(c) is a rebuild of an existing 230-kV 

line. The 1W(a) route runs south from the Natrona/Carbon County Line near the 

southeast corner of the Bates Hole area to the Aeolus Substation. Within the Rawlins 

Planning Area, the Segment 1E Proposed Route would run southeast from a point near 

the North Fork of the Little Medicine Bow River (near the Converse County line), then 

south, southeast, and west until reaching the Aeolus Substation. This route was 

identified because it generally avoids sage-grouse habitat. Alternative 1E-B would 

continue farther south and then turn west to rejoin the Proposed Route 1E. An 

alternative to the Segment 1E Proposed Route and Alternative 1E-B, Alternative 1E-C, 

follows the existing utility corridor, approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the existing 

line. 

The Segment 2 Proposed Route would be a 96.7-mile-long 500-kV/230-kV doublecircuit line that follows a west/southwest direction between the Aeolus and Creston 

Substations. The western 40 miles of the line follows a WWE corridor. Alternatives 2A 

and 2B are several-miles-long variations north of the Proposed Route. Alternative 2A 

was considered because it would follow an existing 230-kV utility corridor that is also a 

WWE corridor and a BLM-designated utility corridor, and it is a relatively direct route. 

Alternative 2B was developed to reduce visual impacts to an historic site, and 

Alternative 2C was identified by the State of Wyoming as a future utility corridor. The 

Proposed Route generally parallels a WWE corridor but is not be within the corridor for 

most of the route. Portions of each route cross lands that may have wilderness 

characteristics.

The Segment 3 Proposed Route would be a 56.5-mile-long, east/west, double-circuit 

230/500-kV line that would run between the proposed Creston and Anticline 

Substations. It parallels a WWE corridor but is not within the corridor for most of the 

route. 

The Proposed Route and Route Alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft 

EIS, along with the reasons for considering these routes. Appendix A, Figures A-2 and 

A-3 of the Draft EIS show the Proposed Routes and Route Alternatives for Segment 1.

3.2.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Rawlins RMP 

The Segment 1E and 2 Proposed Routes and Alternative 1E-B would require a plan 

amendment to the Rawlins RMP if selected. There are management actions and 

objectives in the Rawlins RMP that protect visual resources. The management actions

would need to be rewritten to allow the development of this Project. The Segment 1E 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-10

Plan Amendments 

Proposed Route and Alternative 1E-B cross approximately 2.8 miles of land mapped as 

VRM Class II. 1E-B crosses an additional 2.6 miles of VRM Class II designated land 

after it separates from the joint route with 1E. The amended VRM direction would read 

(new language in italics): 

“VRM classes are designated as shown on Map 2-50 (Table 2-9 and Appendix 

25); however, 161 acres of VRM Class II will be reclassified in AOI R-2 to VRM 

Class III. The Gateway West Transmission Line Project will be allowed as a 

single-use visually altering action in AOI R-1, a portion of AOI R-2 and AOI R-3 

without changing the VRM classification.” 

Other requirements for VRM Class II would remain unchanged.

The Segment 2 Proposed Route crosses approximately 1.2 miles of land mapped as 

VRM Class III, which is also part of the North Platte River SRMA. Segment 2 would not 

be consistent with the visual resource direction for management of the North Platte 

River SRMA. The amended VRM direction for North Platte River SRMA would read 

(new language in italics): 

“Surface disturbing activities on public lands within one-quarter mile on either 

side of the river will be considered on a case-by-case basis to maintain, to the 

extent possible the quality of the visual resource. The Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project will be allowed as a visually altering action without 

changing the VRM classifications in AOI R-3. Mitigation actions would aim to 

minimize visual disturbance to the river corridor.”

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Rawlins RMP states: “Avoidance Areas: Areas to 

be avoided which may be available for location of ROWs and Section 302 permits, 

leases, and easements with special stipulations or mitigation measures. For such 

authorizations, the area’s environmental sensitivity and other feasible alternatives will 

be strongly considered.” The Proposed Route was identified because it would have 

less effect on sage-grouse habitat. The Draft EIS considers an alternative to the 

Segment 1E Proposed Route (Alternative 1E-C) that would not cross areas mapped as 

VRM Class II; however it would have a higher impact on other resource. Mitigation

measures were developed to reduce impacts to visual and other resources (refer to 

Table 2.7-1 in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS).

3.2.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects 

on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and 

Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

The parcels proposed for VRM reclassification are relatively small and isolated from 

other parcels of public land. If either the Proposed Route 1E or Alternative 1E-B is 

approved, the ROW would occupy a portion of the parcels, and the transmission line 

separation criteria would preclude inclusion of other lines within these parcels. Other 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-11

Plan Amendments 

development such as wind power is unlikely to be placed in such close proximity to the 

transmission towers and on small, isolated parcels (Section 4.1.3.3 of the Draft EIS). 

VRM class designations are assigned based on the impact of the visual resource on the 

experience of the viewer. Altering the designation for convenience of sighting power 

lines could impact the ability of meeting VRM objective 2, as it could be seen as 

impacting the integrity of these visual resource classes. The amendment may also 

influence objective of “allowing for development of existing and future uses” Allowing the 

powerline in AOI-R1 without changing the VRM Class was recommended as the area is 

isolated and the project would seldom be seen (Appendix G-1, Section 5.2.1). Not 

altering the VRM class helps to maintain the area in its more wild state and enables 

siting of the line such that visual impact are minimized as much as possible. The 

presence of a transmission line, however, could impact how this area is assessed for 

future plan amendments.

Allowing transmission lines near the North Platte River could impact the visual 

experience and recreational opportunities within the SRMA in that it will detract from the 

“wild and scenic” experience of the river and shoreline. This would affect the ability of 

achieving management objectives 1 and 3 (see Section 3.2.1 above). Objective 4 for 

the SRMA may be impacted by limiting the restoration capacity of the North Platte River 

area due to the significant disturbance from natural conditions. Objective 2 would be 

impacted as presence of the project could potentially increase the need for mitigation of

conflicts among the resource values and uses and thus increase effort required to 

obtain the objective.

Segment 1E and Alternative 1E-B cross the Fort Fetterman to Medicine Bow Road. 

Alternative 1E-B would cross the Rock Creek and Fort Fetterman Road. While these 

crossings are not on BLM-managed land, the northernmost crossing of the Fort 

Fetterman-Medicine Bow road is adjacent to two VRM Class II parcels that would be 

reclassified to VRM Class III. This could potentially have a visual impact on the 

experience of users of the Fort Fetterman Road, both for historic and scenic setting. 

While additional development on BLM-managed land is unlikely due to the small size of 

the reclassified parcels, the presence of a transmission line in an otherwise relatively 

undisturbed setting could impact future management of the resources on both private 

and public lands. 

3.3 Green River RMP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Rock Springs FO, including the granting of 

ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the Green River 

RMP approved on August 8, 1997. The RMP includes objectives for visual resources in 

the vicinity of the proposed Project. The RMP also includes objectives limiting 

disturbance of active raptor nests and sage-grouse leks. Project components and 

buffers would be within protective buffer distances listed in the RMP; thus, the proposed 

Project does not conform to the Green River RMP.

3.3.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Green River RMP 

The Project’s Proposed Route along Segments 3 and 4, as well as Alternatives 4B, 4C, 

4D, and 4E, would cross through the Green River Management Area. Approximately 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-12

Plan Amendments 

24 miles of Segment 3 are within the Planning Area, 10.5 of which cross BLM-managed

land. Approximately 65 miles of Segment 4 are within the Planning Area, approximately 

30 of which cross BLM-managed land. Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E follow the same 

route within the Green River Planning Area, 3.5 miles of which cross BLM-managed

land.

The location of the Proposed Route was identified to comply with WECC requirements 

and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. These include, but 

are not limited to, TES species, sensitive lands, cultural resources, and visual 

resources. 

The Proposed Route is not in conformance with the direction provided in the Green 

River RMP for visual resources. Also, the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives 

4B/4C/4D are not in conformance with RMP direction for wildlife resources. Therefore, 

the land use plan would have to be amended if any of these routes are selected. The 

planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to consider plan amendments 

for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Green River RMP has two Visual Resource Management Objectives: “1) maintain 

or improve scenic values and visual quality; and 2) establish priorities for managing the 

visual resources in conjunction with other resource values (Green River RMP1997, 

page 21).”

Management Actions for reaching these objectives emphasize the following with 

regards to visual resources: 

“Projects and facilities will be designed to meet the objectives of the established 

visual classifications and appropriate mitigation will be included.

“Management actions on public lands with a Class II visual resource 

management classification must be designed to blend into and retain the existing 

character of the natural landscape.”

The Green River RMP objectives for management of wildlife and fish habitat are to: “1) 

maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of plant and wildlife species while 

ensuring healthy ecosystems; and 2) restore disturbed or altered habitat with the 

objective to attain desired native plant communities, while providing for wildlife needs 

and soil stability” (Green River RMP 1997; page 24).

Management Actions for reaching wildlife objectives include the following:

“Project components, such as permanent and high profile structures, i.e., 

buildings, storage tanks, powerlines, roads, well pads, etc. are prohibited within 

an appropriate distance of active raptor nests. The appropriate distance (usually 

less than 1/2 mile) will be determined on a case-by-case basis and may vary 

depending upon the species involved, natural topographic barriers, and line-ofsight distances, etc. Placement of facilities, ‘on’ (very low profile) or below 

ground, and temporary disruptive activities, such as occur with pipeline 

construction, seismic activity, etc., could be granted exceptions within 1/2 mile of 

active raptor nests, in certain circumstances.”
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-13

Plan Amendments 

“Aboveground facilities (power lines, storage tanks fences, etc.) are prohibited on 

or within 1/4 mile of sage-grouse breeding grounds (leks). Placement of facilities, 

‘on’ (very low profile) or below ground, and temporary disruptive activities, such 

as occur with pipeline construction, seismic activity, etc., could be granted 

exceptions within 1/4 mile of leks, in certain circumstances.”

The Project, as currently designed, is not in conformance with these visual resources 

and wildlife requirements. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to modify the 

visual resource management actions and wildlife requirements, such that the granting of 

a ROW for construction of the Project would conform to the Green River RMP. 

3.3.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives 

Segment 3 of the Proposed Route consists of a double 500-kV circuit line that follows 

an existing transmission corridor within the area managed by the Green River RMP. No 

alternatives were identified for this segment. 

Segment 4 of the Proposed Route is 203 miles long and generally follows existing 

transmission lines. It consists of a double 500-kV circuit between Anticline Substation in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and Populus Substation in Power County, Idaho. The 

Proponents are considering an alternative for Segment 4 that would replace the double 

circuit with two parallel and adjacent single-circuit 500-kV lines. 

Within the Green River RMP boundary, the WWE corridor extends in a southwest 

direction and provides no feasible option for an east-west connection between the 

Anticline and Populus Substations. It was not practical to follow the WWE corridor in this 

area, and thus the Proposed Route deviates from this designated route. Proposed 

Route 4 route crosses 0.8 mile of BLM-managed land with a VRM Class II designation. 

The Proposed Route and the Route Alternatives considered within this area are 

described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these 

routes. A map of the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segment 4 can be 

found in Appendix A, Figure A-5 of the Draft EIS. 

Four Route Alternatives to Segment 4 of the Proposed Route cross the Green River 

RMP area. Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E all follow the same route within the Green 

River RMP area. They deviate from the Proposed Route approximately 14 miles from 

where the Proposed Route exits the western edge of the Green River RMP boundary. 

Within the Green River RMP boundary, these follow the same a general westerly 

direction.

3.3.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Green River RMP 

The Proposed Route along Segment 4, if selected, would require a plan amendment to 

the Green River RMP regarding visual and wildlife resources, while Segment 3 of the 

Proposed Route and Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E would require an amendment 

related to wildlife resources (raptor nests and sage-grouse leks). These amendments

would be needed if either Proposed Routes 3 and 4, or Proposed Route 3 and 

Alternatives 4B/4C/4D/4F are approved to grant of a ROW for the Project across lands 

managed under the Green River RMP.

The management objectives in the Green River RMP for visual resources are 1) 

maintain or improve scenic values and visual quality; and 2) establish priorities for 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-14

Plan Amendments 

managing the visual resources in conjunction with other resource values. These two of 

the management actions for obtaining these objectives would be rewritten to allow 

development of this Project. The amended management action for visual resource 

impacts (changes in italics) would read: 

“Projects and facilities will be designed to meet the objectives of the established 

visual classifications and appropriate mitigation will be included, except for the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project which will be allowed a one-time 

allowance for the construction of access roads, placement of towers and doublecircuit cables between towers where it would otherwise be in violation of the 

existing visual classifications for the proposed segment 4 route.”

“Management actions on public lands with a Class II visual resource 

management classification must be designed to blend into and retain the existing

character of the natural landscape. A one-time allowance to this requirement will 

be permitted for the construction and placement of the Gateway West 

Transmission line, allowing the powerline across VRM Class II designated areas 

on both sides of the Green River as well as one river crossing in sec16, 20N 

109W, if the proposed Segment 4 route is selected.

The Project is also inconsistent in regard to requirements for structures near active 

raptor nests and sage-grouse leks, and would require plan amendments to the Green 

River RMP to modify management actions. These proposed amendments would be 

needed to allow the granting of a ROW for the Project across lands managed by the 

Rock Springs FO. Management objectives in the Green River RMP for wildlife and fish 

habitat are to: “1) maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of plant and 

wildlife species while ensuring healthy ecosystems; and 2) restore disturbed or altered 

habitat with the objective to attain desired native plant communities, while providing for 

wildlife needs and soil stability.” Additionally, “the objective for management of 

threatened, endangered, special status, and sensitive plant and animal species is to 

provide, maintain, or improve habitat through vegetative manipulation, mitigation 

measures, or other management actions including habitat acquisition and easements” 

Management Actions designed to protect raptor nests and sage-grouse leks would be 

rewritten to allow development of this Project. The amended requirements in areas of 

breeding raptors (changes in italics) would read:

“Project components, such as permanent and high profile structures, i.e., 

buildings, storage tanks, powerlines, roads, well pads, etc. are prohibited within 

an appropriate distance of active raptor nests, except for the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project which will be permitted as a one-time allowance for 

the construction and placement of the transmission lines and towers. The 

appropriate distance (usually less than 1/2 mile) will be determined on a case-bycase basis and may vary depending upon the species involved, natural 

topographic barriers, and line-of-sight distances, etc. Placement of facilities, ‘on’ 

(very low profile) or below ground, and temporary disruptive activities, such as 

occur with pipeline construction, seismic activity, etc., could be granted 

exceptions within 1/2 mile of active raptor nests, in certain circumstances.”
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-15

Plan Amendments 

The amended requirement for activities near sage-grouse leks (changes in italics) would 

read:

“Aboveground facilities (power lines, storage tanks fences, etc.) are prohibited on 

or within 1/4 mile of sage-grouse breeding grounds (leks), except where access 

roads needed for the construction and maintenance of the Gateway West

Transmission Line Project would be within 1⁄4 mile of leks. Placement of facilities, 

‘on’ (very low profile) or below ground, and temporary disruptive activities, such 

as occur with pipeline construction, seismic activity, etc., could be granted 

exceptions within 1/4 mile of leks, in certain circumstances.”

3.3.4 Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3 for effects on 

special status plant species; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; 

Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status wildlife species; and 

Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

For the majority of its length, the proposed powerline routes for Segments 3 and 4 

within the Green River Planning Area parallel either existing powerline or road corridors.

The amendment for visual resources would impact the ability to meet RMP Objective 1. 

It would adversely affect the scenic values of the landscapes of the Green River and 

views from the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Segment 4 would cross 

the Green River approximately 4 miles south of an existing transmission line crossing 

and would create additional visual disruption. Allowance of this project may affect how 

the visual resources are prioritized in conjunction with management of other resource 

values and could lead to reclassification of the VRM Class in subsequent Visual 

Resource Inventories. 

Amending the RMP to allow the Project could affect the ability of the BLM to meet the 

wildlife objectives listed in the RMP. Short-term disturbance to sage-grouse would 

result from road and ROW clearing and construction. In addition, towers may affect 

predation on sage-grouse over the long term. Disturbance from road use for 

maintenance activities could have negative effects on mating and use of the breeding 

grounds such as avoidance and agitation. Reduction of functional leks could result in a 

decrease in successful pairings and thus reduce the ability to meet objective 1. The 

habitat Objectives 1 and 2 could be affected as transmission line installation and 

associated new road construction would impact the ability to maintain, improve and 

restore habitat for wildlife species. The objective for management of threatened, 

endangered, or special status species would be affected as this amendment would 

allow for direct impact on breeding habitat of a special status species (sage-grouse). 

The amendment allowing the construction of the transmission line towers within the 

buffer area for raptor nests could potentially impact up to 40 documented nests within 

the Rock Springs FO Planning Area. The impacts of this amendment, if approved, 

could be increased disturbance to nesting raptors, potentially leading to disruption in 

feeding times and flushing of the adult from the nest and possibly resulting in loss of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-16

Plan Amendments 

one or more young. The Project may impact up to 56 raptor pairs along the proposed 

Segment 4 route. The crossing of the Green River goes through Zone 2, as designated 

by the Wyoming Statewide Programmatic Bald Eagle Biological Assessment and 

Biological Opinion (August 2003) for bald eagle nests. 

Mitigation measures, such as avoidance of areas during critical breading/brooding times 

and micrositing facilities to avoid impacting habitat to the extent feasible, would reduce 

the effects on raptors and sage-grouse. See Table 2.7-1 in Chapter 2 for additional 

mitigation actions and descriptions.

3.4 Kemmerer RMP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Kemmerer FO, including the granting of 

ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the Kemmerer 

RMP approved on May 24, 2010. The RMP identifies areas where new utility corridors 

are not permitted, including NHTs and special wildlife habitat, and identifies VRM

classes and objectives for visual resources. Portions of the proposed Project do not 

conform to the Kemmerer RMP. 

3.4.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Kemmerer RMP 

The Project would consist of one double-circuit 500-kV line between the Anticline 

Substation and the Populus Substation near Interstate 15 (I-15) in southern Bannock 

County, Idaho, a portion of which crosses lands managed under the Kemmerer RMP. 

This segment generally follows an existing transmission line corridor. The line would be 

constructed to double-circuit 500-kV design standards and both circuits would be 

energized at 500 kV. Appendix A, Figures A-5 and A-6 of the Draft EIS show the 

Proposed Route for Segment 4 in Wyoming and Idaho, respectively. 

Segment 4 of the Proposed Route would use 500-kV double-circuit lattice towers 

between 160 and 190 feet tall (Appendix B of the Draft EIS, Figure B-3). In addition to 

the double-circuit 500-kV line, the Proponents are considering using two single-circuit 

structures in place of the double-circuit structures (Appendix B of the Draft EIS, Figure 

B-5). The double circuit (proposed) would require a 300-foot-wide ROW, while the two 

single circuits would require a 350-foot-wide ROW. The Project is needed to 

supplement existing transmission lines and relieve operating limitations, increase 

capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. 

The location of the Proposed Route was developed to comply with WECC requirements 

and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. These include, but 

are not limited to, TES species, sensitive lands, NHTs, other cultural resources, and 

visual resources. Several alternative route segments are also being considered (see 

below). However, the Project would not conform to the direction provided in the 

Kemmerer RMP. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to 

consider plan amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Proposed Route and portions of several Route Alternatives would not be in 

conformance with the following requirements of the Kemmerer RMP:

“Decision 5010 – Heritage Resources – Protect the physical evidence of NHTs 

designated under the National Trails System Act (ruts and traces, graves, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-17

Plan Amendments 

campsites, landmarks) that exist on lands within federal jurisdiction by prohibiting 

all surface-disturbing activities that do not benefit the preservation and (or) 

interpretation of trails within the following distances: (1) Class 1 segments: 1⁄4-

mile on each side of trail segments and within a 1⁄4-mile radius of gravesites and 

landmarks. (2) Class 2 segments: 500 feet on each side of trail segments and 

within a 500-foot radius of gravesites and landmarks. (3) Class 3 segments: 100 

feet on each side of trail segments and within a 100-foot radius of gravesites and 

landmarks. Crossings at right angles to trails could be permitted on a case-bycase basis. This could require boring beneath the trail trace. (see Glossary for 

definitions of NHT and Class Segments).”

The indicative roads show new access roads would be needed within 0.25 mile of 

Class 1 segments of NHTs (four locations for Alternative 4A and one location for 

Alternative 4F).

“Decision 6008 – Historic Trails – Utility corridors are not designated where they 

are in conflict with NHT’s management objectives. High-voltage powerline 

corridors are established north of and parallel to I-80, and along Wyoming SH 89 

from the junction of I-80 and the Wyoming state line.

Decision 6051 – VRM Class II areas – A visual corridor extending up to 1 mile 

on either side of the Sublette Cutoff and the Slate Creek Cut-off north of U.S. 

Highway 189 and east of Slate Creek Ridge in consideration of NHT views. The 

northwest portion of the Planning Area...”

Decision 6053 – VRM – Preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of the sites listed 

below, where the visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of 

the site, by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character 

of the landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract 

from the feeling or sense of the historic time period of the site. ROW will be 

designed to preserve the visual integrity of the sites consistent with BLM visual 

resources handbook/manual. The management action is intended to manage 

developments to maintain setting qualities and not to have an exclusion zone. 

o Emigrant Spring/Dempsey (11 acres) 

o Alfred Corum and Nancy Hill emigrant gravesites (1⁄2 acre)

Decision 6054 – VRM – manage the viewsheds of NHT segments as follows: 

(1)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of Class 1 segments north and east 

of U.S. Highway 30 and west of the Hams Fork river (Tunp/Dempsey Trail area), 

where the visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the 

site, by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of 

the landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from 

the feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to 

preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the BLM visual 

resources handbook and manual. 

(1)(b) Preserve the viewshed within 1 mile of Class I segments outside of the 

Tunp/Dempsey Trail area and the checkerboard land pattern area, where the 

visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the site, by 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-18

Plan Amendments 

managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of the 

landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from the 

feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to 

preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the BLM visual 

resources handbook and manual. 

(1)(c) On Class 1 trail segments within the checkerboard land pattern area, 

manage the viewshed to preserve the existing character of the landscape within

the federal section where the trail occurs. 

(2)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 1⁄2 mile of Class 2 segments that exist in 

blocked federal lands west of U.S. Highway 189 (south of Kemmerer) and south 

of U.S. Highway 30 by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing 

character of the landscape so developments do not attract the attention of the 

casual observer.

(2)(b) On Class 2 trail segments outside of the area described in (2)(a) manage 

the viewshed to preserve the existing character of the landscape within the 

federal section where the trail occurs.

Decision 7014 – Rock Creek/Tunp Special Designations – Manage the Rock 

Creek/Tunp area of significant resource concern with the objective of preserving 

and enhancing the critical wildlife habitats and cultural values that occur within 

the area. Restrict all new ROW actions to existing disturbance zones. No net 

loss of habitat function allowed from any construction activity within the 

boundaries of the management area. Manage NHTs and sites settings and all 

surface disturbing activities to retain the existing character of the landscape in 

federal sections so developments do not dominate settings to detract from the 

feeling or sense of the historic period of use.”

3.4.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

Proposed Route: The Kemmerer subsegment of Segment 4 of the Proposed Route 

extends approximately 96 miles from the vicinity of Seedskadee NWR to the 

Wyoming/Idaho border east of Bear Lake. The Proposed Route crosses the eastern 

boundary of the area managed under the Kemmerer RMP approximately 12 miles north 

of Highway 30 in Section 25, T. 20 N., R. 111 W. The route proceeds northwest to a 

point west of Fontenelle Reservoir where it turns west. The route proceeds in a 

generally westerly direction to the state border, the western boundary of the area 

managed under Kemmerer RMP. Resource issues include sage-grouse leks and core 

areas, Class I and II NHTs, VRM Class II lands, Special Management Areas (SMAs), 

the Slate Creek big game winter range area, and the Cokeville Meadows NWR. In 

addition, portions of the Proposed Route cross lands with wilderness characteristics.

Alternative 4A: This 85.2-mile-long alternative route separates from the Proposed 

Route at MP 68, 2 miles from the eastern boundary of the Kemmerer Planning Area. 

Alternative 4A follows existing transmission lines except for two short deviations in the 

vicinity of the two U.S. Highway 30/State Route (SR) 89 crossings. As a result, this 

route requires 13.0 miles of new ROW. Although this route maximizes paralleling of the 

existing 345-kV route, minimizes new ROW requirements, and affects the least amount 

of sage-grouse core area, it crosses more Class 1 and 2 NHTs, VRM Class II area, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-19

Plan Amendments 

crosses the Rock Creek/Tunp Special Designations area and the Rock Creek big game 

winter range area, is subject to Special Status Plant restrictions, and crosses a BLMdesignated SMA. This alternative was specifically requested by the Office of the 

Governor of Wyoming2 for detailed analysis.

Alternative 4B: This 100.2-mile-long alternative is based on the route alternative 

originally proposed by the BLM Kemmerer FO. Concerns about that alternative voiced 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) were used to modify this alternative to change the crossing of the Cokeville 

Meadows NWR and avoid higher-quality wildlife habitats to the south. The route would 

depart from the Proposed Route at MP 52, near the Seedskadee NWR and proceed in 

a generally westerly direction, crossing active trona mines to the area south of the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 30/SR 89 south of Kemmerer. The alternative would 

proceed north and then west, close to U.S. Highway 30/SR 89 and would pass close to 

the entrance to Fossil Butte National Monument. It would cross a small portion of a 

BLM-designated SRMA. Once across the Cokeville Meadows NWR, this route 

continues north for 16.0 miles, generally following the east side of the Wyoming/Utah 

and then the Wyoming/Idaho state lines. Alternative 4B angles northwest across the 

state line into Idaho north of Garret Creek. This route crosses Class II and III NHTs.

Alternative 4C: This 101.6-mile-long alternative is co-located with Alternative 4B to 

Section 30, T. 21 W., R. 118 W. where it turns west and then north, parallel to the east 

side of U.S. Highway 30/SR 89 and Cokeville Meadows NWR for 11.5 miles before 

turning northwest and crossing the highway and the NWR. The route turns north along 

the Idaho/Wyoming border for about 3.0 miles and then turns northwest across the state 

line. This alternative route would cross the NWR north of current NWR-managed lands, 

although still within the established boundary, the Bridger Creek and Rock Creek big 

game winter range, Class II VRM, the Bear River Divide and Rock Creek/Tunp Special 

Designations areas, and it would also cross portions of a BLM-designated SRMA along 

U.S. Highway 30/SR 89. This route crosses Class 3 NHTs. In addition, this route would 

be subject to Special Status Plant restrictions.

Alternative 4D: This 100.8-mile-long alternative is the same as Alternative 4B except 

within T. 21 N., R. 120 W. It varies in this area to increase the distance between the 

route and the Fossil Butte National Monument. Alternative 4D would be farther to the 

south. This alternative was requested by the manager of the Fossil Butte National 

Monument to reduce the visibility of the proposed transmission line as viewed from the 

monument. From point 4b.5 it would follow the same alignment as Alternative 4B and 

rejoin the Proposed Route at point 4j. This alternative route would cross Bridger Creek 

big game winter range and Class 3 NHTs. In addition, portions of the route cross lands 

that may have wilderness characteristics.

Alternative 4E: This 102.2-mile-long alternative is the same as Alternative 4D to point 

4b.6. From point 4b.6 this alternative would turn north and follow the same alignment 

as Alternative 4C. This alternative route would cross Bridger Creek big game winter 

 

2 Office of the Governor of Wyoming. 2009. Letter to W. George, BLM, from A. Clark, Special Advisor to the 

Governor, concerning Gateway West Segment 4 NEPA alternatives. July 14.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-20

Plan Amendments 

range and crosses Class 3 NHTs. The portion of the route shared with Alternative 4D 

crosses lands that may have wilderness characteristics.

Alternative 4F: This 87.5-mile-long alternative was originally identified by the 

Proponents. However, over the course of several agency scoping meetings the 

Proposed Route was identified as having fewer impacts. The Proponents have adopted 

the suggested route and requested that the original route segment be carried through 

detailed analysis as a feasible alternative. Alternative 4F diverges from Alternative 4A 

(which follows an existing transmission line) at MP 512 of Alternative 4A. Alternative 4A 

continues to the south, following the existing transmission lines, while Alternative 4F 

stays slightly north of Alternative 4A, passing just south of Viva Naughton Reservoir. 

The route then turns north for about 5 miles, then back to the northwest for about 12 

miles before rejoining the Proposed Route at MP 129.4. This alternative route crosses 

the Rock Creek big game winter range, Class 1 and 2 NHTs, Dempsey Ridge SRMA, 

and Class II VRM. 

Structure Variation Alternative: In addition to the proposed self-supporting singlecircuit steel lattice 500-kV structure, the Proponents are considering an alternative 

single-circuit 500-kV guyed structure for use where terrain, land cover, and land use 

allow. Typically, four guy wires about 140 feet long would be connected to the tower at 

a point about 100 feet up in each tower to four guy anchors spaced in a square around 

the tower (Appendix B, Figure B-6). The four guy wires are typically one inch in 

diameter and attached to 15-inch helical screw anchors, “screwed” into the ground.

3.4.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Kemmerer RMP

NHT Protection

The Kemmerer RMP protects NHTs. New access roads would occur within 0.25 mile of 

Class 1 segments (four locations on Alternative 4A and one location on 4F). The 

amended decision would read (new text in italics):

Decision #5010: National Historic Trails Physical Protection.

“Protect the physical evidence of NHTs designated under the national trails 

system act (routes and traces, grades, campsites, landmarks) that exists on 

lands within federal jurisdiction by prohibiting whole surface disturbing activities 

that do not benefit the preservation and or interpretation of trails within the 

following distances: 

Class I segments: 1/4 mile on each side of trails segments and within 1/4 mile 

radius of gravesites and landmarks... Crossings at right angles to trails could 

be permitted on a case-by-case basis.”

The following amendment would be needed if one of these alternatives is approved: 

Proposed Route: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project to 

cross the Dempsey Hockaday NHT in section 32, T 24 N, R 117 W 

Alternative 4A: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project to cross 

the Sublette NHT in section 11, T 23 N, R 118 W
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-21

Plan Amendments 

Alternative 4F: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project to cross 

the Sublette NHT in section 12, T 23 N, R 114 W.

Mitigation: Trails would be crossed at, or close to, right angles. Towers would be placed 

as far from the trail as feasible, or micro-sited to reduce visibility. No disturbance to trail 

traces permitted. Additional mitigation to be determined through the Section 106 

process.

Utility Corridors

The Kemmerer RMP has guidelines for protecting NHTs when designating utility 

corridors. While it was determined that this decision did not constitute a requirement for 

an amendment, the FO recommended amending the decision for the designation of a 

utility corridor if either Alternative 4B or 4D is approved 

Decision #6008: Utility Corridors Prohibited Across NHTs.

“Utility corridors are not designated, where they are in conflict with NHT's 

management objectives.”

An amendment is not required for any of the routes to be approved; however, the FO 

recommends designating a corridor for future utility placement if either Alternative 4B or 

4D is approved:

Designate a utility corridor 1 mile in width, generally centered on the 

transmission line if either Alternative Route 4B or 4D is selected. 

Visual Resource Management

The Kemmerer RMP Decisions 6051, 6053, and 6054 protect visual resources and 

determine visual management objectives for VRM Class II areas and Historic Trails and 

Places. These decisions would be rewritten to allow the development of this project. 

The Proposed Route and Alternatives 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 4F cross land mapped 

as VRM Class I. The transmission line would not be consistent with this VRM class. 

Decision #6051: VRM Class II Designations

“VRM Class II areas:

A visual corridor extending up to 1 mile on either side of the Sublette Cutoff and 

the Slate Creek Cutoff north of U.S. Highway 189 and east of Slate Creek 

Ridge in consideration of NHT views. The northwest portion of the planning 

area....”

The following amendments would be needed if one of these alternatives is approved: 

Proposed Route: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project 

without changing the VRM class for areas affected by the route.

Alternative 4A: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project without 

changing the VRM class for areas affected by the route.

Alternatives 4B, 4D: Reclassify the VRM Class designation to VRM Class III in 

the portion of the planning area south and west of U.S. highway 30 (the 

highway) beginning on a north-south line along the high ridgeline approximately 

1⁄4 mile west of the current active coal leases (west of the town of Kemmerer); 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-22

Plan Amendments 

south along the high ridgeline to the ridgeline behind the active coal leases in 

T21N, R117W, Sec 25; then west following the high points of the topography 

approximately 3 miles south of the highway to T21N, R118W, Sec 28; then 

north-west following the high points of the topography within approximately 3 

miles of the highway to T21N, R118 W, Sec 18; then north-west following the 

high points to within approximately 1⁄2 mile of the highway in T21N, R118W, Sec 

12; then west to the junction of U.S. Highway 30/State Highway 89.

Alternative routes 4C, 4E: Reclassify the VRM Class designation to VRM Class 

III in the portion of the planning area south and west of U.S. highway 30 (the 

highway) beginning on a north-south line along the high ridgeline approximately 

1⁄4 mile west of the current active coal leases (west of the town of Kemmerer); 

south along the high ridgeline to the ridgeline behind the active coal leases in 

T21N, R117W, Sec 25; then west following the high points of the topography 

approximately 3 miles south of the highway to T21N, R118W, Sec 28; then 

north-west following the high points of the topography within approximately 3 

miles of the highway to T21N, R118 W, Sec 18; then north-west following the 

high points to within approximately 1⁄2 mile of the highway in T21N, R118W, Sec 

12; then west to the junction of U.S. Highway 30/State Highway 89. For routing 

north and east of highway 30/State Highway 89, permit a one-time allowance 

for Gateway West Project without changing the VRM class for areas affected by 

the route.

Alternative 4F: Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project without 

changing the VRM class for areas affected by the route.

Mitigation: Where the route would be visible on timbered slopes, limit tree to those 

portions of the right-of-way where it is required for safety rather in order to avoid 

creating a linear feature on the landscape. Vegetation removal requirements will 

consider Appendix A, Key Standards Relating to Electric System Reliability and Safety,

of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Edison Electric Institute (2006)3

.

In specific sensitive areas (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas 

near NHTs), the access road used for construction will be restored and an alternative 

access route for operations designated.

Mitigation for NHT crossings will be determined through the 106 process. These 

measures may include micrositing to place the line behind topographic features, 

replacing insulators with new ones made of non-reflective materials, and replacing 

conductors using non-specular wire to reduce visibility from Key Observation Points 

(KOPs) in highly visible places. This mitigation measure would be implemented once 

the Gateway West lines are operational. These mitigation measures would be 

especially pertinent where the new transmission line is visible from NHTs in the 

locations listed below (depending on the selected route). 

 

3 Edison Electric Institute. 2006. Memorandum of Understanding Among the Edison Electric Institute and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Fish 

and Wildlife Service National Park Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: 

http://www.ivmpartners.org/eei_mou.pdf.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-23

Plan Amendments 

Proposed Route: (1) Within view of Class 1 segment of Sublette NHT in the 

valley and on the south side of Fontenelle Creek; and (2) Within view of two 

variants of Class 2 Slate Creek NHT west of Fontenelle Townsite.

Alternative 4A: (1) Within view of White Hill on Class 1 Sublette NHT on the 

west side of the Hams Fork River valley, where the routes would create a visual 

impact where they are co-located on top of Commissary Ridge and where they 

cross the valley; (2) Within view of the Class 1 Sublette NHT on top of 

Dempsey, Tunp, Rock Creek & Stoffer Ridges, in Rock Creek Valley, and in 

Sublette Flats where the route would create a dominant visual impact where it 

crosses the ridges. Where structures are proposed in deeply incised valleys 

not dominantly visible from the trail, special design characteristics would not be 

required; and (3) Within view of three variants of Class 2 Sublette NHT in 

T23N, R116W, federal Sections 32 (all) and 33 (S1⁄2).

Alternative 4F: (1) Within view of White Hill on Class 1 Sublette NHT on the 

west side of the Hams Fork River valley, where the Route 4F would create a 

visual impact where they are co-located on top of Commissary Ridge and 

where it crosses the valley; (2) Within view of the Class 1 Sublette NHT on top 

of Dempsey and Rock Creek Ridges and Tunp Range, and in Sublette Flats 

where the route would create a dominant visual impact where it crosses the 

ridges. Where structures are proposed in deeply incised valleys not dominantly 

visible from the trail, special design characteristics would not be required; (3) 

Within view of the Class 1 Dempsey-Hockaday NHT in Dempsey Basin where 

the route would create a dominant visual impact, especially at the crest of the 

Hams Fork Plateau; and (4) Within view of three variants of Class 2 Sublette 

NHT in T23N, R116W, federal Sections 32 (all) and 33 (S1⁄2), where co-located 

with Route 4A.

The Proposed Route would cross within 3 miles of designated National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) sites and thus may impact the ability to preserve their

viewsheds. 

Decision # 6053: Designated National Register Sites Viewshed 

Preservation

“Preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of the sites listed below, where the 

visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the site, by 

managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of the 

landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from the 

feeling or sense of the historic time period of the site. ROW will be designed to 

preserve the visual integrity of the sites consistent with BLM visual resources 

handbook/manual. The management action is intended to manage 

developments to maintain setting qualities and not to have an exclusion 

zone....”

The following amendment would be needed if the Proposed Route is approved: 

Permit a one-time allowance for Gateway West Project if micro-siting cannot 

reduce impacts to a level that meets the RMP Decision requirements. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-24

Plan Amendments 

Mitigation to be determined through the 106 process.

The Proposed Route, Alternative 4A, or Alternative 4F would be within 3 miles of NHTs

and thus could have an impact on the ability to manage Class 1 and Class 2 NHT 

segment viewsheds as described in the Kemmerer RMP.

Decision # 6054: Class 1 & 2 NHT Viewshed Preservation

“Manage the viewsheds of NHT segments as follows:

(1)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of Class 1 segments north and east 

of U.S. Highway 30 and west of the Hams Fork river (Tunp/Dempsey Trail 

area), where the visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility 

of the site, by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing 

character of the landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to 

detract from the feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. 

Design ROW to preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the 

BLM visual resources handbook and manual. 

(1)(b) Preserve the viewshed within 1 mile of Class 1 segments outside of the 

Tunp/Dempsey Trail area and the checkerboard land pattern area, where the 

visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the site, by 

managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of the 

landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from the 

feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to 

preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the BLM visual 

resources handbook and manual....

(2)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 1⁄2 mile of Class 2 segments that exist in 

blocked federal lands west of U.S. Highway 189 (south of Kemmerer) and 

south of U.S. Highway 30 by managing projects in federal sections to retain the 

existing character of the landscape so developments do not attract the attention 

of the casual observer.

(2)(b) On Class 2 trail segments outside of the area described in (2)(a) manage 

the viewshed to preserve the existing character of the landscape within the 

federal section where the trail occurs.

(2)(c) On Class 3 segments, manage the viewshed according to the appropriate VRM 

class for the area.”

The following amendment would be needed if the Proposed Route, Alternative 4A, or 

Alternative 4F is approved: 

Permit a one-time allowance for the Gateway West Project where it would 

otherwise be in conflict with the historic viewshed preservation management 

actions. Micro-siting and mitigation measures would be required to minimize 

visual impacts to affected historic sites and trail segments.

Mitigation to be determined through the 106 process.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-25

Plan Amendments 

Special Management Areas

Alternatives 4A, 4C, and 4E would cross the Rock Creek/Tunp area of significant 

resource concern. This area currently restricts new ROWs and surface-disturbing 

activities to protect the natural and historic character of the area.

Decision # 7014: Special Management Areas

“Manage the Rock Creek/Tunp area of significant resource concern with the 

objective of preserving and enhancing the critical wildlife habitats and cultural 

values that occur within the area.

• Restrict all new ROW actions to existing disturbance zones.

• No net loss of habitat function allowed from any construction activity within 

the boundaries of the management area. Successful re-establishment or 

improvement of habitats could offset any new disturbance areas.

• Pursue opportunities to reclaim existing roads not necessary to attain 

management objectives.

• Restrict OHV use to existing roads and trails. No off-trail travel is allowed 

without prior approval from the authorized officer.

• Manage NHTs and sites, settings, and all surface-disturbing activities to 

retain the existing character of the landscape in federal sections so 

developments do not dominate settings to detract from the feeling or 

sense of the historic period of use.....”

The following amendment would be needed if Alternative 4A, 4C, or 4E is approved: 

Permit a one-time allowance for the Gateway West Project where it would 

otherwise be in conflict with the management objectives of Decision 7014.

Micro-siting and mitigation measures would be required to minimize impact to 

affected areas and resources.

Mitigation: Where the route would be visible on timbered slopes, limit tree to those 

portions of the right-of-way where it is required for safety in order to avoid creating a 

linear feature on the landscape. Vegetation removal requirements will consider 

Appendix A, Key Standards Relating to Electric System Reliability and Safety, of the 

Memorandum of Understanding with the Edison Electric Institute (2006).

In specific sensitive areas (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas 

near NHTs) the access road used for construction will be restored and an alternative 

access route for operations designated.

Consider micrositing to place the transmission line behind topographic features to 

reduce visibility from sensitive areas, replacing insulators on the Bridger Powerlines with 

new ones made of non-reflective materials, and replacing conductors on the Bridger 

Powerlines using non-specular wire to minimize their visibility from KOPs in highly 

visible places. This mitigation measure would be implemented once the Project lines are 

operational. This mitigation measure would apply where the selected route is in conflict 

with NHT viewshed requirements. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-26

Plan Amendments 

Mitigation for sage-grouse will be determined by the USFWS. This may include 

measures such as: modifying fences within one mile of the transmission line with 

FireFly Grouse Flight diverters or other similar fence diverters to prevent sage-grouse 

mortalities and implementing site-specific reclamation such as transplanting sagebrush 

seedlings in sage-grouse habitat. 

Additional mitigation to be determined through the 106 process.

3.4.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3 for effects on 

special status plant species, Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; 

Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status wildlife species; and Section 

3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

These amendments would impact the ability to meet the RMP objectives of preserving 

historic sites and viewsheds. A one-time allowance permits the construction of an 

otherwise contradictory use for management goals. The presence of a high-power 

transmission line within view of NHTs and historic sites would adversely affect visitor 

experiences and historic character of the landscape. Mitigation measures such as use 

of non-reflective materials and micrositing would aim to reduce the impact of the Project 

on trail users. The transmission line would cross the NHT, and thus would impact the 

historic character of place at the crossing location. Mitigation and micrositing would be 

used to limit this impact; however, at the crossing location, Project components would 

be visible to users of the trail. 

Allowing the Project to cross the Rock Creek/Tunp area of significant resource concern 

could have impacts on the resources this area was designated to protect. The presence 

of Project components could directly impact sage-grouse by disturbing habitat and 

mortality through collision with project structures. Mitigation measures such as 

implementing site-specific reclamation for improving sage-grouse habitat and modifying 

fences with flight diverters would be implemented to reduce Project impacts to sagegrouse in these areas. Impacts to cultural and historic resources could be partly 

mitigated by micro-siting tower placement to minimize impacts to sensitive areas. 

Additional mitigations could include replacing insulators and conductors on the Bridger 

Powerline to reduce the current impacts of the existing powerline and thus mitigate for 

the additional impacts of an additional powerline in the same area. The Project 

components would be composed of non-reflective materials.

Land clearance for ROWs would result in loss of forest cover, increased fragmentation 

and edge habitat; which would impact wildlife by changing the ratio of cover to open 

space. Loss of nesting and perching habitat would occur as well as cover from 

predators. These effects on wildlife are further discussed in Sections 3.10 and 3.11 of 

the Draft EIS.

In areas where the VRM class is changed from Class II to Class III, an amendment 

would result in the area being managed at a lower protection level. Amending the RMP 

to lower the VRM classification may encourage additional development in the area. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-27

Plan Amendments 

Allowing the construction of a transmission line under a one-time allowance without 

changing the VRM class would affect the ability to meet VRM Class II management 

goals for the area; however, maintaining VRM Class II provides protection from 

additional development. Future projects would be required to go through an 

amendment process. 

Approving an amendment to create an east/west corridor across the FO (which is 

proposed if either Alternative 4B or 4D is selected) would encourage additional 

development in that corridor (and away from other areas). 

Mitigation measures for the Proposed Project are included in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS

and address many of the impacts incurred by construction and maintenance of the 

powerline. 

3.5 Malad MFP Amendment

Decisions recorded in the Malad MFP (1981) guide actions that occur within its Planning 

Area on lands managed by the Pocatello FO, including the granting of ROW under Title 

V of the FLPMA. The MFP confines new ROWs to existing utility corridors and protects 

scenic and cultural resources. Portions of the Project are proposed outside of existing 

utility corridors and the Project would impact scenic resources; thus, the proposed 

Project does not conform to the MFP and an amendment would be needed to allow 

construction of the Proposed Route or an alternative in their current alignment.4

3.5.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Malad MFP 

Approximately 42 miles of Segment 5 is within the Malad MFP Planning Area, 10 miles 

of which cross BLM-managed land. Approximately 36 miles of Segment 7 is within the 

Malad MFP Planning Area, 7 miles crossing BLM-managed land. Alternatives 5A (10.4 

miles), 5B (9 miles), 7A (7 miles), 7B (7.5 miles), and the joint 7H and 7I (6.5 miles) 

routes all cross the BLM-managed lands of the Malad MFP. While Alternatives 5C, 5D, 

and 5E cross this area as well, they do not cross through BLM-administered lands 

within the Malad MFP. 

The location of the Proposed Route was identified to comply with WECC requirements 

and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. These resources 

include, but are not limited to, TES species, sensitive lands, cultural resources, and 

visual resources.

Because the Project is not consistent with the Malad MFP, land use plan amendments 

would be needed if the Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7 or Alternatives 7A, 7B, 

5A, or 5B are selected. Segments 5 and 7 as well as Alternatives 7a, 7B, 5A, and 5B 

would all require an amendment for ROW allowance. Segment 5 crosses 2 miles of 

VRM Class II and 2.8 miles of VRM Class III land and would not be consistent with the 

visual management goals for these parcels. Segment 7 crosses 1.3 miles VRM II and 

2.9 miles VRM Class III land and would not be consistent with the visual management 

goals for these parcels. The remaining alternatives located within the Malad MFP 

 

4 The Pocatello FO is in the process of preparing a new RMP; if approved, it would replace the Malad MFP. The 

ROW restriction is not carried forward in the proposed RMP; however, until a new RMP is approved, the 

management direction in the 1981 Malad MFP applies.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-28

Plan Amendments 

boundary are either not located on BLM-administered lands, or would not require a plan 

amendment. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to consider 

plan amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Malad MFP management objective L.2 for new utilities emphasizes the following: 

“Future major utilities will be routed across public lands within the corridor 

systems as located.” 

The Malad MFP management objective for Visual Resources emphasizes the following:

“Specific development proposals will be allowed, located and designed in 

accordance with the existing VRM class restrictions with emphasis on Class I 

areas.” 

The Malad MFP management objective for Cultural Resources emphasizes the 

following:

“Establish a protective corridor of 330 feet on visible segments of the Hudspeth 

Cutoff Trail. Continue adequate stipulation on permits, leases etc. to protect the 

trail.” 

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to 1) allow ROW utilities outside existing 

corridors, 2) modify the VRM class objectives, and 3) modify protections of historic 

trails. The amendments would allow the Project to conform to the Malad MFP. 

3.5.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Proposed Routes along Segments 5 and 7 as well as Alternatives 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 

5E, 7A, 7B, 7H, and 7I cross through the Malad MFP (however, Alternatives 5C, 5D, 

and 5E do not cross through BLM-administered lands within the Malad MFP). The 

Proposed Route along Segment 5 includes one 54.6-mile-long (approximately 42 miles 

of which is within the Malad MFP Planning Area, 10 miles crossing BLM land) singlecircuit 500-kV transmission line between the Populus Substation and the Borah 

Substation, located southwest of American Falls, Idaho. The transmission lines would 

be constructed utilizing 500-kV single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 

feet tall and would cross BLM-managed land covered by the Malad Hills MFP. The 

Proposed Route along Segment 7 includes one 118.1-mile-long (approximately 36 miles 

of which is within the Malad MFP Planning Area, 7 miles crossing BLM managed land) 

single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the Populus Substation and the Cedar 

Hills Substation near the county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho. 

Several alternative segments were considered. The Proposed Route and the Route 

Alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for 

considering these routes. Appendix A, Figures A-7 and A-9 of the Draft EIS shows the 

Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segments 5 and 7, respectively.

As stated earlier, only Segments 5 (10 miles) and 7 (7 miles) of the Proposed Route 

and Alternatives 5A (10.4 miles), 5B (9 miles), 7A (7 miles), 7B (6.5 miles), 7H, and 7I 

cross through BLM-administered lands within the Malad MFP. The Proposed Route 

along Segment 5 enters lands managed by the Malad MFP west of Robin. This route 

proceeds in a westerly direction through the Deep Creek Mountains and then turns 

north towards Borah Substation. Alternatives 5A and 5B are located roughly parallel to 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-29

Plan Amendments 

and south of the Proposed Route through the Deep Creek Mountains. These 

alternatives impact more private land but avoid high-quality forested habitat and VRM 

Class II lands. 

The Proposed Route along Segment 7 parallels Segment 5 from the eastern boundary 

of lands within the Malad planning area through the Deep Creek Mountains. Segment 7 

then continues in a westerly direction and leaves the Malad planning area between 

Rockland and Heglar’s Canyon. Alternatives 7A and 7B parallel Alternatives 5A and 5B 

through the Deep Creek Mountains prior to turning in a northwesterly direction towards 

their interception with Proposed Route along Segment 7. Alternatives 7I and 7J were 

proposed by the Southern Idaho Task Force to avoid private agricultural lands that 

would be impacted along the Proposed Route, while Alternative 7H was proposed by 

the Proponents to avoid the natural resources that would be impacted by Alternative 7I 

(although 7H, 7I, and 7J cross approximately 5 miles of BLM-administered lands within 

the Malad planning area, no plan amendments would be needed for these routes).

3.5.3 Proposed Plan Amendments to the Malad MFP

The Proposed Routes along Segment 5 and Segment 7, as well as Alternatives 5A, 5B, 

7A, and 7B, would require a plan amendment to the Malad MFP, depending on which 

routes, if any, are selected, to grant a ROW for the Project across lands managed by 

the Pocatello FO. 

The Malad MFP limits new ROW to existing corridors; therefore, an amendment would 

be needed for Segments 5 and 7 of the Proposed Route, as well as Alternatives 5A, 5B, 

7A, or 7B. This decision would be rewritten to allow development of this Project. The 

amended decision (changes in italics) for the ROW would read:

“Future major utilities will be routed across public lands within the corridor 

systems as located, except allow the Gateway West Transmission Line Project.”

The Malad MFP provides protection for VRM classification, with special emphasis on 

Class I areas. This protection would be rewritten to allow development of this Project. 

Segments 5 and 7 of the Proposed Route cross areas classified as VRM Class II and 

VRM Class III where the pipeline would not be consistent with the VRM objectives for 

these classes. Segment 5 also crosses a VRM Class II parcel adjacent to the Snake 

River; however, analysis by showed that the area that would be crossed is inundated, 

and thus the Pocatello FO determined no amendment would be needed. The amended 

MFP decision (changes in italics) for the ROW would read: 

“Specific development proposals will be allowed, located and designed in 

accordance with the existing VRM class restrictions with emphasis on Class I 

areas with the following changes. The Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

will be permitted as a one-time allowance without changing the VRM Class II 

designation for AOI M-1 and Class III designation for AOI M-3.”

Proposed Routes along Segments 5 and 7, as well as Alternatives 5A and 7A, may 

require an amendment to MFP objectives that protect cultural/scenic resources. This 

protection would be rewritten to allow development of this Project. The amended MFP 

decision (changes in italics) for the ROW would read: 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-30

Plan Amendments 

“Establish a protective corridor of 330 feet on visible segments of the Hudspeth 

Cutoff Trail. Continue adequate stipulation on permits, leases etc. to protect the 

trail, except allow the Gateway West Transmission Line Project.” 

3.5.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3 for effects on 

special status plant species; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; 

Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status wildlife species; and Section 

3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

These amendments may impact the ability to meet management objectives. Allowing 

additional utility corridors would result in impacts to the resources outside of those 

designated areas. These include impacts to wildlife, vegetation, soils, water, and 

cultural and visual resources. 

The Proposed and Alternative Routes would cross big game crucial winter range for 

deer, and Alternative 5C would cross crucial winter range for elk. A bald eagle nest 

would be within 1 mile of Segment 5 of the Proposed Route and Alternative 5C. Steep 

terrain would mean a high risk of soil erosion during construction activities for portions 

of the route through this area. Proposed Route 5 would come within 1 mile of the Bowen 

Canyon Bald Eagle Sanctuary, resulting in the potential for indirect effects due to noise 

and dust disturbance. Stream crossings could result in increased sedimentation in 

rivers during construction and extreme events which could affect spawning and rearing 

success for aquatic organisms downstream.

Amending the VRM classification to allow the Project would result in a disruption of the 

scenic quality in the parcels crossed. Views of the Deep Creek Mountains, the Snake 

River, and views from the Arbon Valley would all be affected by this amendment. The 

transmission line would be visible and in contrast to the scenic quality of the 

surrounding landscape. Recreational users at beaches and boating areas around 

American Falls Reservoir, and Massacre Rocks State Park would be affected due to 

additional human-made intrusions on scenic views (a large pipeline bridge crosses the 

river 200 yards east of the proposed transmission line crossing), while the presence of 

the transmission lines could affect the historic surroundings for visitors to the Oregon 

NHT.

While construction of a powerline under one-time allowance without changing the VRM 

class would affect the ability to meet the MFP objectives, it would maintain existing 

restrictions on additional development. Future projects would be required to go through 

an amendment process and additional impacts would be analyzed.

3.6 Cassia RMP Amendment

The Cassia RMP, approved on January 24, 1985, guides actions that occur on lands 

managed by the Burley FO south of the Snake River in south-central Idaho. These

actions include the granting of ROW under Title V of the FLPMA. The RMP limits new 

ROW to existing facilities/localities within Management Area 11 (Cotterel Mountain). 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-31

Plan Amendments 

Management objectives have also been developed for scenic resources in the Goose 

Creek Travel Zone and VRM Class objectives; thus, the proposed Project is not 

consistent with the Cassia RMP. 

3.6.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Cassia RMP 

Approximately 70 miles of Segment 7 of the Proposed Route would be within the Cassia 

RMP Planning Area, 7.5 miles of which would cross BLM-managed land. Alternative 7E 

crosses approximately 1.9 miles of BLM-managed land. Approximately 80 miles of 

Alternative 7H (38 miles on BLM-managed land) and 73 miles of Alternatives 7I and 7J

(43 miles on BLM-managed land within the Cassia FO) would cross the Cassia RMP 

Planning Area. The Project’s Proposed Route and Route Alternatives would cross 

through multiple Management Areas designated by the Cassia RMP, including 

Management Areas 2 through 13. Because Segment 7 of the Proposed Route and 

Alternatives 7E, 7H, 7I, and 7J are not in conformance with the direction provided in the 

Cassia RMP, the plan would need to be amended if any of these routes is selected. 

The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to consider plan 

amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Cassia RMP management direction for Management Area 11 (which encompasses 

the Cotterel Mountain range), includes the following: 

“Limit rights-of-way (ROWs) to existing facilities/localities;”

The Cassia RMP management direction for Management Areas 3, 4, and 12 includes 

the following management objectives:

“Preserve scenic values in the Goose Creek Travel Zone (within one-half mile of 

the Goose Creek Road between Wilson Pass and the Utah border).”

The RMP states that the “consideration of scenic values will be included in the analysis 

of all activities involving alteration of the natural character of the landscape. The degree 

of alteration allowed is determined through an inventory process which results in the 

classification of all public lands into one of five Visual Resource Management classes, 

each class allowing for a different degree of modification.” The Project is inconsistent 

with VRM objectives in four areas depending on the route selected. Alternative 7H 

crosses VRM Class II and III areas, an isolated parcel managed as VRM Class II is 

crossed by the Alternative 7E, and VRM Class II and III areas within the Goose Creek 

Travel Zone are crossed by Alternatives 7I and 7J.

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to 1) modify the ROW restriction in 

Management Area 11, 2) modify limitations for the Goose Creek scenic area, and 3) 

change the visual resource classification for areas associated with the transmission line. 

These modifications would allow the Project to be consistent with the Cassia RMP.

3.6.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Proposed Route includes one 118.1-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV transmission 

line between the Populus Substation and the proposed Cedar Hill Substation near the 

county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho. The transmission line 

would be constructed utilizing 500-kV single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 

180 feet tall and would cross several parcels of BLM-managed land covered by the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-32

Plan Amendments 

Cassia RMP. Several alternative segments were considered. The Proposed Route and 

Route Alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons 

for considering these routes. Appendix A, Figure A-9 of the Draft EIS shows the 

Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segment 7.

No east/west utility corridors cross the Cassia Planning Area. The Proposed Route 

crosses the eastern boundary of the Planning Area in Section 12, T.10 S., R. 29 E. and 

follows a generally westward route to the Cedar Hill Substation near the northwest 

corner of the Planning Area. Alternative 7H crosses the eastern boundary of the Cassia 

Planning Area in Section 26, T.13 S., R. 29 E. and proceeds westward and then turns 

northwest near the city of Oakley and joining the Proposed Route near MP 112, east of 

the Cedar Hill Substation. Alternative 7I leaves the 7H route in section 36, T. 13 S., R. 

27. E and proceeds southwest and then west until entering Nevada near the southeast 

corner of the Cassia Division of the Sawtooth NF. Alternative 7E is a 4.5-mile 

alternative to a portion of Segment 7 of the Proposed Route in the Water Canyon area. 

Alternatives 7C, 7D, 7F, and 7G are also variations to portions of the Proposed Route.

3.6.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Cassia RMP 

The Cassia RMP limits ROWs to existing facilities and locations within Management 

Area 11. This limitation would be amended to allow development of this Project. The 

amended RMP decision (changes in italics) for the ROW located within Management 

Area 11 would read: 

“Limit rights-of-way to existing facilities/localities, permit the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project.”

Alternative 7I or 7J, if selected, would require a plan amendment that would change the 

RMP decision in item H of the Resource Management Objectives on page 17 of the 

Cassia RMP. Alternatives 7I and 7J would cross approximately 348 feet mapped as 

VRM Class II and approximately 1,241 feet mapped as Class III in the Goose Creek 

Travel Zone. The transmission line would not in conformance with these VRM classes 

in these two areas. The proposed amendment (changes in italics) would read: 

“The area classified as VRM Class II in the Goose Creek Travel Zone (within 

one-half mile of the Goose Creek Road between Wilson Pass and the Utah 

border), will be reclassified as VRM Class III.” 

If either Alternative 7E or 7H is selected, plan amendments to the Cassia RMP would be 

needed. The Cassia RMP protects visual resources. These protections would be 

rewritten to allow the development of this project. Alternative 7E would cross land 

mapped as VRM Class II and Alternative 7H would cross land mapped as VRM Class II 

and III. The amended VRM decision would read (new language in italics): 

For Alternative 7E:

“VRM classes are designated as shown in the Cassia RMP; however areas 

associated with the Gateway West Transmission Line Project will be reclassified 

as follows: 39 acres in the Spring Canyon area (AOI CA-3 in Appendix G-1) from 

VRM II to VRM III. 

For Alternative 7H:
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-33

Plan Amendments 

“VRM classes are designated as shown in the Cassia RMP; however areas 

associated with the Gateway West Transmission Line Project will be reclassified 

as follows: the area north of the ROW (122 acres) in the Jim Sage area ( AOI 

CA-1 in Appendix G-1), and 806 acres Cottonwood Creek area (AOI CA-2 in 

Appendix G-1) from VRM III to VRM IV. 

3.6.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for 

effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections 

3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.3.2 and 

3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

Changing the VRM classes would have direct impacts on the visual resources. In 

addition, if Alternative 7E, 7H, 7I, or 7J is selected, and the proposed amendments to 

the RMP are approved, other transmission lines proposed for this general area could 

choose to follow this same route. These lines could be located adjacent to the Gateway 

West ROWs without further amendment of the RMP, if approved through the NEPA 

process. Therefore, cumulative effects of the amendment could include further impacts 

from additional transmission line construction, including visual impacts as well as 

impacts to wildlife, soils, cultural and vegetation resources. The amendment allowing a 

new ROW outside the existing corridors could result in similar cumulative impacts from 

future development. 

The amendment to the Goose Creek travel zone would remove the scenic protection for 

this area. A transmission line ROW would have a visually altering effect on the scenic 

and historic experience of viewers. Micrositing could be used to limit this impact and 

towers would be constructed outside the 660-foot buffer around the historic trail. 

However, the scenic qualities of mountain ranges and wide expanses would be 

interrupted by the transmission line, were the amendment approved. This would also 

be the case for the Jim Sage, Spring Canyon, and Cottonwood Creek areas.

There are 12 known raptor nests within 1 mile of Segment 7 of the Proposed Route (3 

burrowing owl and 9 ferruginous hawk). Impacts from the Project could include nest 

abandonment and loss of young as well as decreased hunting and breeding success. 

Mitigation measures and appropriate work windows would be implemented to limit these 

impacts. The Project would result in increased fragmentation of habitat, potentially 

impacting movement for animals unwilling to cross barriers such as new roads or the 

presence of overhead structures. Big game habitat would be encountered for the 

proposed and alternative routes. Approximately 5 miles of mule deer crucial winter 

range would be crossed by Proposed Route 7 and 4 miles of winter range would be 

crossed in the Planning Area under Alternative 7H. There are also leks located within 

0.6 mile of the identified routes. Impacts from construction and maintenance include 

direct disturbance, fragmentation, and edge effects, and could result in decreased 

reproductive success.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-34

Plan Amendments 

The area crossed by the Proposed and Alternative Routes contain steep slopes and 

some highly erodible soils. Construction activities such as culvert installation for stream 

crossing, road building, and tower installation have the potential to result in soil loss. 

Mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to 

reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts.

3.7 Twin Falls MFP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Burley FO within the Twin Falls MFP 

Planning Area, including the granting of ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided 

by decisions recorded in the Twin Falls MFP approved in 1982 and the 1989 Salmon 

Falls Creek ACEC designation amendment, 1989. The MFP does not permit 

powerlines to the east or west of the two corridors, and the 1989 amendment restricts 

activities within the designated Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. Segment 9 of the Proposed 

Route and Alternatives 9A, 7I, and 7J do not conform to the Twin Falls MFP. 

Proposed Route 9 would cross the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC and eligible WSR. The 

Twin Falls MFP Amendment (1989) prohibits the crossing of the Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC, The Twin Falls MFP Amendment (1989) for the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC 

emphasizes the following:

“No development in the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC.”

This portion of Salmon Falls Creek is also an eligible WSR (evaluation conducted by the 

Burley District Office in 1992 and finalized in 2009). An MFP amendment could address 

issues with the proposed crossing as they relate to Salmon Falls Creek ACEC by either: 

1) removing the ACEC designation, or 2) changing the management for ROW avoidance.

However, a plan amendment cannot be used to address the issues associated with 

crossing the eligible WSR segment because an amendment cannot 1) remove the 

eligibility determination without doing a full suitability study or 2) remove scenery as one 

of the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) of the segment. Therefore, a plan 

amendment has not been proposed for this crossing.

The segment of Salmon Falls Creek from Salmon Falls Dam to Balanced Rock (see 

Figure 3.17-12 in Section 3.17 of the Draft EIS) is eligible as a WSR because it is freeflowing and possesses scenic, recreational, and geological ORVs; this segment's 

tentative classification is Scenic. BLM Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, states at 

.32 C: 

When a river segment is determined eligible and given a tentative classification 

(wild, scenic, and/or recreational), its identified ORVs must be afforded adequate 

protection, subject to valid existing rights, and until the eligibility determination is 

superseded, management activities and uses shall not be allowed to adversely 

affect either eligibility or the tentative classification....Each segment shall be 

managed to protect identified ORVs (subject to valid existing rights) and, to the 

extent practicable such values shall be enhanced.

This policy is reiterated in Section 0.52 C. of the same manual. An eligibility 

determination is superseded when the BLM completes a suitability study; if the segment 

is determined to not be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, the segment ceases to be eligible and no longer receives protective 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-35

Plan Amendments 

management. If the segment is determined to be suitable, the suitability 

recommendation is forwarded to Congress for further action. Therefore, the BLM 

concludes that the portion of Segment 9 of the Proposed Route that crosses Salmon 

Falls Creek could not be approved unless the river is found to be not suitable and no 

amendment is proposed for crossing the ACEC.

An alternative crossing of the river (Alternative 9C) avoids the eligible WSR and the 

ACEC, making the remaining portions of the Proposed Route feasible; however, 

portions of the remaining route would not conform to visual resource direction in the 

MFP and an amendment would be required.

The Twin Falls MFP emphasizes the following Visual Resources requirements:

“VRM 1.1 Manage Salmon Falls Canyon between the Salmon Falls Dam and 

Lilly Grade for natural ecological change in accordance with a VRM Class I 

designation. This designation would include only the area from rim to rim. 

Manage the canyon from Lilly Grade to Balanced Rock under a VRM Class II 

designation.”

“VRM 1.2 Designate 12,695 acres as VRM Class II. This class requires 

management activities to be designated and located to blend into the natural 

landscape and not to be visually apparent to the casual visitor. The following 

resource management guidelines shall apply:

1) Range Management – Juniper and sagebrush removal must be made 

to simulate adjacent natural openings. Fences, water developments, etc., 

would require construction with mostly hand tools and be of natural 

materials. No red fence posts allowed.

2) Structures – Structures must incorporate the natural lines, colors, and 

materials of the natural landscape, skylined structures would be 

prohibited.

3) Roads – Required roads must be concealed by vegetation, follow 

natural landforms, and be seeded as soon as possible. Overland “roads” 

may be necessary in some areas to protect the scenic values. Cut and fill 

areas that exceed 5 feet will generally not be accepted unless the fill can 

be replaced and vegetation established in 2 years.”

An amendment to the VRM decisions permitting a one-time allowance without 

reclassifying the VRM class would be needed if Segment 9 of the Proposed Route is 

selected and an “unsuitable” determination was reached for WSR designation. 

Additionally, an amendment to the ACEC restrictions permitting the crossing of the 

ACEC would be needed.

3.7.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Twin Falls MFP 

The Project’s Proposed Route 9 and Route Alternatives 9A, 9B, 7I, and 7J would cross 

through areas managed by the Twin Falls MFP. The route locations were selected to 

comply with WECC requirements and to protect significant resources to the greatest 

extent feasible. These include, but are not limited to, TES species, sensitive lands,

cultural resources, and visual resources. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-36

Plan Amendments 

The Project would not conform to the Twin Falls MFP and land use plan amendments 

would be needed if the Segment 9 Proposed Route or Alternative 9A, 7I, or 7J is 

selected. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to consider plan 

amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Twin Falls MFP L-4 decision for Lands emphasizes the following:

“L-4.1 Allow future major power transmission lines (line of at least 46-138RV 

which originate and terminate outside of the MFP area) to be constructed within 

the recommended corridors. Also allow construction of transmission lines 

between the corridors. Do not permit power lines to the west or the east of the 

two corridors. Exempt service lines from restriction.”

The Twin Falls MFP direction for Visual Resources emphasizes the following:

“VRM-1.2 Designate 12,695 acres as VRM Class II. This Class requires 

management activities to be designated and located to blend into the natural 

landscape and not to be visually apparent to the casual visitor,”

“VRM-1.3 Designate 32,819 acres as VRM Class III. (see overlay D.5). This 

class provides the management activities may be evident to the casual visitor; 

however, the activity should remain subordinate to the visual strength and natural 

character of the landscape.”

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to modify the ROW and visual resource 

management designations such that the Project would be consistent with the Twin Falls 

MFP. 

3.7.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Segment 9 Proposed Route and Alternatives 9A, 9B, 9C, 7I, and 7J cross through 

the areas managed under the Twin Falls MFP. Segment 10 of the Proposed Route also 

crosses through areas managed under the Twin Falls MFP, although this route is not on 

BLM-managed land. The Segment 9 Proposed Route includes one 161.7-mile-long 

single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the proposed Cedar Hill Substation near 

the county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties and the Hemingway Substation 

in Idaho. The transmission lines would be constructed utilizing 500-kV single-circuit 

lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 feet tall and would cross BLM-managed land 

covered by the Malad Hills MFP. Alternative 7I to the Segment 7 Proposed Route 

includes one 173.4-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the 

Populus Substation and the Cedar Hills Substation near the county line between Cassia 

and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho. Alternative 7J, a variant of 7I, follows the same route 

through the Twin Falls MFP area. Several alternative segments were considered. The 

Proposed Route and Route Alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, 

along with the reasons for considering these routes. Appendix A, Figures A-9 and A-11 

of the Draft EIS show the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segments 7 and 

9, respectively.

The Segment 9 Proposed Route enters lands managed by the Twin Falls MFP west of 

Cedar Hill. The route proceeds in a westerly direction and then turns north, paralleling 

Salmon Falls Creek, which the route crosses as it leaves the Twin Falls Planning Area. 

Alternative 9A is a 7.7-mile-long route that is located 2 miles south of Hub Butte. It was 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-37

Plan Amendments 

the Proposed Route but was changed to a feasible alternative route due to concerns 

regarding agriculture and dairies. Alternative 9B is a 53.2-mile-long route that diverges 

from the Proposed Route about 5 miles south of Castleford and rejoins west of the Twin 

Falls Planning Area. This alternative parallels the route and was identified based on the 

presence of a nearby WWE corridor and existing utility corridors. The Segment 9 

Proposed Route crosses the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. Alternative 9C leaves the 

Proposed Route at point 9a.5 (on the east side of the river) and rejoins it at point 9c.1 

(on the west side of the river). Less than a mile of Alternative 9C is within the Twin Falls 

MFP area. Alternative 9C avoids crossing the eligible WSR and the ACEC. 

Alternative 7I enters the Twin Falls Planning Area in its southeast corner and then turns 

in a northerly direction to the Cedar Hill Substation, following the WWE corridor for all 

but 2.5 miles of its route within the Planning Area. This alternative was designed as a 

result of landowner opposition to the Segment 7 Proposed Route. Alternative 7I 

maximizes the use of public land. Alternative 7J follows the same alignment as 7I until 

approximately 7.5 miles after it moves north of the state line, at which point 7J follows a 

northwesterly route for approximately 16.6 miles across mostly non-BLM-managed land. 

For this alternative, it is proposed to locate the Cedar Hill Substation at this point, from 

which Alternative 7J spits into two routes; one takes a northeastern route to join up 

where the current proposed location of the Cedar Hill Substation, while the other

continues to the northwest within the WWE corridor to join up with Segment 9. 

3.7.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Twin Falls MFP 

The Segment 9 Proposed Route and Route Alternatives would require a plan 

amendment to the Twin Falls MFP for granting of a ROW for the Project across lands 

managed by the Burley FO. The Twin Falls MFP allows new utilities to be constructed 

in existing corridors and protects visual resources. These MFP decisions would be 

rewritten to allow development of this Project. 

The Proposed Route (Segment 9) and Alternatives 9A, 7I, and 7J would require a plan 

amendment to the Twin Falls MFP. “Land 4.1” would be rewritten to allow the 

development of this Project. The amended MFP decision (changes in italics) would 

read: 

“Allow future major power transmission lines (line of at least 46-138RV which 

originate and terminate outside of the MFP area) to be constructed within the 

recommended corridors. Also allow construction of transmission lines between 

the corridors. Do not permit power lines to the west or the east of the two 

corridors. Permit the Gateway West Transmission Line Project as a one-time 

allowance. Exempt service lines from restriction.” 

Alternatives 7I and 7J would require an amendment to the Rock Creek Area VRM 

Classification. Seventy acres of VRM II (the VRM II class area north of the section line) 

would be changed to VRM Class III. This would require an amendment to the MFP for 

VRM-1.2 and VRM-1.3; amending the number of acres of VRM II and VRM III.

“VRM-1.2 Designate 12,625 acres as VRM Class II. This Class requires 

management activities to be designated and located to blend into the natural 

landscape and not to be visually apparent to the casual visitor,”
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-38

Plan Amendments 

“VRM-1.3 Designate 32,889 acres as VRM Class III. (see overlay D.5 and 

include 70 acres of previously VRM II land in the Rock Creek Area, north of the 

section line). This class provides the management activities may be evident to 

the casual visitor; however, the activity should remain subordinate to the visual 

strength and natural character of the landscape.”

3.7.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for 

effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections 

3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.2.2 and 

3.17.2.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

Allowing the transmission line to cross outside of the designated corridors will extend 

the impacts of transmission lines in an east-west direction. The rationale for the existing 

decision is that “utility corridors serve to accommodate major power lines in a 

designated route which minimizes environmental construction and provides a feasible, 

economical route for power transmission.” There is concern about major transmission 

lines causing serious adverse environmental impacts in the Foothills area, the 

Shoshone Basin, and along Salmon Falls Creek.

Alternatives 7I and 7J would be within the WWE corridor for most of their length within 

the Planning Area, while Proposed Route 9 and Alternative 9A cross the Planning Area

in an east-west direction. The east-west route crosses mule deer range and near raptor 

nests. The transmission line construction and operation would impact vegetation and 

soils as well as wildlife. Impacts include soil compaction and erosion, potential weed 

spread and introduction, removal of native vegetation, disturbance to wildlife due to 

habitat fragmentation, behavioral avoidance of structures and roads, and dust and noise 

disturbance disrupting breeding and rearing. 

In areas where the VRM class is changed from II to III, an amendment would result in 

the area being managed at a lower protection level. Amending the RMP to lower the 

VRM classification may encourage additional development in these areas. 

No amendment is proposed for crossing the ACEC; therefore, an alternative that 

crosses the ACEC could not be selected and implemented. Resources in the ACEC

would not be affected by the Project.

3.8 Jarbidge RMP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Jarbidge FO, including the granting of 

ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the Jarbidge 

RMP approved on March 23, 1987, and the Jarbidge RMP Amendment approved in 

1989. The RMP designates utility avoidance/restricted areas for cultural features,

designates VRM Class I and II areas, and establishes an ACEC along Salmon Falls 

Creek. The proposed Project would not conform to these requirements in the Jarbidge 

RMP. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-39

Plan Amendments 

The 1989 Amendment to the Jarbidge RMP designated the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC. 

Management requirements within this Amendment state:

“No development in the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC.”

This portion of Salmon Falls Creek is also an eligible WSR. An RMP amendment could 

address issues with the proposed crossing as they relate to Salmon Falls Creek ACEC by 

either: 1) removing the ACEC designation, or 2) changing the management for ROW 

avoidance. However, a plan amendment cannot be used in a similar way to address the 

issues associated with crossing the eligible WSR segment because an amendment 

cannot 1) remove the eligibility determination without doing a full suitability study or 2) 

remove scenery as one of the ORVs of the segment. Therefore, a plan amendment has 

not been proposed for this crossing.

The segment of Salmon Falls Creek from Salmon Falls Dam to Balanced Rock (see 

Figure 3.17-12) is eligible as a WSR because it is free-flowing and possesses scenic, 

recreational, and geological ORVs; this segment’s tentative classification is Scenic. BLM 

Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, states at .32 C: 

“When a river segment is determined eligible and given a tentative classification 

(wild, scenic, and/or recreational), its identified ORVs must be afforded adequate 

protection, subject to valid existing rights, and until the eligibility determination is 

superseded, management activities and uses shall not be allowed to adversely 

affect either eligibility or the tentative classification....Each segment shall be 

managed to protect identified ORVs (subject to valid existing rights) and, to the 

extent practicable such values shall be enhanced.”

This policy is reiterated in Section 0.52 C. of the same manual. An eligibility 

determination is superseded when the BLM completes a suitability study; if the segment 

is determined to not be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, the segment ceases to be eligible and no longer receives protective 

management. If the segment is determined to be suitable, the suitability 

recommendation is forwarded to Congress for further action. Therefore, the BLM 

concludes that the portion of Segment 9 of the Proposed Route that crosses Salmon 

Falls Creek could not be approved unless the river is found to be not suitable and no 

amendment is proposed for crossing the ACEC.

An alternative crossing of the river (Alternative 9C) avoids the eligible WSR and the 

ACEC; therefore, the remaining portions of the Proposed Route are feasible. However, 

portions of the remaining route would not conform to other direction in the RMP and an 

amendment would be required.

3.8.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Jarbidge RMP 

The Project’s Proposed Route and Route Alternatives would cross through the Jarbidge 

Management Area. Approximately 67 miles (63 miles on BLM-managed land) of 

Segment 9 would be within in the Planning Area. Approximately 6 miles of Alternative 

9C (3.6 on BLM-managed land), and 43 miles of 9B (23.5 on BLM-managed land)

would be within the Jarbidge RMP Planning Area. Segment 8 and Alternative 8A are 

within the Planning Area for approximately 12 miles (6.4 on BLM-managed land) and 29 

miles (16.7 miles on BLM-managed land), respectively. The Jarbidge RMP includes 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-40

Plan Amendments 

management objectives for many resources including lands, minerals, range 

management, watershed, wildlife, visual, cultural, recreation, and transportation support. 

The RMP decisions that are proposed to be amended relate to cultural and visual 

resources. The route locations for the Project were developed to comply with WECC 

requirements and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. 

The Project is in conformance with the direction provided in the Jarbidge RMP; thus,

amendments to the land use plan would be needed for Segment 9 Proposed Route or 

Alternatives 8A, 9B, or 9D, if any are selected. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 

1601 provide a process to consider plan amendments for actions that are not in 

conformance with the plan. 

The Jarbidge RMP MUA-7 Saylor Creek East (affected by Alternative 8A) Management 

Objectives include managing “the Oregon Trail to preserve remaining ruts and trail 

features and nominate to national register.” Additionally, there is an objective to 

“Protect the 96 paleontologic sites in Pasadena Valley, Roosevear Creek and Gulch, 

Dove Springs, Deer Gulch, Pilgrim spring and Stage, and Glenns Ferry.”

These objectives are supported by the following management action:

“MUA-7C) Lands_1. Utility avoidance/restricted area – Oregon Trail 5,888 acres 

(overhead, surface, underground); Dove Springs (160 acres) and 96 

paleontologic sites (surface and underground).” (Jarbidge RMP II-32)

The Jarbidge RMP discusses requirements for areas listed on the NRHP. The following 

section is a requirement for any activities conducted and/or authorized by the BLM:

“MUA-3 Utility avoidance/restricted area – three Paleontological areas (Sugar 

Bowl, Glenns Ferry, & McGinnis Ranch) and Oregon Trail ruts (7,200 acres/22.5 

miles) to overhead and surface disturbance and underground utilities.

“The existing ruts of the main route, north and south alternate routes of the 

Oregon Trail and Kelton Road will be protected by not allowing incompatible uses 

to occur within 1⁄2 mile corridor through which these routes pass.” (Jarbidge RMP 

II-90)

The following Route Alternatives would cross an area managed for VRM Class I and II 

objectives: Proposed Route 9 (Class I and II), Alternative 9D (Class II), Alternative 9B 

(Class II), and Alternative 8A (Class I).

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to modify several RMP decisions, such 

that the granting of a ROW for construction of the Project would be in conformance with 

the Jarbidge RMP. 

3.8.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Segments 8 and 9 Proposed Routes and Alternatives 8A, 9B, 9C, and 9E cross 

through lands managed under the Jarbidge RMP. The Segment 8 Proposed Route 

includes one 131.0-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the 

proposed Midpoint Substation near the county line between Jerome and Lincoln 

Counties in Idaho and the proposed Hemingway Substation, located about 30 miles 

southwest of Boise, Idaho. The Segment 9 Proposed Route includes one 161.7-milelong single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the proposed Cedar Hill Substation 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-41

Plan Amendments 

near the county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho and the 

Hemingway Substation. The transmission lines would be constructed utilizing 500-kV 

single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 feet tall and would cross BLMmanaged land covered by the Jarbidge RMP. Several alternative segments were 

considered. The Proposed Route and the Route Alternatives are described in Chapter 

2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these routes. Appendix A, 

Figures A-10 and A-11 of the Draft EIS shows the Proposed Route and Route 

Alternatives for Segments 8 and 9. 

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route enters the Jarbidge Planning Area west of King Hill 

and continues in a westerly direction where it leaves the Jarbidge Planning Area east of 

the Hot Springs Reservoir. Alternative 8A enters the Jarbidge Planning Area near 

Hagerman and intersects the Proposed Route within lands managed by the Jarbidge 

RMP. Alternative 8A is within or parallel to a WWE corridor. 

The Segment 9 Proposed Route enters the Jarbidge Management Area at Salmon Falls 

Creek in an ACEC at Lily Grade. The Proposed Route follows a northwesterly direction 

and leaves the Jarbidge Planning Area at Indian Cove. Alternative 9C, a 15.3-mile-long 

segment, was the Proposed Route but was changed to an alternative due to agricultural 

concerns. Alternative 9B is a 53.2-mile-long segment, located between Castleford and 

the Owyhee/Elmore County Line. The route using Alternative 9B is several miles longer 

than the Proposed Route; however, it follows an adjacent WWE corridor. Alternative 

9C, a 15.3-mile-long segment, leaves the Proposed Route at point 9a.5 (on the east 

side of the river within the Twin Falls MFP area) and rejoins it at point 9c.1 (on the west 

side of the river). Nearly all of 9C is within the Jarbidge RMP area. Alternative 9C 

avoids crossing the eligible WSR and the ACEC. 

3.8.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Jarbidge RMP 

Alternative 8A, if selected, would require a plan amendment to allow the granting of a 

ROW across lands managed under the Jarbidge RMP. The Jarbidge RMP includes 

measures to protect cultural sites. This protection would be rewritten to allow 

development of this Project, with mitigation measures that would be implemented to 

maintain the integrity of the trail ruts. The amendment changing areas from restricted to 

avoidance would allow the transmission line, providing there are no other viable 

alternatives outside the restricted areas. The amended decision for the Jarbidge RMP 

MUA-7 Saylor Creek East (changes in italics) would read:

“1. Utility avoidance/restricted area – no surface disturbance within 330 feet of 

the Oregon Trail, Dove Springs (160 acres), and 96 paleontologic sites (surface 

and underground)..”

For Jarbidge RMP MUA-3 Lower Bennett, the amended decision for Proposed Segment 

8 and Alternative 8A would read (changes in italics):

“Utility avoidance/restricted area – three paleontological areas (Sugar Bowl, 

Glenns Ferry, & McGinnis Ranch) & Oregon Trail ruts (7,200 acres/22.5 miles) 

to overhead and surface disturbance and underground utilities. The current lands 

decision is amended in the area identified as restricted in T 04 S R 09 E Section 

35 and T 05 S R 09 E Section 2Section 35 to reclassify these areas as 

avoidance to accommodate a 500kV powerline right of way.”
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-42

Plan Amendments 

Segments 8 and 9 of the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives 8A, 9B, 9D, and 9G 

would require a plan amendment to the Jarbidge RMP if any were selected. 

Segment 9 crosses 1.7 miles of VRM Class II with in the WWE Corridor. Alternative 9B 

would cross 1.6 miles of VRM Class I within the WWE corridor. Alternative 9D/9G

crosses 0.15 miles VRM Class II following an existing transmission line route. The

Jarbidge RMP protects visual resources; these RMP decisions would be rewritten to 

allow the development of this Project. 

The amended VRM decision would read (new language in italics): 

“The degree of alterations to the natural landscape will be guided by the criteria 

established for the four Visual Resource Management Classes as outlined in 

BLM 8400” however the area within the WWE Corridor will be reclassified as 

VRM III (affects AOIs, J-2, BOP-1/J-3, J-4, and J-5).” 

Proposed Route 8 would cross VRM Class I land associated with the Oregon NHT. As 

a powerline would not be consistent with the VRM I objectives, the new VRM decision 

would read (new language in italics):

“The visual or scenic values of the public lands will be considered whenever any 

physical actions are proposed on BLM lands. The Degree of alterations to the 

natural landscape will be guided by the criteria established for the four Visual 

Resource Management Classes as outlined in BLM 8400. VRM Classes will be 

managed as shown on Map 9. The VRM decision and Map 9 are amended to 

accommodate a major powerline R/W. Approximately 5,200 acres of VRM Class 

I area associated with the Oregon Trail is Re-classified to VRM Class III.”

Alternative Route 8A would cross VRM Class I land associated with the Oregon NHT. 

As a powerline would not be consistent with the VRM I objectives, the new VRM 

decision would read (new language in italics):

“The visual or scenic values of the public lands will be considered whenever any 

physical actions are proposed on BLM lands. The Degree of alterations to the 

natural landscape will be guided by the criteria established for the four Visual 

Resource Management Classes as outlined in BLM 8400. VRM Classes will be 

managed as shown on Map 9. The VRM decision and Map 9 are amended to 

accommodate a major powerline R/W. Approximately 2,800 acres of VRM Class 

I area associated with the Oregon Trail is Re-classified to VRM Class III.”

Segment 8 of the Proposed Routed would require a plan amendment to the Jarbidge 

RMP if it was selected. The amended text would read (changes in italics):

“The existing ruts of the main route, north and south alternate routes of the 

Oregon Trail and Kelton Road will be protected by not allowing incompatible uses 

to occur within 0.5 mile corridor through which these routes pass, except where 

within the WWEC, where no surface disturbance will be allowed within 330 feet 

of the trail.”

An area north of the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument that would be crossed 

by the Project was incorrectly mapped as VRM Class II in the RMP. It is actually VRM

Class III.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-43

Plan Amendments 

3.8.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for 

effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Section 

3.11.2.2 for effects on special status species; and Section 3.17.2.3 for effects on land 

use and recreation. 

Reclassifying the area within the WWE corridor to VRM Class III would allow 

development within this corridor to conform to the RMP. VRM Class I lands within the 

WWE corridor crossed by Segments 8 and 9 of the Proposed Route and Alternatives

8A, 9B, and 9D/9G would affect Oregon Trail users. Building a transmission line across 

the trail would detract from the historical sense-of-place. Reclassifying the area around 

Saylor Creek, currently designated as VRM Class II, would allow the transmission line 

to span the canyon. The transmission line would be highly visible to sensitive viewers 

and draw the attention of the casual observer from over a mile away. This change in 

setting would adversely affect the recreational experience.

Alternative 8A crosses the Oregon NHT and Kelton Road within the WWE corridor. The 

proposed amendment would reclassify lands within the WWE corridor to VRM Class III

while maintaining a 330-foot-wide “no surface disturbance” zone along either side of the 

trail. This would allow the construction of tower facilities while protecting the integrity of 

the trail ruts. However, the historic setting for the trail would likely be adversely affected 

at the transmission line crossing. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce 

these impacts to the extent feasible.

Changing the restricted area designation around important paleontologic sites may

impact the fossil resources of the area. While construction disturbance activities could 

result in the discovery of isolated fossil specimens, the scientific information provided by 

fossils is maximized by discovery of fossil specimens preserved in place within the host 

geologic formations, and construction techniques are more likely to damage specimens 

than discover them. The change in designation could lead to additional development of 

the corridor, extending the impacts beyond the effects of the Gateway West Project. In 

areas where the VRM class is changed from Class I or II to Class III, an amendment 

would result in the area being managed at a lower protection level. Amending the RMP 

to lower the VRM classification may encourage additional development in these areas. 

No amendment is proposed for crossing the ACEC; therefore, an alternative that 

crosses the ACEC could not be selected and implemented. Resources in the ACEC

would not be affected by the Project.

3.9 SRBOP RMP Amendment

The SRBOP RMP, approved in September 2008, guides decisions made by the Four 

Rivers FO regarding actions that occur in the SRBOP Management Area. These 

include decisions on the granting of ROWs under Title V of the FLPMA. The RMP

restricts major utility development to two existing corridors in the SRBOP Management 

Area. The RMP also manages motorized vehicle use, protects visual resources, and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-44

Plan Amendments 

prohibits surface disturbing activities near special status species. The Project does not 

conform to decisions in the SRBOP RMP. 

A plan amendment would be needed Segment 8 of the Proposed Route or Alternatives

8D, 8E, 9D, 9F, 9G, or 9H are selected. Portions of all these routes are located in an 

area where motorized vehicle use is restricted to designated routes. A review of RMP 

objectives and consultation with the Boise District staff indicate that the areas closed to 

motorized vehicles cannot be amended for Segment 8 (Halverson Bar – 1,150 acres) or 

Alternative 9D/9F (Cove – 1,600 acres) and still meet the Management Objective to: 

“Provide motorized vehicle access to the majority of the NCA while reducing the number 

of unnecessary routes and increasing the non-motorized opportunities.” 

Spanning the canyon in these areas would not be feasible, and restrictions on crossing 

Cove and Halverson Bar cannot be amended to meet RMP objectives; therefore,

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route and Alternatives 9D and 9G cannot be approved as 

currently designed (alternatives to these crossings have been developed and are 

included in the analysis). Amendments are proposed for routes that cross the SRBOP 

area for visual resources, cultural resources, new corridor restrictions, and SRMAs. 

3.9.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the SRBOP RMP 

The Proposed Routes along Segments 8 and 9, as well as Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 

9F, 9G, and 9H cross through the SRBOP Management Area. Approximately 27.5 

miles (27 on BLM-managed land) of segment 8 and 13.8 miles (11.8 on BLM-managed

land) of segment 9 are within the Planning Area. Approximately 8 miles, 42 miles, and 

2.5 miles of Alternatives 8D (8 miles on BLM-managed land), 9D (38.4 miles on BLMmanaged land), and 9E (2.5 miles on BLM-managed land), respectively, cross the 

management area. The route locations were developed to comply with WECC 

requirements and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. These 

include, but are not limited to, TES species, soil resources, cultural resources, and 

visual resources. 

The Project is not in conformance with the decisions in the SRBOP RMP and the plan 

would need to be amended if Segments 8 or 9 of the Proposed Route or Alternatives 

8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, or 9H are selected. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 

provide a process to consider plan amendments for actions that are not in conformance 

with the plan. 

Portions of Segments 8 and 9 of the Proposed Route and Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 

9F, 9G, or 9H are not within a designated corridor. The SRBOP RMP for Lands, Realty, 

and Utility Corridors emphasizes the following:

“Restrict major utility developments to the two utility corridors identified.” (Lands 

Map 3)

The RMP states that “designation of utility corridors and ROW avoidance areas are nondiscretionary actions” (2.11 Lands and Realty 2-14). It goes on to state that “Land 

containing significant cultural resources will be protected during any use-authorized 

project installation or during use” (2.17 Utility and Communication Corridors 2-25). The 

SRBOP RMP emphasizes protection of cultural restrictions and protection of key areas 

through ROW avoidance areas:
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-45

Plan Amendments 

“Retain all public lands in the 43,000-acre ROW avoidance area to protect the 

visual corridor along the historic Oregon Trail and the resources along the Snake 

River canyon.” (Lands Map 1)

The SRBOP RMP for the Visual Resources has the objective of protecting “the visual 

resources of historic areas with a secondary emphasis on the Snake River Canyon, with 

the following management action:

“Manage the areas along the Oregon Trail and the Snake River Canyon as VRM 

Class II, the OTA as Class IV and remaining areas as Class III. [Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) Map] This will provide reasonable protection of the Oregon 

Trail and flexibility in managing the remainder of the NCA.”

“VRM Class II management areas will not be available for utility corridors.”

The Segment 8 Proposed Route and Alternatives 8E, 9D, 9F, 9G, and 9H would impact 

VRM Class II lands associated with the Oregon NHT and Snake River Canyon. The 

SRBOP Visual Resources management guidelines state (SRBOP RMP, 2.8 Visual 

Resources 2-13):

“Manage the areas along the Oregon Trail and the Snake River Canyon as VRM 

Class II, the OTA as Class IV and remaining areas as Class III. [Visual Resource 

Management (VRM Map A-147)].”

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would pass through the Snake River SRMA. This 

use is not in conformance with the SRMA designation based on “recreational, scenic or 

cultural values.”

“This SRMA consists of 22,300 acres in the Snake River Canyon downstream 

from Grandview, Idaho that is managed for the protection of cultural and scenic 

values.” (2.14 Recreation 2-20).

Alternatives 9D and 9G would pass through Cove, a non-motorized area within the C.J. 

Strike SRMA. This use is not in conformance with the SRMA designation based on 

“recreational, scenic or cultural values.” (Note: The following amendment is presented 

to document the degree of change that would occur if this route were approved; 

however, the BLM Boise District has stated that they would not approve an amendment 

for a route through the Cove area.) The designation of the C.J. Strike SRMA is defined 

as: 

“C.J. Strike SRMA: This SRMA consists of 20,000 acres surrounding C.J. Strike 

Reservoir along the Snake River. The purpose of the SRMA is to provide 

enhanced recreation management associated with the reservoir, and protection 

of the Oregon Trail adjacent to the reservoir.” (2.14 Recreation 2-20)

The SRBOP RMP for Utility and Corridors emphasizes the following regarding sensitive 

plants:

“Include in all BLM authorizations permitting surface disturbing activities (nongrazing), requirements that (1) affected areas be reseeded with a perennial 

vegetative cover, and (2) surface disturbing activities be located at least a halfmile from occupied sensitive plant habitat.” 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-46

Plan Amendments 

Additional amendments for the Project may be required under Slickspot Peppergrass 

Conservation Agreement (CA), LUP Lands and Realty Management for issuance of 

rights-of-way.

“Objective: For new rights-of-way and renewal of existing rights-of-way, see 

Special Status Animal and Plant Species Management program section item (3). 

Avoid issuing new rights-of-way or renewal of existing rights-of-way in suitable 

habitat if negative impacts are expected.” (page 21 of the CA; A-83 of the 

SRPOB RMP)

For slickspot peppergrass, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act, granting an amendment for the Project may not be in conformance with the 

following conservation measure in the CA under Conservation Measure 3 – Ensure that 

new Federal actions support or do not preclude species conservation in slickspot 

peppergrass habitat (page 4 of the CA; A-67 of the SRPOB RMP):

“b) If direct or indirect negative impacts to the species or its habitat are 

anticipated as a result of new BLM actions, the activity will be modified to avoid 

or minimize negative impacts and, where feasible, promote species 

conservation.”

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the utility corridor, motorized 

vehicle, visual resource restrictions, and sensitive plant restrictions such that the Project 

would be in conformance with the SRBOP RMP. 

3.9.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Proposed Route along Segments 8 and 9, as well as Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 

9G, and 9H cross through the SRBOP Management Area. The Proposed Route along 

Segment 8 includes one 131-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between 

the proposed Midpoint Substation near the county line between Jerome and Lincoln 

Counties in Idaho and the proposed Hemingway Substation, located about 30 miles 

southwest of Boise. The Proposed Route along Segment 9 includes one 161.7-milelong single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between the proposed Cedar Hill Substation 

near the county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho and the 

Hemingway Substation. The transmission lines would be constructed utilizing 500-kV 

single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 feet tall and would cross BLMmanaged land covered by the SRBOP RMP. Several alternative segments were 

considered along Segments 8 and 9. The Proposed Route and Route Alternatives are 

described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these 

routes. Appendix A, Figures A-10 and A-11 of the Draft EIS show the Proposed Route 

and Route Alternatives for Segments 8 and 9. 

The Proposed Route along Segment 8 crosses into the SRBOP west of the Indian 

Creek Reservoir and follows a westerly to southwesterly route to the Hemingway 

Substation. The Proposed Route parallels an existing transmission line through part of 

the SRBOP but deviates from the existing line near Halverson Bar due to topographic 

constraints. Alternative 8D (6.4 miles) would bypass the Idaho Army National Guard’s 

“Alpha” Orchard Training Area. Note that Alternative 8B is located along, but just 

outside of, the northern edge of the SRBOP. Alternative 8E leaves the Proposed Route 

approximately 4 miles east of the Snake River crossing at the northwestern section of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-47

Plan Amendments 

the route in order to avoid Cove non-motorized vehicle area. Alternative 8E then follows 

an existing transmission line south and then turns west to cross the Snake River at the 

same location as Alternative 9D/9F (therefore, 8E cannot be selected if 9D/9F is also 

selected).

The Proposed Route for Segment 9 crosses the southeastern end of the SRBOP, as 

well as a small section between Murphy and Oreana. The majority of the Segment 9 

Proposed Route follows the WWE corridor and private lands are also crossed. 

Alternative 9E, a 68.7-mile segment, generally parallels the Proposed Route and was 

located to minimize project impacts on private land. A few miles of Alternative 9E are 

located in the SRBOP. Alternative 9E is outside the WWE corridor, crosses crucial big 

game management range, and was identified to avoid buffers of sage-grouse leks. 

Alternative 9D enters the SRBOP southeast of Bruneau and follows a northwesterly 

route until joining the Segment 9 Proposed Route north of Murphy. This alternative 

maximizes the use of public land, although it does not follow the WWE corridor. 

Alternatives 9D and 9G follow existing transmission lines from the C.J. Strike Dam west, 

on the north side of the river. Alternative 9F follows the Proposed Route until just 

southwest of C.J. Strike Reservoir. It then turns north and joins Alternative 9D just west 

of C.J. Strike Reservoir. Alternatives 9G/9H were developed as a southern alternative 

to the Proposed Route 9 to account for the conflict between 8E and 9D/9F. Alternative

9G follows the same route as 9D until approximately 15 miles east of the west end of 

the route, where it crosses the Snake River south of 9D and proceeds northwest to join 

up with the Proposed Route 9 approximately 9 miles from the western end of the 

Project. Alternative 9H follows the same route as 9F through the C.J. Strike area and 

then follows the same route as 9H in its western end.

3.9.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the SRBOP RMP

Segments 8 and 9 of the Proposed Routes and Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, 

and 9H would require a plan amendment to the SRBOP RMP for granting of a ROW for 

the Project across lands managed under the RMP. The SRBOP RMP limits new utilities 

to existing corridors, establishes area designations for motorized vehicle use, and limits 

impacts to visual resources and sensitive plant species. These RMP decisions would 

be rewritten to allow development of this Project. 

The Segment 8 and 9 Proposed Routes as well as Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D 9E, 9F, 9G, 

and 9H would require a plan amendment to the SRBOP RMP to allow a utility corridor 

outside of the two designated corridors. The RMP management action proposed for 

amending is located in both the “Land and Realty” and “Utility and Communication 

Corridors” sections. It is proposed to be rewritten to allow development of this Project. 

The amended RMP decision (changes in italics) would read:

“Restrict major utility developments to the two utility corridors identified and the 

major powerline R/W. (Lands Map 3).”

The Segment 8 Proposed Route and Alternatives 8E, 9D, 9F, 9G, and 9H would pass 

through designated utility corridor and ROW avoidance area designation around the 

Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological District. This area has a significant 

concentration of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and should be 

avoided unless no other routes are feasible. Implementation of the route would require 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-48

Plan Amendments 

an amendment to management actions restricting ROWs in this area (changes in 

italics): 

“Objective: ROW authorizations for utility developments will be compatible with 

the purposes for which the NCA was established, emphasizing habitat protection 

with economic development:

“Retain all public lands in the 43,000-acre ROW avoidance area to protect the 

visual corridor along the historic Oregon Trail and the resources along the Snake 

River canyon. Permit the Gateway West Transmission Line Project as a one-time 

allowance with significant mitigation required to maintain the cultural resources 

and traditional cultural properties of the area.”

Authorization of this amendment would have significant mitigation measures and 

specific route determination would be required to avoid areas of cultural resources and 

traditional properties.

A plan amendment would also be needed for VRM management objectives for the 

Segment 8 Proposed Route and Alternatives 9D, 9F, 9G, and 9H. The proposed 

amendment would involve changing the “Standard Operating Procedures” language in 

the “Utility and Communication Corridors” section to read (changes in italics):

“VRM Class II management areas will not be available for utility corridors, except 

allow the development of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project.”

A proposed amendment for visual resources would also involve changing the 

management action in the “Visual Resources” section to read (changes in italics):

For Proposed Route 8:

“Manage the areas along the Oregon Trail and the Snake River Canyon as VRM 

Class II, the OTA as Class IV and remaining areas as Class III. Approximately 

6,400 acres of Class II areas associated with the Oregon Trail and scenic values

associated with the Oregon Trail and scenic values associated with the Snake 

River Canyon would be designated as Class III to accommodate a major 

powerline R/W.”

For Alternatives 8E, 9D, and 9F:

“Manage the areas along the Oregon Trail and the Snake River Canyon as VRM 

Class II, the OTA as Class IV and remaining areas as Class III. Approximately 

3,100 acres of Class II areas associated with the Oregon Trail and scenic values 

associated with the Snake River Canyon is designated as Class III to 

accommodate a major powerline R/W.”

For Alternative 9G/9H:

“VRM Class II areas within 250 of the Route centerline would be reclassified to 

VRM Class III, taking into account the need for a 0.5 mile buffer from NHTs. 

Mitigation will include adjusting the alignment to ensure a 0.5 mile buffer from 

NHTs is maintained.”

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would pass through the Snake River SRMA. This 

use is not in conformance with the SRMA designation based on “recreational, scenic or 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-49

Plan Amendments 

cultural values.” The following amendment reducing the designated area is proposed for 

the Project to be in conformance with the RMP (changes in italics): 

“This SRMA consists of 15,900 acres in the Snake River Canyon downstream 

from Grandview, Idaho that is managed for the protection of cultural and scenic 

values. The SRMA designation has been reduced by approximately 6,400 acres 

to accommodate a major powerline.”

Alternatives 9D and 9G would pass through Cove, a non-motorized area within the C.J. 

Strike SRMA. This use is not in conformance with the SRMA designation based on 

“recreational, scenic or cultural values.” The following amendment reducing the 

designated area would be required for the Project to be in conformance with the RMP 

(changes in italics): 

“C.J. Strike SRMA: This SRMA consists of 16, 900 acres surrounding C.J. Strike 

Reservoir along the Snake River. The purpose of the SRMA is to provide 

enhanced recreation management associated with the reservoir, and protection 

of the Oregon Trail adjacent to the reservoir. The SRMA designation has been 

reduced by approximately 3,100 acres to accommodate a major powerline R/W.”

(Note: This amendment is presented to document the degree of change that would 

occur if this route were approved; however, the BLM Boise District has stated that they 

would not approve an amendment for a route through the Cove area.)

The Segments 8 and 9 Proposed Routes and Alternatives 8D, 8E, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, and 

9H would require a plan amendment to the SRBOP RMP to allow for the construction of 

the Project near sensitive plants. The proposed amendment would involve changing 

the management decision in the “Utility and Communication Corridors” as well as the 

“Lands and Realty” sections to read (changes in italics):

“Objective: ROW authorizations for utility developments will be compatible with 

the purposes for which the NCA was established, emphasizing habitat protection 

with economic development.” [2-25 and 2-16 of the SNBOP RMP]

“Include in all BLM authorizations permitting surface disturbing activities (nongrazing), requirements that (1) affected areas be reseeded with a perennial 

vegetative cover, and (2) surface disturbing activities be located at least a halfmile from occupied sensitive plant habitat, except allow the development of the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project with mitigation to protect sensitive 

plants, including slickspot peppergrass; where no construction, including roads, 

will occur within 50 feet of known or surveyed slickspot peppergrass habitat. 

Surveys will be conducted. Full field clearances shall be conducted that meet 

USFWS protocols prior to construction. Remediation will use weed-free seed mix 

and non-till methods in sensitive habitat and no soil placement over slickspot 

peppergrass.”

“Require all permit holders in slickspot peppergrass habitat to conform to 

applicable conservation measures from the CA (Appendix 8). The Gateway West 

Transmission Line will be allowed to remove limited amounts of sagebrush for 

construction while maintaining a distance of at least 50 feet from existing or 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-50

Plan Amendments 

known peppergrass occurrences. These activities will be monitored and mitigated 

for.”

Additional amendments for the Project may be required under Slickspot Peppergrass 

CA, LUP Lands and Realty Management for issuance of rights-of-way:

“Objective: For new rights-of-way and renewal of existing rights-of-way, see 

Special Status Animal and Plant Species Management program section item (3). 

Avoid issuing new rights-of-way or renewal of existing rights-of-way in suitable 

habitat if negative impacts are expected.” (page 21 of the CA; A-83 of the 

SRPOB RMP)

For slickspot peppergrass, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act, granting an amendment for the Project may not be in conformance with the 

following conservation measure in the CA under Conservation Measure 3 – Ensure that 

new Federal actions support or do not preclude species conservation in slickspot 

peppergrass habitat (page 4 of the CA; A-67 of the SRPOB RMP):

“b) If direct or indirect negative impacts to the species or its habitat are 

anticipated as a result of new BLM actions, the activity will be modified to avoid 

or minimize negative impacts and, where feasible, promote species 

conservation.”

3.9.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for 

effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Section 

3.11.2.2 for effects on special status species; Section 3.15.2.3 for effects on soils; and 

Section 3.17.2.3 for effects on land use and recreation. 

Amendments to sensitive species and avoidance area requirements would adversely 

impact the ability to meet the RMP Objectives. The RMP discussion of the operational 

procedures for Utility and Communication corridors specifically identifies requirements 

for protection of land containing significant cultural resources as well as consideration of 

tribal interests. In addition, there are multiple procedures for protecting sensitive 

species and habitat. The proposed changes could reduce the ability of the agency to 

manage the land to meet the stated objective of authorizing ROWs to be compatible 

with the purposes for which the NCA was established, i.e., emphasizing habitat 

protection and economic development. “Significant mitigation” could be required if 

these amendments are accepted and would likely involve modifications or stipulations to 

the ROW grant.

Changing the VRM Class II and SRMA designations would affect the ability to meet the 

plan objectives. The Visual Resource objective is to protect visual resources of historic 

areas. Changing the VRM class would reduce the level of protection for some historic 

areas. The construction of the transmission line, if approved, would adversely affect the 

historic character of place where it is installed because it would dominate the 

landscape.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-51

Plan Amendments 

Recreation objective goals for the Oregon NHT and the C.J. Strike SRMAs would not be 

directly impacted because the affected areas have been removed from designation;

however, reduction in lands available for recreation to affect the overall goals for 

recreation management.

Allowing construction in the Utility Avoidance Area and in areas of high cultural 

importance such as the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological District could impact 

the ability to meet management objectives of protecting these areas and maintaining the 

cultural landscape. Potential impacts could include loss of historic artifacts, loss of 

historic character of the landscape, and diminished traditional cultural properties and 

resources. “Significant mitigation” would be required to limit these impacts as described 

in the SRBOP ROD 2-1; which could involve extensive cultural surveys, micrositing, 

data recovery, and on-site mitigation. 

Construction within slickspot peppergrass areas, even with mitigation, could impact the 

recovery and species conservation efforts. Micrositing and thorough surveys would be 

required to avoid damage to populations near the construction and operations areas.

Routes that are located in canyon areas are likely to have impacts on raptors. Because 

this NCA was designated, in large part, to protect raptor species, such impacts could 

affect the ability of the SRBOP to meet their management goals. The towers and 

conductors would be constructed following Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

recommendations in avian habitat. Mitigation measures such as using anti-collision 

devices, avoiding guyed towers where possible, and installing anti-collision devices 

where required could further lower the impacts to raptor species. 

3.10 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP Amendment

The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP (1980) provides direction for management of 

public land under the jurisdiction of the Shoshone FO in south-central Idaho. The 

Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP Planning Area consists of approximately 892,000 

acres in Blaine, Camas, Elmore, Gooding, and Lincoln Counties and guides actions 

such as the granting of ROW under Title V of the FLPMA. The MFP includes 

management objectives and recommendations for scenic and cultural resources. The 

proposed crossing of the Oregon NHT would impact visual resources and archeological 

resources; thus, the proposed Project is not in conformance with the Bennett 

Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP. 

3.10.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP 

Approximately 21 miles of the Project’s Proposed Route in Segment 8 would cross 

through the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills Planning Area, 12.5 miles through areas 

covered by the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP. This route would cross 8.2 miles of 

VRM Class II lands as well as crossing the Oregon NHT. The location of the Proposed 

Route was identified to comply with WECC requirements and to protect important 

resources to the greatest extent feasible. These resources include, but are not limited 

to, threatened and endangered plants, wildlife, sensitive lands, and archeological and 

visual resources.

Because the Project does not conform to the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP, land 

use plan amendments would be needed if the Segment 8 Proposed Route is selected. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-52

Plan Amendments 

Along the length of Segment 8, five alternative routes were considered in detail (and 

four additional alternatives were considered but were eliminated from detailed study). 

Alternative 8A is the only alternative for this portion of Segment 8 and is not within the 

Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP Planning Area; thus, if Alternative 8A were

selected, an amendment of the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP would not be 

required. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide for a process to consider 

plan amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP management objective REC 4.1 for visual 

resources is to “manage the visual resources within the Planning Area in conformance 

with the guidance in BLM Manual 6310.18B-E.” The recommendation for achieving this 

follows:

“No management activity should be allowed to cause any evident changes in the 

form, line color or texture that is characteristic of the landscape within this Class 

II area.” 

The decision for meeting the objective is to use the above recommendation as 

“guidance for the Class II areas, utilizing concealment, repetition of elements, 

minimizing surface disturbance, etc., to meet the goal” (Bennett Hills-Timmerman Hills 

MFP; Recreation 4.1).

The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP Management Objective for cultural resources is

to “identify, evaluate, and manage cultural resources in the Bennett Hills-Timmerman 

Hills Planning Units” (Bennett Hills-Timmerman Hills MFP; Recreation R-14). The 

management recommendation, REC 14.6, for Class I archaeological resources,

emphasizes the following: 

“Prohibit all land disturbing developments and uses on archeological sites.” 

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to 1) modify the VRM class designation for 

areas along existing transmission line ROWs and 2) modify limitations protecting the 

Oregon NHT. These amendments would allow the Project to conform to the Bennett 

Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP if the Segment 8 Proposed Route is selected. 

3.10.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

The Segment 8 Proposed Route crosses through the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills 

MFP. The Proposed Route includes a 131.0-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV 

transmission line between the proposed Midpoint Substation near the county line 

between Jerome and Lincoln Counties in Idaho and the proposed Hemingway 

Substation, located about 30 miles southwest of Boise. The transmission lines would 

be constructed utilizing 500-kV single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 

feet tall and would cross BLM-managed land covered by the Bennett Hills/Timmerman 

Hills MFP. Several alternative segments were considered. The Proposed Route and 

the Route Alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the 

reasons for considering these routes. Appendix A, Figure A-10 of the Draft EIS shows 

the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for Segment 8.

Proposed Route 8 enters lands managed by the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP 

north of Tuttle and east of Bliss, Idaho. The route is located in a northwesterly direction, 

traveling approximately 21 miles through the southwest corner of the Bennett 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-53

Plan Amendments 

Hills/Timmerman Hills management area and parallels an existing 230 kV transmission 

line. The route is located south of the Pioneer Reservoir, crosses the Gooding 

County/Elmore County line, and leaves the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills management 

area east of King Hill. Alternative 8A is located south of the area managed by the 

Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP. Alternative 8A it is within or parallel to a WWE 

corridor along its entire length. 

3.10.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills 

MFP

The Proposed Route in Segment 8 would require a plan amendment to the Bennett 

Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP, if selected, for granting of a ROW for the Project across 

lands managed by the Shoshone FO. The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP protects 

visual and archeological resources. These protections would be rewritten to allow 

development of this Project. 

The visual resource protection would be rewritten to allow development of this Project. 

The amended MFP decision (changes in italics) would read:

“No management activity should be allowed to cause any evident changes in the 

form, line color or texture that is characteristic of the landscape within this Class 

II area. The area within 3,000 feet to the north of the existing transmission line 

ROW will be reclassified from VRM II to VRM III (including the existing ROW).”

This archaeological resource protection would be rewritten to allow development of this 

Project and thus crossing of the Oregon NHT by the Project. The amended MFP 

decision (changes in italics) would read: 

“Prohibit all land disturbing developments within 330 feet of the Oregon Trail and 

manage archeological sites as required by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act.”

3.10.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-1 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for 

effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 for effects on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 

3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.2.2 and 3.17.2.3 for 

effects on land use and recreation. 

Allowing land-disturbing developments within 330 feet of the Oregon NHT could 

potentially affect the ability to conform to agency policy of protecting archaeological 

sites; however, stipulations for managing archeological sites as required by the National 

Historic Preservation Act should minimize this possibility.

The amendment changing the VRM Class II classification to VRM Class III would 

change the classification of lands within 3,000 feet of an existing transmission line. This 

may result in additional utilities being located along this route, which would result in 

additional impacts to resources managed under the MFP. A new transmission line 

would impact plants and wildlife as well as scenic and cultural resources. However, the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-54

Plan Amendments 

disturbance would occur in a previously disturbed area. The VRM Class II areas that 

would be reclassified under this amendment are also big game habitat. Impacts to big 

game would occur for both the construction and operations phases. Effects of these 

activities could result in avoidance of preferable forage, increased demand of energy 

resources in response to disturbance, temporary displacement from preferred habitat, 

resulting in possible increase in predation, reduced quality of forage, and impacts to 

reproduction. 

The Proposed Route would be within the viewshed of Kings Crown and the surrounding 

area north of King Hill. Scenery in this area is important to sensitive viewers such as 

visitors along the Oregon NHT. Existing high-voltage transmission lines and wind 

towers already interrupt the scenic quality in this area. The Proposed Route would add 

to this interruption; however, it would avoid disrupting scenic quality in undisturbed 

areas.

3.11 Wells RMP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Wells FO of the Elko District, including the 

granting of ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the 

Wells RMP approved in 1985. The RMP currently restricts new utilities to identified 

corridors. Thus, the proposed Project is not consistent with the Wells RMP as currently 

written. 

3.11.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Existing Wells RMP

The route locations for The Project were selected to comply with WECC requirements 

and to protect significant resources to the greatest extent feasible. Approximately 8.7 

miles of Alternatives 7I and 7J affect areas managed under the Wells RMP. The two 

alternative routes are co-located in this area.

The Wells RMP includes management objectives for many resources including lands, 

minerals, range management, wildlife, woodland products, and recreation. The 

Management Objective for utility corridors is: “To determine designated corridors and 

identified planning corridors in coordination with other multiple use objectives, including 

visual quality.” 

The Wells RMP in the “Resource Decisions – corridors” (Wells ROD 1985; page 14) 

section emphasizes the following with regards to utility corridors: 

“Locate new facilities in identified planning corridors.”

Alternative 7I/7J does not follow one of the corridors designated by the ROD for the 

Wells RMP. Therefore, there is a legal requirement to amend the land use plan if 

Alternative 7I is selected. The Proposed Route 7 and Route Alternatives 7A through 7H 

are not within the Wells management area and would not require an amendment of the 

Wells RMP. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide for plan amendments for 

actions that are not presently in conformance with the plan. 

This management action supports the objective “to determine designated corridors and 

identified planning corridors in coordination with other multiple use objectives, including 

visual quality.” The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the utility corridor 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-55

Plan Amendments 

restriction, such that the granting of a ROW for construction of the Project would be in 

conformance with the Wells RMP. 

Additionally, the Wells RMP and supporting documents contain visual resource 

designation management criteria. The Wells EIS states:

“The Wells RA contains a variety of scenic qualities which have been classified 

into visual resource management classes following BLM Manual 8400.”

Alternative 7I/7J would cross an isolated parcel of VRM Class II land and thus would not 

be consistent with the RMP.

3.11.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

Segment 7 of the Proposed Route includes one 118.1-mile single-circuit 500-kV 

transmission line between the Populus Substation and the proposed Cedar Hill 

Substation near the county line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho. This 

route would not cross through the area managed under the Wells RMP. Alternative 7I, 

which crosses the Wells RMP area, also proposes to construct a 500-kV single-circuit 

line with lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 feet tall that would cross several 

parcels of BLM-managed land covered by the Wells RMP. Several alternative 

segments were considered. The Proposed Route and Route Alternatives are described 

in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these routes. 

Appendix A, Figure A-9 of the Draft EIS shows the Proposed Route and Route 

Alternatives for Segment 7.

Alternative 7I is a 173.4-mile route that was developed in response to landowner 

opposition to the Proposed Route 7. Alternative 7I is substantially longer but maximizes 

the use of public land and reduces effects on irrigated agricultural lands. Alternative 7I 

enters Nevada near the southeast corner of the Cassia Division of the Sawtooth NF. 

The portion of Alternative 7I that is located in Nevada on lands managed under the 

Wells RMP avoids two Designated Roadless Areas in the adjacent Sawtooth NF. 

Alternative 7J follows the same route as 7I through the Wells area but diverges from 7I 

after re-entering Idaho, where it veers northwest to access the Rogerson Substation.

3.11.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Wells RMP

Alternative 7I/7J, if selected, would require a plan amendment to the Wells RMP. This 

proposed amendment would allow the granting of a ROW for the Project across lands 

managed by the Wells FO in the Elko District. There is a restriction in the Wells RMP 

that limits new utilities to existing corridors. It is located in the current RMP under 

“Resource Decisions – Corridors.” This restriction would be rewritten to allow the one 

time development of the Gateway West Project. The amended restriction (changes in 

italics) would read:

“Locate new facilities in identified planning corridors; however, permit a one-time 

allowance for the Gateway West Transmission Line Project.”

Alternative 7I/7J crosses a 48.4-acre parcel of land classified as VRM Class II in the 

Wells RMP Management Area. For the Project to comply with the RMP visual resource 

management objectives, the following amendment would be needed:
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-56

Plan Amendments 

“The Gateway West Transmission Line Project will be allowed as a one-time, 

visually altering action without reclassifying the area.”

A discussion of the proposed RMP amendment for visual resources is included in 

Appendix G-1 of the Draft EIS.

3.11.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 

for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; 

Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for 

effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land 

use and recreation.

The habitat crossed by the 9.4 miles of transmission line within the Wells RMP area is 

dominated by shrubland. ROW clearing impacts are thus relatively limited compared to 

forested areas. Impacts of construction and maintenance activities to shrubland habitat

would include loss of habitat for tower placement and road construction, as well as 

disturbance to wildlife during construction. Indirect effects include increase risk of 

erosion, possible change in soil moisture availability for nearby plants, increase risk of 

weed introduction which could result in changes in wildlife use and populations. The 

Wells RMP includes Wildlife Stipulations, including for threatened or endangered 

species, raptor nesting sites, mule deer crucial winter range, pronghorn antelope crucial 

winter range, pronghorn antelope kidding areas, greater sage-grouse strutting grounds 

(leks), greater sage-grouse brood rearing areas, and greater sage-grouse crucial winter 

habitat. The Gateway West Draft EIS includes mitigation measures that would be 

required on BLM-managed lands. These include following all RMP requirements, 

unless an amendment is approved by the responsible official. 

Fifteen designated weed species (6 category A, 1 category B, and 8 category C) 

potentially occur within the project area for the 9.4-mile segment of Alternative 7I 

crossing the Wells Planning Area. Disturbance from construction has the potential to 

increase weed distribution, which could potentially degrade surrounding habitats. 

Mitigation measures would be put into place to minimize this occurrence (see Section 

3.8.2.2 and Chapter 2 in the Draft EIS for discussion and list of proposed mitigation 

measures). Goose Creek milkvetch is known to occur within 5 miles of the project area 

and thus may be impacted by Project activities. Impacts to this candidate species 

include direct crushing from Project activities, introduction of exotic species, habitat 

fragmentation, increased erosion, change in fire regime, and isolation of subpopulations 

(see Section 3.7.2.2 in the Draft EIS). 

Approximately 90 acres of elk summer range and 19 acres of year round range would 

be affected. Sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse would likely be impacted due to 

direct disturbance to habitat and the presence of towers resulting in possible avoidance 

areas, as well as possible increase in predation due to the perches provided by towers 

and lines. The entire 9.4 miles of the proposed transmission line within Nevada crosses 

an area considered suitable sage-grouse habitat and may contain active leks. Mattoni’s 

blue is known to occur within 5 miles of the project area, at Pilot-Thousand Springs. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-57

Plan Amendments 

Disturbance from project activities could result in temporary loss of larvae; however,

slender buckwheat, on which they feed, is not known to occur within 0.5 mile of the 

project area. 

Cultural surveys have not yet been completed. Attempts to inventory the route were 

discontinued in the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011 due to snow. Previously 

recorded cultural inventories resulted in 12 prehistoric sites of Limited Activity being 

identified within the project Analysis Area. Currently it is estimated that Alternative 7I/7J

would have a low impact on cultural resources based on this route containing 65 

prehistoric resources largely comprising sites not eligible for the NRHP. However, the 

Wells FO indicates that the Browns Bench Obsidian Source Area (through which 

Alternative 7I/7J passes) could contain as many as 200 archaeological sites, many 

eligible for NRHP in the 9-mile Nevada portion of the route, which would alter the 

conclusion of low impact to cultural resources for this alternative. Additionally, there is 

potential impact to an NHT. Impacts may include visual intrusion of the transmission 

line, affecting the experience of NHT users as well as disruption of historic settings. 

Additional impacts could be incurred by direct disturbance of cultural sites; however,

mitigation measures would be in place to address this issue and re-site towers where 

deemed necessary (see Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS). 

Permitting the Project without changing the VRM class, as proposed, could impact 

recreational users of the NHT and impact the scenic views of the Goose Creek area. A 

transmission line following Alternative 7I/7J would be partially screened by the 

surrounding topography but would introduce new structural elements to this area. As a 

result, a transmission line in this area would draw the attention of the casual observer

and would deviate from the natural form, line, color, and texture. The distance of 

Alternative 7I/7J from sensitive viewers would not allow project elements to blend in with 

the surrounding landscape features; therefore, the visual contrast would be high.

The land managed under the Wells RMP includes several designated 

utility/communications corridors. The effects of an additional transmission line would be 

similar to the effects of existing transmission lines. Allowing the Project without 

changing the VRM class would preclude meeting RMP objective of limiting visual 

impacts on people using the Goose Creek area and portions of the adjacent Sawtooth 

NF but it would not change the management requirements for the area. Future projects 

would still need to meet current direction. 

3.12 Bruneau MFP Amendment

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Bruneau FO, including the granting of 

ROW under Title V of the FLPMA, are guided by decisions recorded in the Bruneau 

MFP (1983). The Bruneau MFP currently restricts impacts to visual resources. Thus, 

the proposed Project does not conform to the Bruneau MFP as currently written. 

3.12.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Burneau MFP

Portions of Segment 9 of the Proposed Route and Alternatives 9D/9G, 9E, and 9F/9H 

would cross through the Bruneau Management Area. The Bruneau MFP includes 

management objectives for visual resources. A 1,000-foot section of the Proposed 

Route crosses an area within the WWE corridor that is classified as VRM Class II; 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-58

Plan Amendments 

therefore, an amendment to the MFP to allow impacts to visual resources is needed. 

The route locations for the Project were selected to comply with WECC requirements 

and to limit impacts to resources to the greatest extent feasible. 

As the Project is not in conformance with the current direction provided in the Bruneau 

MFP for visual resources, there is a legal requirement to amend the land use plan if the 

Proposed Route for Segment 9 is selected. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 

provide for plan amendments for actions that are not currently in conformance with the 

plan. 

The Bruneau MFP emphasizes the following with regards to visual resources: 

• VISL Objective #1: Manage all public lands in a manner which will protect and 

maintain the existing visual qualities, provide for enhancement where consistent 

with management policies, and provide for rehabilitation of land which presently 

do not meet the visual quality standards of surrounding lands. Use VRM contrast 

rating and project application design process for all management activities 

without unduly reducing commodity production or limiting program effectiveness. 

• VRM-1.2: Designate 136,000 acres as VRM Class II where activities are 

designed and located to blend into the natural landscape and not visually 

apparent to the casual visitor.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the visual restrictions, such that 

the granting of a ROW for construction of the Project would be in conformance with the 

Bruneau MFP. 

3.12.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

Segment 9 of the Proposed Route and Alternatives 9D/9G, 9E, and 9F/9H cross 

through the Bruneau MFP. Proposed Route 9 includes one 161.7-mile single-circuit 

500-kV transmission line between the proposed Cedar Hill Substation near the county 

line between Cassia and Twin Falls Counties in Idaho and the Hemingway Substation. 

Approximately 33 miles are within the boundaries of the Bruneau FO, 17.8 miles of 

which cross BLM-managed lands. The transmission lines would be constructed utilizing 

500-kV single-circuit lattice steel towers between 145 and 180 feet tall and would cross 

BLM-managed land covered by the Bruneau MFP. Several alternative segments were 

considered. The proposed route and the alternative routes are described in Chapter 2 

of the Draft EIS, along with the reasons for considering these routes. Appendix A, 

Figure A-11 of the Draft EIS shows the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives for 

Segment 9. 

Segment 9 of the Proposed Route enters into the Bruneau management area between 

Bruneau and Hot Spring. The route follows a northwesterly direction and leaves the 

Bruneau Planning Area at Castle Creek. The majority of the Proposed Route 9 follows 

the WWE corridor, crossing both public and private lands. 

Alternative 9E is a 68.7-mile long segment. Approximately 36.5 miles of this route are 

within the Bruneau FO boundaries (35.5 of which cross BLM-managed land), between 

Hot Spring and Castle Creek. Alternative 9E generally parallels the Proposed Route 

and was located to minimize project impacts on private land. This section is located 

primarily on BLM-managed land. Alternative 9E is outside the WWE corridor, crosses 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-59

Plan Amendments 

crucial big game management range, and is located to avoid buffers of sage-grouse 

leks. 

The majority of Alternatives 9F/9H and 9D/9G are located within the SRBOP, although 

small sections of these routes (approximately 2.5 miles for Alternative 9F/9H and 0.8 

mile of 9D/9G) cross the Bruneau Planning Area. Alternative 9F/9H crosses 

approximately 1.9 miles of BLM-managed land west of C.J. Strike Reservoir. 

Alternative 9D/9G crosses approximately 0.4 mile of BLM-managed land north of the 

town of Bruneau. These alternatives also maximize the use of public land, and although 

not following the WWE corridor, the portion where Alternatives 9D/9F/9G/9H share the 

same alignment follows an existing transmission line within the SRBOP. 

3.12.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Bruneau MFP

Proposed Route Segment 9, if selected, would require a plan amendment to the 

Bruneau MFP. This proposed amendment would allow the granting of a ROW for the 

Project across lands managed by the Bruneau FO. There is currently a restriction in the 

Bruneau MFP that restricts impacts to visual resources. Areas of inconsistency within 

the WWE corridor will be reclassified to VRM Class III. Segment 9 of the Proposed 

Route crosses a parcel designated as VRM Class II near Castle Creek. The recently 

completed Visual Inventory recognizes this parcel as VRM Class III for inventory 

purposes. With these factors in mind, the visual resource restrictions would be rewritten 

to reclassify the area. 

The amended restriction for visual resource impacts (changes in italics) would read

(changes in italics):

• VISL Objective #1: Manage all public lands in a manner which will protect and 

maintain the existing visual qualities, provide for enhancement where consistent 

with management policies, and provide for rehabilitation of land which presently 

do not meet the visual quality standards of surrounding lands. Use VRM contrast 

rating and project application design process for all management activities 

without unduly reducing commodity production or limiting program effectiveness. 

The 282-acre parcel of VRM Class II designated land adjacent to Castle Creek 

will be reclassified to VRM Class III. This designation is reflective of the 

presence of the WWE corridor, which comprises 177 acres of the VRM II parcel. 

• VRM-1.2: Designate 135,718 acres as VRM Class II where activities are 

designed and located to blend into the natural landscape and not visually 

apparent to the casual visitor. The area designated as VRM Class II adjacent to 

Castle Creek (AOI B-1) will be reclassified to VRM Class III.

Alternatively, an amendment reclassifying just the 177-acre area of the parcel within the 

WWE corridor from VRM Class II to VRM Class III could be approved; however, it would 

result in the creation of small isolated parcels of VRM Class II areas to either side of the 

WWE corridor.

3.12.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-60

Plan Amendments 

for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; 

Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for 

effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land 

use and recreation.

Reclassifying the VRM Class II parcel to VRM Class III would allow the transmission 

line to conform to the Bruneau MFP. More than half of the area of this parcel is within 

the WWE corridor. Reclassifying this parcel to VRM Class III would facilitate siting the 

transmission line in the WWE corridor. Changing the VRM class would also facilitate 

siting future utility lines within the WWE corridor, which would add to cumulative effects 

in the area. The direct effects of amending the MFP to allow the Project include the 

disruption of form, line, texture, and color of the existing landscape. Construction and 

operations of a high-voltage transmission line would impact wildlife and other resources 

as described in the Draft EIS. 

3.13 Kuna MFP Amendment

The Kuna MFP, approved on March 22, 1983, guides actions that occur with its 

Planning Area on lands managed by the Four Rivers FO, including the granting of ROW 

under Title V of the FLPMA. The MFP confines new ROW to existing corridors, and has 

management requirements for visual and cultural resources. The proposed Project 

would not be consistent with these requirements and thus is not consistent with the 

Kuna MFP. 

3.13.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Kuna MFP 

Approximately 60 miles (44 miles on BLM-managed land) of Segment 8 of the Proposed 

Route and 35 miles (17.5 on BLM-managed land) and 8 miles (8 on BLM-managed

land) for Alternatives 8B and 8C, respectively, cross through the Kuna Management 

Area.5 The Kuna MFP includes management objectives for many resources including 

lands, minerals, range management, watershed, wildlife, visual, cultural, recreation, and 

transportation support. Management Actions being proposed for amendment are those 

for “Lands,” “Visual,” and “Cultural” resources. The route locations for the Project were 

developed to comply with WECC requirements and to protect resources to the greatest 

extent feasible. 

Because the Project does not conform to the current direction provided in the Kuna 

MFP for cultural resources and following existing corridors, the land use plan would 

need to be amended if the Segment 8 of the Proposed Route or Route Alternatives 8B

or 8C is selected. Alternative 8A does not cross the area managed under the Kuna 

MFP. The planning regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide a process to consider plan 

amendments for actions that are not in conformance with the plan. 

 

5 Additional alternatives would cross the Kuna MFP Management Area; however, these alternatives are addressed 

under the SRBOP RMP, which replaces the Kuna MFP in these areas.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-61

Plan Amendments 

The Kuna MFP L-4.1 emphasizes the following with regard to utility ROWs: 

“Confine major new utility R/Ws (i.e., 500KV or larger or 24-inch pipeline) to 

existing corridors, as shown on Overlay L-4. The R/Ws will subject to reasonable 

stipulations to protect other resource uses.” 

An amendment to the Kuna MFP would be needed if Segment 8 of the Proposed Route 

or Alternative 8B is selected. The Kuna MFP CRM-2.1 states the following with regard 

to cultural resources:

“CRM-2.1 Manage parcels containing historic site 10-AA-155 and a 1/4-mile-wide 

corridor on either side of the Union Pacific (Oregon Short Line) Railroad for the 

protection of cultural resource values. Nominate these sites to the National 

Register of Historic Places but do not designate them as ACECs. (Other 

management is listed)”

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to 1) modify the ROW restriction to allow 

the granting of a ROW for construction of the Project, 2) modify the visual resource 

designations, and 3) modify cultural resource management requirements such that the 

Project would be consistent with the Kuna MFP. 

3.13.2 Proposed Route and Alternatives

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would link the Midpoint and Hemingway Substations. 

This 131.0-mile-long single-circuit 500-kV transmission line would stay north of the 

Snake River until crossing through the SRBOP parallel to an existing 500-kV 

transmission line before ending at the Hemingway Substation. Approximately 45 miles 

of the Segment 8 Proposed Route are within the Kuna MFP boundaries. There are five 

Route Alternatives in this segment. Alternatives 8B and 8C would cross the Kuna MFP 

planning area; Alternatives 8D and 8E would cross land managed by the SRBOP RMP. 

3.13.3 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Kuna MFP 

The Proposed Route for Segment 8 and Route Alternatives 8B and 8C, if selected, 

would require a plan amendment to the Kuna MFP. This proposed amendment would 

allow the granting of a ROW for the Project across lands managed by the Four Rivers 

FO. The Kuna MFP limits new ROW to existing corridors. This limitation would be 

rewritten to allow development of this Project. The amended decision (changes in 

italics) would read: “Objective L-4: Establish and protect right-of-way corridors, reserve 

lands for identified R/W needs, establish or expand communication sites, and clear the 

records of any unnecessary R/Ws.

“L-4.1 Confine major new utility R/Ws (i.e., 500 KV or larger or 24-inch pipeline) 

to existing corridors, and the powerline R/W as shown on Overlay L-4. The R/Ws 

will be subject to reasonable stipulations to protect other resource uses.”

There is currently a management objective for managing cultural and historic ruins near 

the area for the Proposed Segment 8 and Alternatives 8B and 8C. The amended 

management action (changes in italics) would read: “Objective CRM-2: Protect and 

preserve historic ruins, structures, and sites for future scientific use and public 

enjoyment.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-62

Plan Amendments 

“CRM-2.1 Manage parcels containing historic site 10-AA-155 and a 1/4-mile-wide 

corridor on either side of the Union Pacific (Oregon Short Line) Railroad for the 

protection of cultural resource values. Nominate these sites to the National 

Register of Historic Places, but do not designate them as ACECs (Other 

recommended management is listed). Allow siting of a transmission line crossing 

with micrositing required to minimize presence in the restricted area such that the 

transmission line will not affect the railroad’s status as a Historic Place.”

3.13.4 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and

3.2.2.3 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 

for effects on cultural resources; Sections 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; 

Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for 

effects on special status species; and Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land 

use and recreation. 

The “Lands” amendment would allow the Project to conform to the Management 

Objective. Allowing additional ROW placement, however, would not establish a new 

corridor, and new proposals for siting a utility line would require a plan amendment, in 

addition to assessment under NEPA.

Allowing transmission lines outside the previously designated ROWs would mean that 

construction and operations impacts would occur outside these corridors. This includes 

impacts to wildlife, vegetation, soils, and cultural resources. 

Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would cross approximately 15 miles of elk crucial 

winter range, 2.5 miles of which are on BLM-managed land that is not within an existing 

ROW or the WWE corridor. Approximately 2 miles of the 5 miles of elk crucial winter 

range crossed by Alternative 8C is on BLM-managed land and is within the WWE

corridor.

Approximately 300 raptor nests are located within 1 mile of Segment 8 of the Proposed 

Route within the Kuna MFP Planning Area (which includes land managed under the 

SRBOP RMP); 252 of these are on BLM-managed land, and include 36 burrowing owls, 

55 ferruginous hawks, and 161 prairie falcons. Alternative 8B would be within 1 mile of 

19 nests on BLM–managed land (compared to 241 nests within 1 mile of the 

comparison portion of the Proposed Route). Alternatives 8C crosses within 1 mile of 5 

nests on federal land (compared to 4 nests for the comparison portion of the Proposed 

Route). Impacts to raptors could include area avoidance, decreased hunting success 

and nest abandonment due to disturbance. Mitigation measures and BMPs following 

appropriate working and operations windows would limit these impacts.

Stream crossings would occur for the Proposed Route. Impacts to fish could include 

increased siltation from culvert installation, decreased riparian cover, and migration 

barriers. BMPs would be in place to minimize these impacts and correct improperly 

functioning culverts such that passage is not hindered.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS

Appendix F-1 – Proposed RMP and MFP F.1-63

Plan Amendments 

The soils for Segment 8 and its alternatives are generally susceptible to erosion with a 

low tolerance to soil loss. Impacts from the Project include compaction, as well as soil 

loss due to wind and water erosion. 

Cultural impacts from the amendment to CRM-2.1 could include impacts to the sense of 

place and historic character of the railroad. Mitigation measures would be aimed at 

reducing these impacts and construction would occur in a manner that would avoid 

disturbing important historic resources. Possible impacts include presence of a 

structure not in keeping with the historic nature of the site, disturbance of land 

containing culturally important artifacts or landscape features, as well as noise and 

construction disturbance during construction, decommissioning, and repair and 

maintenance.
Appendix F-2

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. 

Submitted To:

USDA Forest Service
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-iii

Plan Amendments 

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................F.2-1

2.0 PLANNING PROCESS.....................................................................................F.2-1

2.1 PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA......................................................F.2-2

2.1.1 Planning Issues ...........................................................................F.2-2

2.1.2 Planning Criteria ..........................................................................F.2-3

3.0 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ...........................................................................F.2-3

3.1 MEDICINE BOW FOREST PLAN............................................................F.2-4

3.1.1 Reason for Amendment...............................................................F.2-4

3.1.2 Standards to be Amended ...........................................................F.2-4

3.1.3 Amendment Applicability..............................................................F.2-8

3.1.4 NEPA Analysis.............................................................................F.2-8

3.1.5 Effects..........................................................................................F.2-8

3.2 CARIBOU FOREST PLAN.......................................................................F.2-9

3.2.1 Reason for Amendment...............................................................F.2-9

3.2.2 Forest Plan Direction to be Amended ........................................F.2-10

3.2.3 Amendment Applicability............................................................F.2-12

3.2.4 NEPA Analysis...........................................................................F.2-12

3.2.5 Effects........................................................................................F.2-12

3.3 SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST........................................................F.2-13

3.3.1 Reason for Amendment.............................................................F.2-13

3.3.2 Standards to be Amended .........................................................F.2-14

3.3.3 Amendment Applicability............................................................F.2-16

3.3.4 NEPA Analysis...........................................................................F.2-16

3.3.5 Effects........................................................................................F.2-16
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-iv

Plan Amendments 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI area of inconsistency

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

kV kilovolt

MA Management Area

MP milepost

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NOI Notice of Intent

PFA post-fledging area

Project Gateway West Transmission Line Project

R Range

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROW right-of-way

SIO Scenic Integrity Objective

SMS Scenery Management System

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized

T Township

U.S.C. United States Code

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WWE West-wide Energy
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-1

Plan Amendments 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Project) starts in Wyoming at the 

Windstar Substation and takes two paths to the Aeolus Substation—one that swings to 

the east (Segment 1E) and one (Segment 1W) that for the most part follows or parallels 

the West-Wide Energy (WWE) corridor and an existing 230- kilovolt (kV) line (proposed 

for reconstruction as Segment 1W[c]). It then proceeds as a double-circuit 500-kV line 

from Aeolus to Populus (though in Segments 2 and 3 with one of the circuits initially 

energized at 230 kV between the Aeolus and Anticline Substations). At Populus, the 

Project splits into two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths. Segments 5, 6, and 8 

travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway Substation through the Borah 

and Midpoint Substations, while Segments 7 and 9 travel a more southerly route 

through the Cedar Hill Substation to the Hemingway Substation. Segment 10 provides 

an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint Substations and also provides 

an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. 

The Project crosses National Forest System (NFS) lands, as well as federal lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As a cooperating agency, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) has and will continue to 

participate in all aspects of the environmental analysis, and will use the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) as a basis for its decision regarding issuance of the special use 

permit and determining under what terms and conditions the permit should be issued. 

The applicable Forest Plans establish management direction including Standards and 

Guidelines for land and resource management on the Forest (36 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 219). Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 

consistency with these Standards and Guidelines must be demonstrated prior to Project 

approval (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1604(i) and 36 CFR 219.10[e]). The Forest 

Plan may be amended to permit projects that are inconsistent with Land and Resource 

Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest Plan) direction (36 CFR 219.10[f]).

The Forest Service has determined that, depending on the route selected, the proposed 

Project would have inconsistencies with certain aspects of the Medicine Bow, Caribou, 

and Sawtooth Forest Plans. Any decisions to amend a plan would be made concurrent 

with a decision on the proposed Project. 

2.0 PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning action is to consider amending three Forest Plans as a part of the EIS. 

Scoping meetings have been held for this Project, where the public, as well as state, 

local, tribal, and federal governments were invited to participate in the planning process. 

Public scoping was initiated with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

EIS in the Federal Register on May 16, 2008 (73 Federal Register 28425). The NOI 

was followed by a series of nine public meetings held in 2008. Four of these meetings

were held in Wyoming, and five were held in Idaho:

• Tuesday, June 3, 2008, in the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area, Idaho;

• Tuesday, June 3, 2008, in Murphy, Idaho;
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-2

Plan Amendments 

• Wednesday, June 4, 2008, in Pocatello, Idaho;

• Wednesday, June 4, 2008, in Boise, Idaho;

• Thursday, June 5, 2008, in Montpelier, Idaho;

• June 9, 2008, in Casper, Wyoming;

• June 10, 2008, in Rawlins, Wyoming;

• June 11, 2008, in Rock Springs, Wyoming; and

• June 12, 2008, in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

Multiple meetings were also held between 2008 and 2009 with private landowners 

located within 2 miles of the Project’s Proposed and Alternative Routes. The public has 

been given the opportunity to comment on and provide additional information regarding 

the Project, including the possibility of Plan amendments, during these meetings. This 

public input has brought to light additional issues and prompted more comprehensive 

analysis, which has been included in the EIS. 

2.1 PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA 

The NOI listed the planning issues that were anticipated and invited the public, other 

federal agencies, as well as state, local, and Tribal governments to identify additional 

concerns or issues during scoping meetings and the comment period that followed. 

2.1.1 Planning Issues 

The issues identified through public scoping and which have been used to develop 

alternatives are as follows: 

• Objection to location on private lands (“If the project is for the general public 

good, it should be on public lands.”);

• Reliability and proposed separation distances of transmission lines;

• Avoiding sensitive areas such as National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges, 

military operating areas, National Conservation Areas, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, Roadless Areas, and State Parks;

• Effects to Native American traditional cultural properties and respected places;

• Effects to paleontological resources;

• Effects on wildlife habitat, plants, and animals including threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species;

• Effects to visual resources and existing view sheds;

• Effects to National Historic Trails and their viewsheds;

• Land use conflicts and consistency with land use plans;

• Effects to soils and water from surface-disturbing activities;

• Effects to agriculture lands;
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-3

Plan Amendments 

• Effect on local and regional socioeconomic conditions; and

• Management of invasive plant species and effective reclamation.

2.1.2 Planning Criteria 

The following general planning criteria are being considered in the development of the 

proposed plan amendment: 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

• Existing laws, regulations, and Forest Service policies;

• Plans, programs and policies of other federal, state and local governments, and 

Indian Tribes;

• Public input;

• Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and 

values;

• Past and present use of public and adjacent lands;

• Environmental impacts;

• Social and economic values;

• Public welfare and safety; and

• President’s National Energy Policy.

3.0 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Amendments to Forest Plans may be needed to bring the Project into compliance with 

the applicable Forest Plans for lands crossed by the Project, depending on the final 

route selected. The final text of the amendment(s) would depend on final conditions of 

approval for the Project. Inconsistencies of the Project with the applicable Forest Plans 

include the following:

• Developing a new right-of-way (ROW) outside of approved corridors,

• Building additional roads where motorized access is limited,

• Effects on wildlife habitat,

• Effects on recreation, and 

• Effects on scenery/visual resources.

Effects on visual resources were determined through the use of computer modeling, 

field visits, and site-specific knowledge by Forest staff. The analysis and effects 

determinations on visual resources are documented in Appendix G-2. The proposed 

amendments reference the analysis, maps of the locations, referred to as the areas of 

inconsistency (AOIs), photographs, and simulations included in Appendix G-2. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-4

Plan Amendments 

3.1 MEDICINE BOW FOREST PLAN

Digest: Modifies Management Direction to authorize transmission line construction, 

operations, and maintenance on Medicine Bow National Forest (NF)1

, Wyoming.

3.1.1 Reason for Amendment

This amendment to the Medicine Bow National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan, 2003 Revision2 (referred to hereafter as the Medicine Bow Forest Plan) would 

allow for approval of a construction permit and granting of an authorization for operation 

and maintenance of high-voltage transmission lines on portions of the Medicine Bow 

NF, Wyoming. The Project includes rebuilding one line that crosses the Forest as well 

as the construction of two additional lines. These three lines are generally parallel, and 

would each cross approximately 2 to 3 miles of the Douglas Ranger District. Also, an 

alternative to one of the Proposed Route crosses the Forest; therefore, the Forest 

Service is a cooperating federal agency. A Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) are 

expected to be published in the spring of 2012. 

Three transmission lines would cross the Medicine Bow NF under the Proposed Action. 

An existing transmission line, referred to as Segment 1W(a), would be rebuilt. 

Approximately 2.3 miles of this line would be located on NFS land in Management Area 

(MA) 8.3—Utility Corridors and Electronic Sites. A new transmission line (referred to as 

Segment 1W[c]) would be built parallel to this existing line, located approximately 1,500 

feet to the southeast of 1W(a). Approximately 2.3 miles of 1W(c) would be located on 

NFS land, all within the WWE corridor. This line would be within an area allocated to 

MA 8.3—Utility Corridors and Electronic Sites. A second new line, generally 1,500 feet 

to the southeast of 1W(c) (referred to as Segment 1E, and which would cross 2.8 miles 

of NFS land) would be built across land allocated to MA 3.31—Back Country 

Recreation. Approximately 2 miles of Segment 1E would parallel 1W(c). The route 

would then turn southwest and cross an additional 0.8 mile of NFS land. Alternatively, a 

line approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest of the existing transmission line may be 

built instead of the Proposed Route 1E (referred to as Alternative 1E-C, which, if 

selected, would cross approximately 2 miles of NFS land also allocated to MA 3.31). 

3.1.2 Standards to be Amended

This amendment to Forest Plan Direction would apply only for those lands identified in 

the Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and only to Project decisions on those lands. 

Lands not analyzed in the EIS must undergo analysis following guidelines set forth in 36 

CFR 220 prior to any additional authorizations. 

The Medicine Bow Forest Plan contains Standards and Guidelines for activities that can 

be conducted on NFS lands (Attachment A). Standards are actions that must be 

followed or are required limits to activities that must be followed to achieve Forest goals. 

Deviations from Standards must be analyzed and documented in a Forest Plan 

amendment (Page 1-25). Under the Medicine Bow Forest Plan, Guidelines are 

 

1 While the Medicine Bow and Routt NFs are managed as one unit, the land and resource management plan 

discussed in this amendment applies only to the Medicine Bow NF. 

2 Forest Service. 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2003 Revision. Rocky 

Mountain Region. Laramie, Wyoming. December.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-5

Plan Amendments 

advisable courses of action that should be followed to achieve Forest goals. Deviations 

from Guidelines must be analyzed during project-level analysis and documented in a 

project decision document but do not require a Forest Plan amendment (Page 1-25). 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species—Standard 4 (LRMP 1-42) and 

Standard 5 (LRMP 1-42)

Standard 4: Within each occupied northern goshawk territory, select three nests and 

protect 30 acres of dense vegetation surrounding each, defining the boundaries of each 

area based on habitat quality. If fewer than 3 nests are found within an occupied 

territory, substitute 30-acre areas with characteristics of nesting habitat.

Standard 5: Within each occupied northern goshawk territory, designate a northern 

goshawk post-fledging area (PFA) of a minimum of 200 acres that includes the three 

30-acre nest sites selected. The large tree component within the PFA should include 

snags, down dead wood, and clumps of trees with interlocking crowns. Within the PFA, 

prohibit management activities that may degrade goshawk foraging habitat.

Need for Amendment: Based on existing historical data, northern goshawk nests are 

located near the portion of the Project located on the Medicine Bow NF; however, 

surveys conducted in 2010 for Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) determined that these nests 

are no longer active. The 2010 surveys did confirm that goshawks still occupy the area 

(based on call back responses from goshawks on adjacent private land) and are likely 

still nesting in the area. Surveys are still needed for Segment 1E (which is located 

approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Segment 1W[c]) and Alternative 1E-C (which is 

located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of Segment 1W[a]). As goshawks likely 

nest in this general area, and Project construction would remove suitable goshawk 

habitat, a plan amendment is needed to allow the Project.

Habitat near historic northern goshawk nests would be disturbed during construction, 

which would result in a direct loss of habitat, as well as creating a potential to disturb 

birds in adjacent habitats. On the Medicine Bow NF, approximately 16 acres of forested 

habitat within 1 mile of historic nests would be impacted by construction along Segment 

1E, 9 acres along Segment 1W(a), and 7 acres along Segment 1W(c). ROW 

maintenance would remove snags from the immediate footprint of the Project, further 

reducing habitat; however, snags would remain in forested areas that are located 

directly adjacent to the ROW and road footprints. In addition, shrub habitats that may 

currently serve as hunting habitats for the northern goshawk would also be impacted. 

(If Alternative 1E-C is selected rather than Segment 1E, it would remove approximately 

7 acres of goshawk habitat on NFS land, 7 acres less than 1E). An amendment to the 

Medicine Bow Forest Plan allowing the Gateway West Project would be needed, which 

will follow timing restrictions for northern goshawks.

Mitigation: Design roads to avoid goshawk habitat to the extent feasible. Survey prior 

to construction during the appropriate season to identify active nests and follow 

Medicine Bow NF timing restrictions for northern goshawks (see additional mitigation in 

Table 2.7-1 of the Draft EIS).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-6

Plan Amendments 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species—Standard 11 (LRMP 1-44)

Standard: Allow no loss or degradation of known or historic habitat for the boreal toad, 

wood frog, or northern leopard frog.

Need for Amendment: Construction of the Project would disturb approximately 1 acre of 

wetland and riparian habitat on the Medicine Bow NF. This area provides suitable 

habitat for amphibian species such as the boreal toad, wood frog, and northern leopard 

frog. Therefore a plan amendment is required. An amendment would be needed 

allowing the Gateway West Transmission Line Project to be approved by the Medicine 

Bow Forest. Mitigation measures would be applied to reduce impacts to the boreal 

toad, wood frog, or northern leopard frog. 

Mitigation: To minimize impacts to wetland and riparian habitat on the Medicine Bow

NF, the Proponents would implement the Project Reclamation, Revegetation, and Weed 

Management Plan, which will include a site-specific plan for ROW vegetation 

management in riparian and wetland areas. Additionally, a buffer zone of 25 feet would

be observed where physically and economically feasible. Where impacts cannot be 

avoided, a site-specific crossing plan and measures to mitigate impacts will be 

submitted to the Forest for approval. Crossing plans will demonstrate that vegetation 

removal is minimized, show how sediment would be controlled during construction and 

operation within wetland and riparian areas, attempt to intersect the wetland or riparian 

habitat at its edge, and provide measures to restore habitat and ensure conservation of 

riparian microclimates. To further reduce impacts, topsoil in affected wetlands shall be 

segregated during construction and reapplied during restoration. 

Scenery Management, Standard 1 (LRMP 1-56)

Standard: Apply the Scenery Management System (SMS) to all NFS lands. Travel 

routes, use areas, and waterbodies determined to be of primary importance are a 

concern Level 1 and appropriate Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are established 

according to the SMS.

Need for Amendment: The SMS was used to identify effects to SIOs. The Project 

crosses two MAs:

• MA 3.31—Back Country Recreation-Year-round Motorized with a Moderate SIO.

• MA 8.3—Utility Corridors with an SIO of “compatible with adjacent management 

areas.” 

A Plan amendment is required because Segment 1E, which crosses MA 3.31 for 

approximately 2.7 miles (or 1E-C, which crosses MA 3.31 for approximately 2 miles), is 

not consistent with the SIO. Forest Plan direction states the SIO of Moderate is 

“Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape 

being viewed. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the 

characteristic landscape but may not change in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, 

direction, pattern, etc.” Transmission lines are considered inconsistent with the SIO of 

Moderate (Forest Plan p. 3.2-70). 

Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) each cross approximately 2.3 miles of NFS land classified 

as MA 8.3. MA 8.3 allows development in utility corridors to be obvious and to 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-7

Plan Amendments 

dominate foreground views; however, the development must be consistent with the 

SIOs of adjacent MAs. The adjacent area is MA 3.31 where the SIO is Moderate; 

therefore, Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) are inconsistent with Forest Plan direction. An 

amendment would be needed for a one-time allowance to permit the Gateway West 

Project to cross areas managed according to Moderate SIOs. Refer to Appendix G-2 

for the scenery analysis.

Mitigation: To minimize visual impacts, the following Forest Plan Guideline will be 

followed: Crossing the Medicine Bow NF along a transmission corridor shall require the 

preparation of a vegetation management plan for the utility corridor to minimize scenic 

impacts and plan for rehabilitation of existing impacts. This vegetation management 

plan would be proposed between mileposts (MPs) 27.0 to 30.0 of Segment 1W(c) and 

MPs 28.0 through 31.0 of Segment 1W(a).

The following additional mitigation would also be implemented: 1) new towers shall be 

similar to the existing towers to reduce contrast; 2) a construction and maintenance plan 

shall be developed and approved by the Forest Service prior to construction to reduce 

ROW scarring and enhance restoration; 3) no paint or permanent coloring agents shall 

be applied to mark the clearing area boundary; 4) the edges of the cleared area shall be 

feathered to give a natural appearance; 5) access roads shall follow landform contours 

where practicable to minimize ground disturbance and reduce scarring (visual contrast); 

and 6) the towers shall have a dull galvanized coating and insulators would be made of 

non-reflective material. 

Management Area Prescriptions—3.31 Backcountry Recreation, Year-Round 

Motorized, General, Standard 1 (RLRMP 2-34)

Standard: Allow uses and activities only if they do not degrade the primitive character 

of the area. 

Need for Amendment: Approximately 2.7 miles of Segment 1E (or 2 miles of Alternative

1E-C if selected rather than 1E) cross the Forest where it is currently allocated to MA 

3.31—Backcountry Recreation, Year-round Motorized and the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) classification is Semi-primitive Motorized. Within this ROS 

classification, alterations should not draw the attention of motorized observers on trails 

and primitive roads within the area and structures should be rare and isolated. By not 

maintaining the primitive character of the area, the Project would be inconsistent with 

the Forest Plan and would require a plan amendment. 

If Segment 1E is approved, Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township (T) 30N Range (R) 

78W, and the west halves of sections 18 and 19, T30N R77W would be allocated to MA 

8.3—Utility Corridors and Electronic Sites. If Alternative 1E-C is selected instead of 

Proposed Route 1E, only Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, T30N R78W would be allocated 

to MA 8.3. The ROS classification for MA 8.3 is Roaded Natural; under this 

classification modifications may be easily noticed and strongly dominant to observers 

within the area. 

Mitigation: Visual mitigation measures will be implemented, as described above, 

resulting in development of a construction and maintenance plan to reduce ROW 

scarring and enhance restoration; no permanent marking for clearing area boundary;

feathering the ROW edges for a more natural appearance; following landforms, when 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-8

Plan Amendments 

practicable, when constructing access roads; and constructing the towers with dull 

galvanized coating and making the insulators out of non-reflective material. Mitigation 

measures, listed in Table 2.7-1 of the Draft EIS, would be followed, where appropriate.

3.1.3 Amendment Applicability

This amendment to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would apply only for those 

lands identified in the Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and as included under the 

special use permit. Lands not analyzed must undergo analysis following Guidelines set 

forth in 36 CFR 228.102 prior to any additional authorizations. Those lands not 

impacted by the special use permit and authorization shall continue to be managed 

under the existing management prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines.

3.1.4 NEPA Analysis

The NEPA evaluation of this proposed amendment, as called for by 36 CFR Part 219, 

Section 219.10(f), has been performed as part of the Gateway West Project EIS 

process. As part of the proposed plan amendment evaluation, a determination as to 

whether the proposed amendment is a significant or non-significant amendment to the 

current plan will be made and documented in the ROD for the Project. This amendment 

is consistent with the NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508, Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.15 (09/20/10) and 26 CFR 220.

3.1.5 Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-2 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects 

on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and 

Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. A summary of 

effects specific to the above proposed amendments is presented below.

Amending Standards 4 and 5 of the Forest Plan would result in direct loss of habitat and 

physical disturbance to northern goshawks within and adjacent to the planning area (as 

is discussed above). Effects of this disturbance may include avoidance of previous 

nesting areas by birds that would otherwise have used existing nests. Reduction of 

forest cover due to ROW maintenance could further affect behavior and habitat 

suitability. Where shrub habitats are disturbed, the disruption to prey species could 

result in impact on northern goshawk by altering prey behaviors and thus availability.

Amending Standard 11 of the Forest Plan to allow the Gateway West Project in areas 

would likely result in disturbance of approximately 1 acre of wetland and riparian habitat. 

Mitigation measures would aim to minimize disturbance; however, some loss of habitat 

is likely to occur. This could negatively impact the local population within the affected 

area due to changes in vegetation cover, water quality, and surface disturbance.

Permitting the Project as a one-time allowance through areas with a Moderate SIO 

would result in impacts to scenic values that are not consistent with a Moderate SIO. 

The presence of additional transmission lines would detract from the natural setting and 

likely impact the visual experience for recreational users of the NF. Mitigation measures 

and the remoteness of the area would likely result in relatively few viewers impacted, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-9

Plan Amendments 

however the presence of multiple new transmission lines through the forest would

increase the visual impact of the existing ROW.

Changing the MA from 3.31 to 8.3 would allow for different management objectives 

within the utility corridor designation. This designation would allow for higher visibility of 

man-made structures as well as allow for new road construction. Alterations to the 

landscape are not required to maintain the primitive characteristic of the area, and thus 

both the physical and visual characteristics of the landscape could be altered. 

Reclassification of the area also allows for additional actions that would not be 

consistent with MA 3.31 but are consistent with 8.3, which could create additional 

impacts to the surrounding area. This would affect recreational users as well as wildlife 

within the land adjacent to the reclassified area.

3.2 CARIBOU FOREST PLAN

Digest: Establishes a new corridor of Management 8.1—Concentrated Development 

Area, to authorize transmission line construction, operations, and maintenance on 

Caribou NF3

, Idaho. 

3.2.1 Reason for Amendment

Portions of Segment 4 of the Project cross areas of the Forest currently designated as 

Management Prescriptions 5.2—Forest Vegetation Management, 2.7.2 (Elk and Deer 

Winter Range), and 3.2—Semi-Primitive Recreation. To be consistent with Forest Plan 

direction, an amendment is needed to designate the ROW for the proposed double 

circuit 500 kV line as Prescription 8.1—Concentrated Development Areas. 

This amendment to the Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest4 (hereafter 

referred to as the Caribou Forest Plan) would allow for approval of a special use permit 

for the construction and operations of the Project on the Caribou portion of the CaribouTarghee NF, Idaho. Currently, the BLM is the lead agency preparing a Draft EIS on an 

application from the Proponents for a ROW grant to use the National System of Public 

Lands for portions of the Project in Idaho and Wyoming. The application was originally 

submitted to the BLM in May 2007, and most recently was revised in January 2010 to 

reflect refinements in the proposed Project. Approximately 9.2 miles of the proposed 

1,103-mile transmission line are located on the Caribou NF. 

As a cooperating agency, the Forest Service has and will continue to participate in all 

aspects of the environmental analysis, and will use the EIS as a basis for its decision 

regarding issuance of the special use permit and determining under what terms and 

conditions the permit should be issued. The Caribou Forest Plan establishes 

management direction including Standards and Guidelines for land and resource 

management on the Forest (36 CFR 219). Under the NFMA, consistency with these 

Standards and Guidelines must be demonstrated prior to project approval (16 U.S.C.

1604(i) and 36 CFR 219.10(e)). The Forest Plan may be amended to permit projects 

 

3 While the Caribou NF and Targhee NF are managed as one unit, the land and resource management plan 

discussed in this amendment applies only to the Caribou portion of the NF.

4 Forest Service. 2003. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Caribou National Forest. Intermountain 

Region, Idaho Falls, Idaho. February.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-10

Plan Amendments 

that are inconsistent with Forest Plan direction (36 CFR 219.10[f] and Caribou Forest 

Plan pages 1-3 and 1-4). 

The NEPA analysis for the Project indicates that approval of the special use permit 

would be inconsistent, in some instances, with Standards and Guidelines in the Caribou 

Forest Plan.

3.2.2 Forest Plan Direction to be Amended 

This amendment to the Caribou Forest Plan would apply only for those lands identified 

in the Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and only to Project decisions on those lands. 

NFS lands not analyzed must undergo analysis following Guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 

220 prior to any additional authorizations. 

Management Prescriptions, a set of management practices, are applied to a specific 

area of land to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives. They identify the 

emphasis and focus of multiple-use management activities in a specific area; however, 

emphasis, as used in this context, is defined as a focus or a highlight and does not 

necessarily mean exclusive use. The specific direction stated in a management 

prescription determines what uses are allowed and to what extent the uses are 

permitted. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines apply unless specified in the 

Management Prescription direction.

Standards are used to promote the achievement of the desired future conditions and 

objectives at the Forest or Management Prescription level. Standards are binding 

limitations on management activities that are within the authority of the Forest Service to 

enforce. A Standard can also be expressed as a constraint on management activities 

or practices (Forest Plan, pg. 3-1). Exceptions to Standards require analysis to be 

disclosed in a NEPA document and a Forest Plan Amendment.

Guidelines are used in the same way as Standards but tend to be operationally flexible 

to respond to variations, such as changing site conditions or changed management 

circumstances. Under the Caribou Forest plan, Guidelines are a preferred or advisable 

course of action, and they are expected to be carried out, unless site-specific analysis 

identifies a better approach (Forest Plan, pg. 3-1). Exceptions to Guidelines require the 

analysis be disclosed in a NEPA document and a Forest Plan Amendment is needed 

unless a better site-specific approach is identified in the NEPA document.

Scenic Resources, Guideline 2 (RFP 3-40)

Guideline: Until the SMS is fully implemented, projects should be planned and 

implemented to meet the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as displayed on the Forest 

VQO map.

Need for Amendment: Although three transmission lines and State Route 36 cross the 

Forest within 1 to 4 miles of the proposed ROW, the portion of the Forest crossed by the 

Project has VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention. Management activities in areas 

classified as Retention should not be evident to the casual Forest visitor. Management 

activities in areas classified as Partial Retention may be evident but should be 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The Proponents have worked with the 

Forest Service to site the proposed transmission line to minimize visual impacts; 

however, the transmission line does not conform to the Retention or Partial Retention 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-11

Plan Amendments 

VQOs. Therefore, a Project-level management plan amendment to change the ROW to 

Prescription 8.1, allowing the project as a visually altering action without redesignating 

the VQO for the area, would be required. Refer to Appendix G-2 for the scenery 

analysis.

Mitigation: To mitigate potential visual impacts from Segment 4 within the Forest, the 

following measures shall be implemented: 1) a construction and maintenance plan shall 

be developed and approved by the Forest Service prior to construction to reduce ROW 

scarring and enhance restoration; 2) no paint or permanent coloring agents shall be 

applied to mark the clearing area boundary; 3) the edges of the cleared area shall be 

feathered to give a natural appearance; 4) access roads shall follow landform contours 

where practicable to minimize ground disturbance and reduce scarring (visual contrast); 

and 5) the towers shall have a dull galvanized coating and insulators would be made of 

non-reflective material. See Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS for additional mitigation 

measures.

Recreation. Guideline 4, (RFP 3-40)

Guideline: Projects should be planned and implemented to meet the ROS as depicted 

on the Forest ROS map.

Need for Amendment: Approximately 84 percent of the segment crossing the Caribou 

NF (7.7 miles) crosses lands allocated to the Roaded Natural ROS class. The 

remainder (1.5 miles) is allocated to Semi-Primitive Motorized. An estimated 11.1 miles 

of new road would be required along the portion of Segment 4 that crosses the Caribou 

NF, and an estimated 4.3 miles of existing road would require improvement. SemiPrimitive Motorized is defined as having a natural setting with moderately dominant 

alterations that would not draw the attention of motorized observers on trails and 

primitive roads within the area. Structures are rare and isolated. The transmission line 

and new or improved roads associated with the Project would not be compatible with 

the Semi Primitive Motorized ROS designation. The Caribou Forest Plan would be 

amended to change the area within 500 feet of the transmission line and new 

permanent roads to Roaded Natural (affecting approximately 835 acres).

Mitigation: Temporary roads would be decommissioned using Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines. Roads needed for future access to the towers would be reduced to an 

8-foot width and revegetated using low-growing plants. The remainder of the roadway 

would be restored to the extent feasible. See Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS for additional 

mitigation measures.

Table 3.5 Management Standards and Guidelines within Active Goshawk Nesting 

Territories (RFP 3-30).

The management Standards and Guidelines in Table 3.5, Management Standards and 

Guidelines within Active Goshawk Nesting Territories (Forest Plan page 3-30), apply to 

all forest types within active and historic goshawk nesting territories.

Need for Amendment: Surveys and historical data indicate that the area is occupied. 

Four nests have been identified on NFS land. Foraging habitat for northern goshawks 

would be disturbed during construction, which would result in a direct loss of habitat, as 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-12

Plan Amendments 

well as potentially disturbing birds in adjacent habitats. About 33 acres would be 

impacted within 1 mile of nests along Segment 4 on the Caribou NF. The initial 

clearing, as well as ROW maintenance would remove snags from the immediate 

footprint of the Project, thereby further reducing habitat. In addition, shrub habitats 

would also be impacted on NFS land, which may currently serve as hunting habitat for 

the northern goshawk. Approximately 82 acres of goshawk habitat would be impacted 

within the 5,400 acres of foraging area on the Caribou NF. Because this is greater than 

the limit of 40 acres, the Project is not in compliance with the Caribou Forest Plan. 

Therefore, a plan amendment is needed to allow the Project with mitigation where it 

would otherwise not comply with the Forest Plan.

Mitigation: Design roads to avoid goshawk habitat to the extent feasible. Survey prior 

to construction during the appropriate season to identify active nests and follow timing 

restrictions for nesting goshawks. See Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS for additional 

mitigation measures.

Proposed Amendment

Designate a new corridor of Management Prescription 8.1—Concentrated Development 

Area. The corridor will be 9.2 miles long by 300 feet wide; the area within 500 feet of 

the transmission line and new access roads will have an ROS of Roaded Natural. 

Standards and Guidelines for protecting goshawk foraging habitat will not apply within

the corridor. Access roads necessary to construct and maintain the transmission line 

will remain in their respective Management Prescription (5.2, 2.7.2 or 3.2) and managed 

to be compliant with that Prescription.

3.2.3 Amendment Applicability

This amendment to the Caribou Forest Plan management prescriptions would apply

only for those lands identified in the Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and as included 

under the special use permit. Lands not analyzed must undergo analysis following 

Guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 220 prior to any additional authorizations. Those lands 

not impacted by the special use permit and authorization shall continue to be managed 

under the existing management prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines.

3.2.4 NEPA Analysis

The NEPA evaluation of this proposed amendment, as called for by 36 CFR Part 219, 

Section 219.10(f), has been performed as part of the Gateway West Project EIS 

process. As part of the proposed plan amendment evaluation, a determination as to 

whether the proposed amendment is a significant or non-significant amendment to the 

current plan will be made and documented in the ROD for the Project. This amendment 

is consistent with NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, FSH 1909.15 (09/20/10), and 26 

CFR 220.

3.2.5 Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-2 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects 

on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-13

Plan Amendments 

Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. A summary of 

effects specific to the above proposed amendments is presented below.

Designating a new corridor within the NF would create a new linear disturbance in 

addition to an area that currently contains existing corridors. This could have effect on 

both wildlife and recreational users. Changing the management to Concentrated 

Development would allow additional actions that could impact wildlife and scenic values 

within the area. 

Changing the ROS to Roaded Natural would permit road building within the 

redesignated portions. This would likely impact recreational users due to changes in 

scenic qualities as well as road use and noise, especially during construction. 

Unauthorized use of Project roads may also occur, which could lead to both safety and 

environmental concerns. Effects on wildlife could include avoidance of the area due to 

noise and disturbance, changes in habitat suitability for both predator and prey species, 

as well as effects of fragmentation.

The Project would affect 82 acres of northern goshawk foraging habitat. Amending the 

Caribou Forest Plan to permit this disturbance could result in decreased hunting 

efficiency for northern goshawk using land adjacent to and within the project area. This 

could lead to increased time being required for foraging which could impact overall 

productivity.

3.3 SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST 

Digest: Modifies Management Direction to authorize transmission line construction, 

operation and maintenance on Sawtooth NF, Idaho. 

3.3.1 Reason for Amendment

This amendment to the Revised Forest Plan for the Sawtooth National Forest5

(hereafter referred to as the Sawtooth Forest Plan) would allow for approval of a special 

use permit for the construction and operation of the Project on the Sawtooth NF, Idaho. 

The application was originally submitted to the BLM in May 2007, and most recently 

was revised in January 2010 to reflect refinements in the proposed Project. The 

Proposed Route does not cross the Sawtooth NF; however, three alternatives to 

Segment 7 of the Proposed Route (Alternatives 7H, 7I, and 7J) do cross the Forest.

Alternative 7H crosses two divisions of the Sawtooth NF, the Sublett and Albion 

Mountain Divisions, for a total distance of 11.4 miles, and passes within 0.5 mile of the 

northern boundary of the Black Pine Division. Alternative 7H crosses 7.2 miles of NFS

lands allocated to MA 6.1—Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland 

and Grassland Landscapes; 2.7 miles of land allocated to MA 4.2—Roaded Recreation 

Emphasis; and 1.5 miles allocated to MA 5.1—Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis 

within Forested Landscapes. 

The Sawtooth Forest Plan uses the ROS system to manage recreation opportunities on 

the Forest. Alternative 7H crosses approximately 7.0 miles allocated to the Roaded 

 

5 Forest Service. 2003. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, Intermountain 

Region, Twin Falls, Idaho July.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-14

Plan Amendments 

Natural ROS class, 4.1 miles allocated to Roaded Modified, and 0.2 mile allocated to

Semi-Primitive Motorized. These are the summer allocations. In winter, the areas 

crossed by Alternative 7H are entirely allocated to Semi-Primitive Motorized because 

existing roads are closed. An estimated 11.5 miles of new road would be required 

along the portion of Alternative 7H that crosses the Sawtooth NF. If Alternative 7H is 

authorized, land that is currently allocated to Semi-Primitive Motorized and within 0.5 

mile of a new road or the proposed ROW would not be consistent with Semi-Primitive 

Motorized (approximately 1,234 acres). Alternative 7H would cross an area classified 

as having a VQO of Partial Retention (4.0 miles in the Sublett Division and 2.9 miles in 

the Albion Mountain Division), where management activities are required to remain 

visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. It would also cross areas classified 

as Modification in the Albion Mountain Division (1.5 miles). The Project would not be 

consistent with these VQOs.

Alternative 7I crosses two divisions of the Sawtooth NF—the Sublett and Cassia 

Divisions—for a total distance of 29.6 miles, and passes within 0.5 mile of the northern 

boundary of the Black Pine Division. Alternatives 7H, 7I, and 7J share the same 

alignment where they cross the Sublett Division. An estimated 30.2 miles of new road 

would be required for the portion of Alternative 7I that crosses the Sawtooth NF. If 

Alternative 7I is authorized, land that is currently allocated to Semi-Primitive Motorized 

and within 0.5 mile of a new road or the proposed transmission line would not be 

consistent with Semi-Primitive Motorized (approximately 8,465 acres). Alternative 7I 

would also cross areas classified as Modification (5.2 miles in the Cassia Division) and 

Partial Retention (4.0 miles in the Sublett Division and 0.8 miles in the Cassia Division), 

where management activities are required to remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape. The Project would not be consistent with these VQOs.

Alternative 7J shares the same alignment as 7I until MP 137.2, at which point it turns 

west, crossing approximately 0.2 additional mile of Sawtooth NF before leaving the NF 

and crossing BLM-managed and private lands. Alternative 7J would cross areas 

classified as Modification (2.2 miles in the Cassia Division) and Partial Retention (4.0 

miles in the Sublett Division, and 0.1 mile in the Cassia Division), where management 

activities are required to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

The Project would not be consistent with these VQOs.

The NEPA analysis for the Project indicates that approval of the special use permit 

would be inconsistent, in some instances, with Standards and Guidelines in the 

Sawtooth Forest Plan. Thus, the required plan amendment and associated mitigation 

are described herein.

3.3.2 Standards to be Amended

This amendment to Plan Standards would apply only for those lands identified in the 

Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and only to Project decisions on those lands. Lands 

not analyzed must undergo analysis following Guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 228.102 

prior to any additional authorizations. 

Standards are actions that must be followed or are required limits to activities in order 

to achieve Forest goals. Deviations from Standards must be analyzed and documented 

in a Forest Plan amendment.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-15

Plan Amendments 

Guidelines under the Sawtooth Forest Plan are advisable courses of action that should 

be followed to achieve Forest goals. Deviations from Guidelines must be analyzed 

during project-level analysis and documented in a project decision document but do not 

require a Forest Plan amendment. 

Management Direction for Scenic Environment – SCST01

Standard: All projects shall be designed to meet the adopted VQOs as displayed on the 

Forest VQO map. Portions of Route Alternative are currently designated as Partial 

Retention. There should be minimal distraction from scenic quality in the foreground 

from road construction, reconstruction, and other excavation management. Roads and 

other excavation may be visible in the middleground and background landscapes, but 

should blend into the characteristic landscape of the surroundings. Portions of Route 

Alternatives are also currently designated as Modification. Management activities may

dominate the characteristic landscape but must use naturally established form, line, 

color, and texture. They should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as 

middleground. Refer to Appendix G-2 of the Draft EIS for an analysis of the visual 

effects on NFS lands.

Need for Amendment: Alternatives 7H, 7I, or 7J (if selected) would not meet 

Modification or Partial Retention VQOs where they cross the Sawtooth NF. If one of 

these alternatives is approved, a plan amendment is needed to permit the crossing of 

these VQOs by the Project as a one-time allowance without changing the management 

prescription.

Mitigation: To minimize visual impacts, the following measures shall be implemented: 

1) a construction, restoration, maintenance, and monitoring plan shall be developed by 

the Proponents and approved by the Forest Service prior to construction to reduce 

ROW scarring and enhance restoration; 2) new towers shall be similar to the existing 

towers to reduce contrast; 3) no paint or permanent coloring agents shall be applied to 

mark the clearing area boundary; 4) the edges of the cleared area shall be feathered to 

give a natural appearance; 5) access roads shall follow landform contours where 

practicable to minimize ground disturbance and reduce scarring (visual contrast); and 6) 

the towers shall have a dull galvanized coating and insulators shall be made of nonreflective material. See Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS for additional mitigation measures.

Management Direction for Recreational Resources – REGU08, REGU 10, and 

REGU 12

Standard: All projects and activities should maintain or enhance the adopted ROS 

classes as displayed on the Forest ROS strategy maps. New road construction should 

not occur within the summer Primitive and Semi-Primitive Motorized areas. Facilities 

identified as being necessary should blend with the surrounding landscape character 

and the ROS setting. 

Need for Amendment: Portions of Alternatives 7H or 7I, if selected, would not be 

consistent with the management Standard for summer Primitive and Semi-Primitive

Motorized areas. The affected area (at least 500 feet on each side of the transmission 

line and along new permanent roads) would be designated (mapped) as Roaded 

Natural. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix F-2 – Proposed F.2-16

Plan Amendments 

Mitigation: Temporary roads would be decommissioned using Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines. Roads needed for future access to the towers would be reduced to an 

8-foot width and revegetated using low-growing plants. The remainder of the roadway 

would be restored to the extent feasible. See Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS for additional 

mitigation measures.

3.3.3 Amendment Applicability

This amendment to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would apply only for 

those lands identified in the Gateway West Final EIS and ROD, and as included under 

the special use permit. Lands not analyzed must undergo analysis following Guidelines 

set forth in 36 CFR 228.102 prior to any additional authorizations. Those lands not 

impacted by the special use permit and authorization shall continue to be managed 

under the existing management prescriptions, Standards, and Guidelines.

3.3.4 NEPA Analysis

The NEPA evaluation of this proposed amendment, as called for by 36 CFR Part 219, 

Section 219.10(f), has been performed as part of the Gateway West Project EIS 

process. As part of the proposed plan amendment evaluation, a determination as to 

whether the proposed amendment is a significant or non-significant amendment to the 

current plan will be made and documented in the ROD for the Project. This amendment 

is consistent with NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, FSH 1909.15 (09/20/10), and 26 

CFR 220.

3.3.5 Effects

The direct and indirect effects of this Project are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS. Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter 4. Refer to Sections 3.2.2.2 and 

3.2.2.3 and Appendix G-2 for an analysis of the effects on visual resources; Sections 

3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 for effects on vegetation; Sections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 for effects 

on wildlife; Sections 3.11.2.2 and 3.11.2.3 for effects on special status species; and 

Sections 3.17.3.2 and 3.17.3.3 for effects on land use and recreation. A summary of 

effects specific to the above proposed amendments is presented below.

Permitting a one-time allowance for the Gateway West Project through areas 

designated as Partial Retention and Modification where it would otherwise not be in 

compliance with the visual objectives for the areas would likely result in a change 

affecting the visual experience for recreational users. Where Alternative 7H crosses the 

Albion Division, it follows an existing dirt road for much of its route. The addition of a 

transmission line to this roadway would likely increase the road’s visibility from 

viewpoints, such as Mt. Harrison (see Appendix G-2, Figure ST-2d). ROW clearing 

would result in high visibility of the Project in forested areas such as the joint 7H/7I/7J

alignment through the Sublett Division. 

Changing the ROS to Roaded Natural would change the management requirements for 

the affected areas, allowing more disturbances from road building and altering use 

restrictions. This could impact recreation, visual, and plant and wildlife resources as 

discussed in the relevant sections of the Draft EIS. Where Alternative 7H crosses the 

Albion Division, these effects may be more apparent due to the route being located 

between two roadless areas.