U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Record of Decision

December 2016

TransWest Express Transmission Project and 

Resource Management Plan Amendments

APPLICANT

TransWest Express LLC

555 17th Street, Suite 2400

Denver, CO 80202

GENERAL LOCATION

The proposed action is located on state, private and public lands in Wyoming, Colorado, 

Utah, and Nevada.

BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBERS

BLM/WY/PL-15/012+5101

WYW-177893, WYW-177893-01

(Colorado Ser. No. COC-72929, COC-72929-01)

(Utah Ser. No. UTU-87238, UTU-87238-01)

(Nevada Ser. No. NVN-86732, NVN-86732-01)

PREPARING OFFICE

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

5353 Yellowstone Road

Cheyenne, WY 82009

Phone: 307 775 6256

Fax: 307 775 6129
Wyoming State Director's Recommendation 

I recommend approval of an electric transmission line right-of-way grant (WYW-177893, WYW177893-01, COC-72929, COC-72929-01, UTU-87238, UTU-87238-01, NVN-86732, NVN-86732-01) to 

TransWest Express LLC, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental protection 

measures developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and identified in this Record of Decision 

(ROD), the appendices to this ROD, and the Plan of Development developed by TransWest Express 

LLC that is appended to this ROD. 

In addition, it is my decision to amend the Rawlins Resource Management Plan in Wyoming to bring 

the Selected Alternative into conformance with management objectives in this RMP. 

Mary .lrDUjDYB Wyefming State Director 

BLM Authorized Officer 
Colorado State Director's Recommendation 

I recommend approval of an electric transmission line right-of-way grant (WYW-177893, WYW177893-01, COC-72929, COC-72929-01, UTU-87238, UTU-87238-01, NVN-86732, NVN-86732-01) to 

TransWest Express LLC, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental protection 

measures developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and identified in this Record of Decision 

(ROD), the appendices to this ROD, and the Plan of Development developed by TransWest Express 

LLC that is appended to this ROD. 

In addition, it is my decision to amend the Little Snake Resource Management Plan in Colorado to 

bring the Selected Alternative into conformance with management objectives in this AMP. 
I 

Utah State Director's Recommendation 

recommend approval of an electric transmission line right-of-way grant (WYW-177893, WYW177893-01, COC-72929, COC-72929-01, UTU-87238, UTU-87238-01, NVN-86732, NVN-86732-01) to 

TransWest Express LLC, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental protection 

measures developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and identified in this Record of Decision 

(ROD}, the appendices to this ROD, and the Plan of Development developed by TransWest Express 

LLC that is appended to this ROD. 

In addition, it is my decision to amend the Vernal and Pony Express Resource Management Plans in 

Utah to bring the Selected Alternative into conformance with management objectives in these RMPs. 

Edwin L. Roberson 

Utah State Director 
Nevada State Director's Recommendation 

I recommend approval of an electric transmission line right-of-way grant (WYW-177893, WYW177893-01, COC-72929, COC-72929-01, UTU-87238, UTU-87238-01, NVN-86732, NVN-86732-01) to 

TransWest Express LLC, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental protection 

measures developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and identified in this Record of Decision 

(ROD), the appendices to this ROD, and the Plan of Development developed by TransWest Express 

LLC that is appended to this ROD. 

In addition, it is my decision to approve a one-time exception to the Ely District Resource Management 

Plan in Nevada, to bring the Selected Alternative into conformance with management objectives in this 

RMP. 
Approval by Assistant Secretary 

I hereby approve the decisions recommended by the State Directors, subject to the conditions 

identified in this ROD. My approval of these decisions constitutes the final decision of the Department 

of the Interior and, in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 4.331 (b), 4.41 O(a)(3), is not subject to 

appeal under Departmental regulations at 43 CFR part 4. Any challenge to this decision, must be 

brought in federal district court and is subject to 42 USC 4370m-6. 

Approved by: Date: 

M 

Assistant ecretary 

Land and Minerals Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision ES-1 

Executive Summary

This Record of Decision (ROD) reflects the decision of the United States (U.S.) Department of the 

Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to approve a right-of-way (ROW) grant and 

associated Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments for the TransWest Express Transmission 

Project (TWE Project or Project). This ROD is issued consistent with the requirements of Title II and 

Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 United States Code (USC) 1712-

1723 (Title II) and 1761(Title V), other applicable laws, and associated implementing regulations. The 

decisions in this ROD apply only to BLM-administered lands. 

After extensive environmental analysis, consideration of public comments, and compliance with all

federal laws and policies, it is the decision of the BLM to approve the Project and the associated RMP 

amendments as explained below. Specifically, this ROD authorizes a ROW grant for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the transmission line and associated facilities 

proposed by TransWest Express LLC (referred to hereafter as TransWest or Applicant). It also

approves land use plan amendments to the BLM Rawlins, Little Snake, Vernal, and Pony Express 

RMPs, and a one-time exception to the Ely District RMP (Caliente Field Office). 

The Project includes the construction of a 728-mile, 600-kilovolt (kV) direct current (DC) transmission 

system extending from south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada (Figure ROD-1). The impacts of 

this action were analyzed in the TransWest Express Transmission Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final EIS) (announced in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015). The Project traverses 

Carbon and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming; Moffat County in Colorado; Beaver, Carbon, Duchesne, 

Iron, Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Uintah, Utah, and Wasatch counties in Utah; and Clark and Lincoln 

counties in Nevada; in so doing, the project crosses BLM-administered lands managed by the BLM 

Rawlins, Little Snake, White River, Vernal, Richfield, Salt Lake, Fillmore, Cedar City, Caliente, and Las 

Vegas field offices (FOs) (see Appendix A of this ROD for a full legal description). The Final EIS 

analyzed the potential effects of the Project on public lands managed by BLM, as well as potential 

effects on private lands and lands managed by other agencies. 

The BLM’s approval will take the form of a 30-year ROW grant, issued in conformance with Title V of 

FLPMA and BLM’s implementing regulations found at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

2800. One new ROW grant, WYW-177893, will allow TransWest to use, occupy, and develop the 

public lands described in this ROD to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate the entirety of a 600-

kV electric transmission line. Subordinate case files, COC–72929, UTU–87238, and NVN–86732, will 

be created in the BLM’s automated lands record system (LR2000) that will separately identify public 

lands associated with this grant in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, respectively. The BLM will also issue 

a separate 10-year ROW grant associated with short-term/temporary construction activities. One new 

ROW grant, WYW-177893-01 will cover those activities. As with the 30-year grant, subordinate case 

file numbers will also be assigned to identify public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada associated 

with short term activities. Those subordinate case files are COC–72929-01, UTU–87238-01, and 

NVN–86732-01, respectively. For purposes of this ROD, where WYW-177893 is referenced, 

corresponding subordinate case file numbers also apply. 

The route alignment approved by this ROD (referred to as the Selected Alternative) largely follows the 

Agency Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS (Alternatives I-B, II-G, III-D, and IV-A) except

for Alternative I-B, where this ROD selects the Tuttle Micro-siting Option 4 in order to avoid crossing 

the Tuttle Conservation Easement in Moffat County, Colorado, and Alternative III-D where this ROD 

approves the Halfway Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system siting (Figure ROD-4). The 

Selected Alternative comprises 47 Final EIS segments and includes their associated access roads, 

multipurpose and helicopter fly yards, and other temporary sites needed to construct the transmission 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision ES-2 

line. Other components of the Project include two terminal stations, two ground electrode facilities 

(each connected to the respective terminal with a low voltage electrical line), and a network of 12 to 15 

fiber optic communication and regeneration sites. The new ROW grant (WYW-177893) will be issued 

for a term of 30 years and includes:

• The linear alignment of the transmission line on public land, centered within a 250-foot ROW

as analyzed in the Final EIS;

• Access roads on public land outside of the transmission line ROW area; and

• Permanent facilities (e.g., terminal stations, ground electrode facilities, and fiber optic

regeneration sites) on public land outside of the transmission line ROW area.

As noted above, in addition to the 30-year ROW grant, BLM will also issue a ROW grant 

(WYW-177893-01) for a term of 10 years that authorizes temporary construction-related activities.

Construction of the Project must commence within 5 years after the effective date of the ROW grant.

Both grants will have the option for renewal upon application, subject to NEPA review and the 

satisfaction of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements (e.g., National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)). 

These ROW grant are conditioned on the Applicant’s satisfaction of the mitigation plans and 

monitoring requirements outlined in this ROD including, but not limited to, an Avian Protection Plan; a 

Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan; a Wildlife and Plant Conservation Measures Plan; Historic Property 

Treatment Plans prepared consistent with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the Project.. The 

ROW grants are also conditioned on the issuance of all necessary local, state, and federal approvals, 

authorizations, and permits. The ROW grants will be subject to all commitments and requirements 

contained in the ROD and its appendices and will require compliance with all applicable tribal, federal, 

state, and local laws and regulations. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2805.10, the Applicant may not use the 

ROWs until the BLM accepts a Plan of Development that includes all of the requirements in the ROD 

and issues a Notice to Proceed(s) (NTP). As explained in this ROD the BLM will not issue a NTP until 

the Applicant prepares an updated Plan of Development (POD) (called the NTP POD) that incorporates 

the ROD POD (Appendix B of this ROD) and all of the information and requirements in this ROD, 

including all appendices. If the Applicant elects to utilize any of the design options identified in Section 

4.1.3 of this ROD, the Applicant must notify the BLM before the BLM issues a NTP. 

Western Area Power Administration (Western), the joint-lead agency for the Final EIS, will issue a 

separate ROD for its decision regarding whether it will use its borrowing authority as established by 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s 2009 amendment of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 

1984 to partially finance and hold partial ownership with TransWest in the resulting transmission 

facilities and capacity. The U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation Commission (URMCC, an Executive Branch agency), will each also issue 

separate RODs for portions of the Project on lands they manage along the Selected Alternative. These 

RODs will be based on analysis in the Final EIS, as these agencies were all cooperating agencies for 

development of the EIS.

TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision AA-1 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AC Alternating Current

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

BA Biological Assessment

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BO Biological Opinion

BRTG Biological Resources Task Group

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COT Conservation Objectives Team

CWA Clean Water Act

DC Direct Current

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

E.O. Executive Order

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

EHV Extra-High Voltage

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FO Field Office

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis

HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan

IPP Intermountain Power Project

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

ISA Instant Study Area 

kV Kilovolt

Kw Kilowatt

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MW Megawatt

MFP Management Framework Plans 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision AA-2 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NHT National Historic Trail 

NPS National Park Service

NRA National Recreation Area

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSHT National Scenic and Historic Trails

NOA Notice of Availability 

NTP Notice to Proceed

NTSA National Trails System Act

PA Programmatic Agreement 

POD Plan of Development

ROD Record of Decision

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW Right-of-Way

RRTT Rapid Response Team for Transmission

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SMA Special Management Area

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TAC The Anschutz Corporation

TransWest TransWest Express LLC (Applicant)

TWE TransWest Express (Project)

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

UPLPCO Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

URMCC Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM Visual Resources Management

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Western Western Area Power Administration

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WWEC West-wide Energy Corridor
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision i 

Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Background........................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Description of the TransWest Express Transmission Project ................................................ 2

2.2 Purpose and Need for BLM Action.......................................................................................... 4

2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Background .................................................................................... 4

2.4 Decisions to Be Made .............................................................................................................. 5

3.0 Decision .............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Right-of-Way (ROW) Authorization and Selected Alternative Decision................................. 6

3.1.1 Structure Types....................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Land Use Plan Amendments Decision.................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 Rawlins FO RMP Amendment ............................................................................... 13

3.2.2 Little Snake FO RMP Amendment......................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Vernal FO RMP....................................................................................................... 15

3.2.4 Pony Express RMP (Salt Lake FO)........................................................................ 15

3.2.5 Ely District RMP (Caliente FO)............................................................................... 16

4.0 Alternatives Considered................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft and Final EIS .................................................................. 16

4.1.1 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 16

4.1.2 Alternative Facilities and Transmission Line Routes ............................................. 16

4.1.3 Alternate Development Design Options................................................................. 25

4.1.4 Land Use Plan Amendments.................................................................................. 26

4.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................................. 28

4.2.1 Undergrounding Alternative.................................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Double-Hanging Alternative.................................................................................... 28

4.2.3 Alternative Corridor Segments ............................................................................... 28

4.3 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative................................................................................. 29

4.3.1 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Wyoming ............................................. 30

4.3.2 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Colorado.............................................. 31

4.3.3 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Utah..................................................... 31

4.3.4 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Nevada................................................ 32

4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative ................................................................................. 33
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision ii

5.0 Mitigation and Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 34

5.1 Project-Specific Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 34

5.2 Statement of All Practicable Mitigation Adopted................................................................... 34

6.0 Management Considerations in Choosing the Selected Alternative ....................................... 34

6.1.1 Meeting the Applicants’ Need and Objectives ....................................................... 35

6.1.2 Consideration of Resource Issues ......................................................................... 36

6.1.3 Consideration of Public Comments and Concerns................................................ 36

6.1.4 Statement of No Unnecessary or Undue Degradation.......................................... 36

6.1.5 Statement of Technical and Financial Capability................................................... 37

6.1.6 Consideration of Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies............................... 38

6.2 Connected Actions ................................................................................................................. 38

6.3 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans .............................................................................. 38

6.4 State, County and Local Plans .............................................................................................. 39

6.5 Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation .............................................................. 39

6.6 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Executive Order 

13186...................................................................................................................................... 41

6.7 Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990 ....................................................................................... 41

6.8 Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990.............................. 41

6.9 National Historic Preservation Act - Section 106 Consultation............................................. 42

6.10 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)................................................................... 42

7.0 Consistency and Consultation Review ........................................................................................ 42

7.1 Governors’ Consistency Review............................................................................................ 42

7.2 Cooperating Agencies............................................................................................................ 43

7.2.1 Federal Agencies .................................................................................................... 43

7.2.2 Tribal Governments ................................................................................................ 43

7.2.3 State Agencies ........................................................................................................ 43

7.2.4 Local Agencies........................................................................................................ 44

7.3 Government-to-Government Consultation ............................................................................ 44

8.0 Agency and Public Involvement.................................................................................................... 45

8.1 Scoping Process .................................................................................................................... 45

8.2 EIS Public Review process.................................................................................................... 45

8.2.1 Draft EIS.................................................................................................................. 45

8.2.2 Final EIS.................................................................................................................. 46

9.0 References........................................................................................................................................ 46
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision iii

List of Figures

Figure ROD-1 Selected Alternative..........................................................................................................ES-3

Figure ROD-2 Final EIS Routes and Selected Alternative Region I............................................................. 8

Figure ROD-3 Final EIS Routes and Selected Alternative Region II............................................................ 9

Figure ROD-4 Final EIS Routes and Selected Alternative Region III......................................................... 10

Figure ROD-5 Final EIS Routes and Selected Alternative Region IV ........................................................ 11

List of Appendices

Appendix A BLM Legal Descriptions

Appendix B TransWest Express Project Plan of Development (November 2015)

Appendix C Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Package 

Appendix D Responses to Comments on Final EIS and Governors’ Consistency Review

Appendix E Programmatic Agreement

Appendix F Notice to Proceed Process and Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 1 

1.0 Introduction

The TransWest Express Transmission Project (TWE Project or Project) is an extra high voltage (EHV), 

direct current (DC) transmission system extending from south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada 

(Figure ROD-1). The project was acquired by TransWest Express LLC (TransWest or Applicant). The 

transmission line (and alternatives) would cross four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada) 

on lands managed or administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); United States Forest 

Service (USFS); National Park Service (NPS); U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation Commission (URMCC); various state agencies; Native American tribes; 

municipalities; and private parties. The Project will provide the transmission infrastructure and capacity 

necessary to deliver approximately 3,000 megawatts (MW) of electric power from renewable and/or 

non-renewable energy resources in south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada. 

The Project will consist of an approximately 728-mile-long, 600-kilovolt (kV), DC transmission line and 

two terminals, each containing a converter station that converts alternating current (AC) to DC or viceversa. The northern AC/DC converter station would be located near Sinclair, Wyoming, and the 

southern AC/DC station near the Marketplace Hub in the Eldorado Valley, approximately 25 miles 

south of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Project retains an option for a future interconnection with the 

existing Intermountain Power Project (IPP) transmission system in Millard County, Utah. 

This Record of Decision (ROD) explains the decisions of the BLM to authorize Project-related actions 

affecting BLM-administered lands and approve associated land use plan decisions. The decisions in this 

ROD are based on consideration of the information generated during the analytical and public 

participation processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); FLPMA; National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA);

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA); and the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) tribal 

consultation policies. In making its decision to approve the Project, the BLM has carefully considered 

various aspects of the proposed Project and reasonable alternatives, including: potential impacts on 

environmental and cultural resources; practicable means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts; 

and national policy goals to promote renewable energy projects. This information was presented and 

analyzed in the Draft and Final EISs. 

Measures considered to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential environmental and cultural resources 

impacts include:

• Applicant-committed environmental protection measures,

• Mitigation measures developed through the NEPA process, and

• The Reasonable and Prudent Measures with Terms and Conditions in the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (BO), provided in Appendix C of this ROD.

These measures are described in the Plan of Development (POD) provided in Appendix B to this ROD

(the ROD POD). Collectively, they represent measures to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts that 

were identified and considered in the Final EIS. This ROD adopts these measures and requires the 

Applicant’s actions to be consistent with the language in this ROD and its appendices, including the ROD 

POD. The BLM will not issue any notices to proceed (NTPs) for the Project until the BLM determines that 

the Applicant has prepared a NTP POD demonstrating satisfaction of all applicable right-of-way (ROW) 

grant stipulations, terms, and conditions. Additional mitigation required by this ROD is identified in 

Appendix F. 

Following the conclusion of the public scoping period and based on the consideration of various 

resource reports and TransWest’s right-of-way application, the BLM and the Western Area Power 

Administration (Western) released the Draft EIS for a 90-day public comment period on July 3, 2013. A 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 2 

total of 453 individual comment submittals (e.g., letter, comment form, email, or court reporter 

transcription) were received, as well as 109 submittals that contained all or portions of form letters. 

Following the close of the Draft EIS public comment period, comments were compiled and analyzed to 

identify substantive issues and concerns. The analysis resulted in 1,963 substantive comments 

requiring responses. After carefully considering these comments, additional information from 

cooperators, and conducting additional internal reviews, the BLM released the Final EIS for a 30-day 

protest period for the proposed land use planning decisions and 60-day Governors’ Consistency 

review commencing on May 1, 2015. Six formal protest letters were filed with BLM. After consideration, 

these protests were denied or dismissed, and no changes were made to the land use planning decisions 

as a result of the protests. (See Section 7.1 of this ROD and 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/protest_resolution.html).

Responses to Governors’ Consistency review letters can be found in Appendix D to this ROD. 

Although no comment period was provided after issuance of the Final EIS, the BLM did receive a 

number of comment letters, which were considered (see Appendix D). This ROD details the BLM's 

final decision, including required mitigation for the Project.

2.0 Background 

2.1 Description of the TransWest Express Transmission Project

In 2007, National Grid (an international electricity and gas company) filed with the BLM a ROW 

Standard Form 299 (SF 299) Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on 

Federal Lands. In 2008, The Anschutz Corporation (TAC) formed TransWest and acquired the Project 

from National Grid. In 2010, TransWest and Western entered into a Development Agreement wherein 

Western agreed to support Project development by providing technical assistance and/or financing. 

Ultimately, Western will be issuing its own decision on whether to invest federal funds in the

development and future phases of the Project. 

The Project, as analyzed in the Final EIS, includes the following key components: 

• A transmission line – Specifically, a 755-mile, 600-kV DC line and associated 250-foot-wide

ROW between the northern and southern terminals.

• Terminals – Two terminal stations to be located on private or public lands at either end of the

transmission line: the Northern Terminal located near Sinclair, Wyoming, and the Southern

Terminal at the Marketplace Hub in the Eldorado Valley, within Boulder City, Nevada.

Terminal facilities will include converter stations and related substation facilities necessary for

interconnections to existing and planned regional AC transmission systems.

• Ground electrode facilities – Two ground electrode facilities, each connected to the respective

terminal with a low voltage electrical line, to be located on private or public lands within

100 miles of each of the Northern and Southern terminals. These ground electrode facilities

will be used to maintain system operations in the event of the loss of one or more poles (or

circuits).

• Access Roads – Access routes, including improvements to existing roads, new overland

access, and new unpaved roads to access the proposed Project facilities and work areas

during the construction, operation, and maintenance of Project phases.

• Fiber Optic Regeneration Sites – A network of 12 to 15 fiber optic communication and

regeneration sites, typically within the 250-foot-wide transmission line ROW centered on the

Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, and microwave facilities at each terminal.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 3 

• Temporary Construction Sites – Temporary construction sites will include wire pulling/fly

yards, material storage, and concrete batch plant sites.

In addition to approving the configuration identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS (as 

modified), this ROD also recognizes two alternative design options that could be constructed in the 

future. Both of these options are being approved by this ROD in order to provide flexibility to the 

Project. However, the Applicant may not utilize either option without first notifying the BLM. Each of 

these options will utilize the ROW authorized by this ROD. The BLM anticipates that implementation of 

either one of these design options will only be requested by the Applicant if sufficient capacity is 

commercially available to transmit energy delivered by the Project to California from the Intermountain 

Power Project (IPP), and if the Project is able to establish commercial interconnection agreements 

with the utility owning and operating the IPP transmission line. To use one of the design options, 

TransWest must notify the BLM during the NTP process which design option will be constructed. The 

BLM will issue an NTP for the option that is identified by the Applicant and is described in the NTP 

POD. These options include: 

• Design Option 2: Construction of a 600-kV DC transmission line from the Northern Terminal

in Sinclair, Wyoming, to a new AC/DC converter station near the existing IPP substation near

Delta, Utah. From there, a single circuit 1,500-MW, 500-kV AC transmission line would be

constructed to one of the existing substations in the Eldorado Valley, in Boulder City, Nevada

(Marketplace Hub). Near the halfway point of the southern segment (AC segment), a 500 kV

Series Compensation Station would also be constructed.

• Design Option 3: A two-phase approach: In phase one, construction of the portion of the

transmission line from Sinclair, Wyoming, to the IPP substation near Delta, Utah, to be

operated as a AC transmission system; in phase two, construction of the Northern and

Southern terminals, the remaining portion of the line from IPP to the Southern Terminal, and

the ground electrode systems, and conversion of operations to a DC system. For AC

operation, the initial phase of this design option would require 500/345 kV substation

connections near the IPP line in Millard County, Utah and construction of a 500 kV series

compensation station near the halfway point of the northern segment.

Construction of the Project is currently planned to start upon issuance of an initial NTP and is 

expected to take 3 years following issuance. Construction is expected to occur simultaneously in three 

separate areas along the ROW, as described in the attached POD. The Applicant may add 

requirements to the approved NTP POD after issuance, however, those additions may require updated 

resource surveys or additional NEPA reviews, based on whether the BLM determines the change(s) to 

be substantial. Approval of such changes to the approved NTP POD may involve issuance of a variance 

or amendment to the POD, and potentially an amendment of the right-of-way grant. These procedures 

are spelled out in Appendix G of the ROD POD.

Use of any public lands authorized under this grant is contingent upon the BLM’s receiving and 

accepting final engineering design construction plans as part of the NTP POD. Once the BLM confirms 

that the NTP POD demonstrates TransWest’s satisfaction of all pre-construction terms and conditions 

required by this ROD, the BLM will issue the overall NTP. Until the BLM issues an NTP, no surface 

disturbing activities associated with construction can occur. While the NTP POD will result in the 

issuance of an overall NTP, this ROD identifies specific items that will either require separate NTPs or 

that must be explicitly addressed by the Applicant so that they are included in the overall NTP before 

the ROW holder may use the areas identified in the ROW grant. Prior to the completion of the NTP 

POD and issuance of the overall NTP, the Applicant may request a NTP for the geotechnical 

investigation and other site survey activities prior to completion of the NTP POD. The issuance of such a 

NTP is conditioned on the completion of all necessary site survey work associated with the geotechnical 

investigation, and the review and approval of those surveys by the relevant agencies.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 4 

2.2 Purpose and Need for BLM Action

In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for multiple-use that takes 

into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources. The

Secretary of the Interior is authorized to grant ROWs on public lands for systems of generation, 

transmission, and distribution of electric energy (Section 501(a)(4)). 

The purpose of the BLM’s federal action is to respond to TransWest’s application for a ROW to 

construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a transmission line on public lands. The need for this 

action is to fulfill BLM’s responsibility under FLPMA and BLM ROW regulations to manage the public 

lands for multiple uses, including transmission of electric energy (43 CFR 2806). To advance these 

objectives, BLM designates utility corridors through public lands and endeavors to co-locate large, linear 

facilities such as transmission lines within those corridors, thereby avoiding the proliferation of new 

routes through sensitive lands and wildlife habitats (43 United States Code [USC] 1763). These 

designated corridors conform with long-range corridor needs established by the DOE under Section 368 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and correlate with designated corridors on adjoining lands. 

The BLM’s purpose and need also must consider further guidance from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

which recognized the need to improve domestic energy production, develop renewable energy 

resources, and enhance the infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines) for collection and distribution of 

energy resources across the nation. To support this, the BLM is charged with analyzing applications for 

utility and transportation systems on federal lands they administer. When analyzing applications, the 

agencies also must consider the recommendations in the 2011 Western Electricity Coordinating Council 

(WECC) 10-Year Regional Transmission Plan regarding future transmission needs (WECC 2011).

2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Background

Under FLPMA and the BLM’s implementing regulations, the BLM is responsible for managing the public 

lands for multiple uses, including transmission of electric energy (43 CFR 2806). Title V of FLPMA 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to “grant, issue, or renew rights-of-way for generation, 

transmission, and distribution of electric energy” (43 USC 1761(a)(4); 43 CFR part 2800). Under 43 CFR 

2801.2, the BLM’s objective is to grant ROWs and to control their use on public lands in a manner that: 

“(a) protects the natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent lands, whether private or 

administered by a government entity; (b) prevents unnecessary and undue degradation to public lands; 

(c) promotes the use of rights-of-way in common, considering engineering and technological

compatibility, national security, and land use plans; and (d) coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all

BLM actions under regulations in this part with state and local governments, interested individuals, and

appropriate quasi-public entities.” In addition to FLMPA, the BLM is obligated to ensure that the actions it

authorizes comply with other applicable laws, including NEPA, the NHPA, and the ESA.

In addition to these authorities, the BLM also considers the direction and objectives established by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which recognized the need to improve domestic energy 

production, develop renewable energy resources, and enhance the infrastructure (e.g., transmission 

lines) for collection and distribution of energy resources. Executive Order (E.O.) 13604, issued on 

March 22, 2012, acknowledged the critical need for improving and investing in infrastructure, including 

transmission, as important to maintaining the Nation’s competitiveness. The BLM recognizes the need 

for upgraded and new electricity transmission and distribution facilities to improve reliability, relieve 

congestion, and enhance the capability of the national grid to deliver electricity, as directed in the 

EPAct and reflected in Executive policies. 

In addition to E.O. 13604, in October 2009 nine federal entities, the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), DOI, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the 

Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Advisory Council on Historic 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 5 

Preservation (ACHP), signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing each of the 

signatories to increase their coordination to expedite and simplify the process for analyzing, permitting, 

and building transmission lines on federal lands. 

On October 5, 2011, the Obama Administration announced the formation of a Rapid Response Team 

for Transmission (RRTT) composed of the nine agencies who signed the MOU. This team was formed 

to more quickly advance the permitting for seven pilot transmission projects, including this Project. The 

RRTT mission is to “accelerate responsible and informed deployment of these seven key transmission 

facilities by: 

• Coordinating statutory permitting, review, and consultation schedules and processes among

involved federal and state agencies as appropriate through Integrated Federal Planning;

• Applying a uniform and consistent approach to consultations with Tribal governments; and

• Expeditiously resolving interagency conflicts and ensuring that all involved agencies are fully

engaged and meeting schedules.” (CEQ 2011)

On June 7, 2013, a Presidential Memorandum was issued that identifies modernization of our Nation’s 

electric grid through improved siting, permitting, and review, as critical to efforts to make electricity 

more reliable and economic, promote clean energy development, and enhance energy security. 

Finally, the President’s Climate Action Plan sets a goal of developing 20,000 MW of renewable energy 

on public lands by 2020. (Executive Office of the President 2013) 

In December 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Title 41 

of the FAST Act (“FAST-41”) creates a new entity – the Federal Permitting Improvement Council – to 

oversee the cross-agency Federal permitting and review process. It also expands the scope of 

projects for which reviews will be accelerated by adding new agencies (FERC and NRC) and 

infrastructure sectors (conventional energy generation and manufacturing) to the RRTT list, and 

establishes new procedures that standardize interagency consultation and coordination practices. 

Other FAST Act provisions addressing the project delivery process and tracking environmental review 

and permitting milestones are set out in Title I and Title IX. This Project is covered by the FAST Act.1

 

In acting on these transmission-related authorities, the BLM must consider whether the proposed 

Project conforms with existing RMPs along the Project’s route, in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and 

Nevada. 43 CFR 1610.5-3 These plans identify management objectives for various public land 

resources, appropriate uses in restricted areas, and expected practices to be followed by surfacedisturbing and use activities. Portions of the proposed transmission line alternatives would not conform 

to certain existing RMP management objectives. As such, the BLM considered whether to amend 

RMPs to ensure that the proposed Project conforms to the applicable RMP; those amendments were 

analyzed in the Draft and Final EISs pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.5-5 and are adopted in this ROD. 

2.4 Decisions to Be Made

The BLM decisions being made by this ROD are:

• Whether to grant, grant with modification, or deny a ROW to construct, operate, maintain, and

decommission the proposed facilities for a transmission line on public lands;

1 Memo for the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), Establishment of Covered 

Project Inventory (September 22, 2016). 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 6 

• Whether one or more BLM land use plans should be amended to allow the proposed

transmission line;

• What is the most appropriate location for the transmission line on public lands, considering

multiple-use objectives; and

• What terms, conditions, and stipulations for the construction, operation, maintenance, and

decommissioning of the transmission line should be applied to the ROW grant.

The authority to approve all actions pertaining to the granting and management of Title V FLPMA 

ROWs on public lands is delegated to the respective BLM State Directors (BLM Manual 1203, 

Appendix 1, p. 33). Although a decision for the Project may authorize the use of public lands in up to 

four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada), the BLM Director identified the BLM Wyoming 

state office as the lead office in the processing of this ROW application.

3.0 Decision

3.1 Right-of-Way (ROW) Authorization and Selected Alternative Decision 

Based on review of the analysis as documented in the Draft EIS (BLM 2013) and Final EIS (BLM 

2015), BLM’s decision, as approved by DOI, is to issue a major ROW grant to TransWest Express 

LLC for a 250-foot-wide ROW on 442 miles of BLM-administered lands along the 728 mile total 

distance of the Selected Alternative for the construction, operation, maintenance, and 

decommissioning of a 600-kV transmission line centered around the Agency Preferred Alternative as 

described in the Final EIS, with the modifications of the Tuttle Micro-siting Option 4 and the Halfway 

Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system siting (Figure ROD-1). The rationale for the BLM’s 

decision can be found in Section 6 of this ROD. 

For the purposes of analysis, the Final EIS utilized four regions, Figures ROD-2 through 5 provide more 

detailed maps of each analysis region. In Region I (Figure ROD-2) and in Region III (Figure ROD-4) the 

Selected Alternative is a modification of the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, as noted

below; in Regions II and IV, the Selected Alternative is the same as the Agency Preferred Alternative in 

the Final EIS. The Selected Alternative includes: 

• Alternative I-B with the Tuttle Micro-siting Option 4 (which avoids the Tuttle Ranch

Conservation Easement) and the Bolten Ranch ground electrode system siting

(Figure ROD-2);

• Alternative II-G (Figure ROD-3);

• Alternative III-D with the Halfway Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system siting

(Figure ROD-4); and

• Alternative IV-A (Figure ROD-5).

This decision authorizes a ROW grant only for those lands in the Project area administered by the 

BLM. However, this decision was made with consideration of its effects on public lands managed by 

other agencies, as well as private lands. The URMCC, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and USFS will 

issue separate decisions for lands under their jurisdiction based on the analyses contained in the EIS.

Legal descriptions for the ROW grant on BLM-administered lands in the BLM Rawlins, Little Snake, 

White River, Vernal, Richfield, Salt Lake, Fillmore, Cedar City, Caliente, and Las Vegas FOs are 

included in Appendix A of this ROD. This ROD also includes approval of the ROD POD submitted by 

the Applicant (Appendix B of this ROD) except where additional requirements contained in this 

decision supersede proposed mitigation in the ROD POD. This decision prescribes additional 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 7 

requirements to be met prior to issuing a NTP. The NTP is conditioned on the BLM’s acceptance of 

mitigation plans and monitoring programs outlined in this ROD including, but not limited to, an updated

and BLM-accepted NTP POD. 

The attached ROD POD is adopted, subject to the conditions set forth in this ROD. The ROD POD 

covers the entire Project and includes the following measures:

• West-wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Final EIS,

Appendix C, Table C.1-1), which must be followed wherever the Selected Alternative is

located within a WWEC-designated utility corridor (See Figures 2-4 through 2-7 of the Final

EIS).

• Applicant-committed design features in the TWE POD, as contained in Table 16, POD

Section 8.3.1 Applicant Committed Environmental Mitigation Measures for the TWE Project

(Appendix B of this ROD).

• BLM RMP land use stipulations, BMPs, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) applicable

to transmission line ROWs for Project construction, operation, and maintenance as outlined in

Appendix C of the Final EIS (Tables C.3-1 through C.3-32).

• Additional mitigation and monitoring measures developed and proposed to minimize resource

impacts. These mitigation measures were initially described in Chapter 3.0 and Appendix C of

the Final EIS (Section C.5, Table C.5-1). They have been refined and incorporated into the

Environmental Protection Plans contained in the ROD POD and in Table 17, POD Section

8.3.2, Additional Mitigation Measures for the TWE Project (Appendices B and F of this ROD).

This ROD does not authorize the Applicant to commence construction of any Project facilities or proceed 

with other ground-disturbing activities in connection with the Project on federal lands. Consistent with 

applicable requirements and in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.10, the BLM’s Authorized Officer must 

issue to the Applicant a written NTP, which will consist of separate work authorizations (issued as 

separate NTPs) and a overall NTP indicating all the requirements of this ROD have been fulfilled. 

Before the BLM issues the overall NTP, the Applicant must prepare, among other items, the NTP POD 

that includes final engineering and design drawings for the Project and any site-specific actions 

necessary to implement specific requirements of this ROD. The Applicant’s complete NTP POD is 

subject to review and acceptance by the BLM and other agencies with regulatory authority over 

impacted resources. The NTP POD must demonstrate satisfaction of 100% of the required mitigation 

consistent with applicable mitigation guidance, CEQ’s mitigation hierarchy (40 CFR 1508.20), 

BLM’s Draft - Regional Mitigation Manual Section 1794 (or any superseding version of that guidance), 

and the requirements of “Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from 

Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment” (November 3, 2015). The NTP POD must 

address all of the mitigation and monitoring contained in this ROD and Appendix F, including the 

following:

• Provisions for site-specific mitigation and monitoring during construction, operation, and

maintenance of the Project.

• Species-specific conservation measures developed through the ESA Section 7 consultation

process by the BLM and USFWS.

o Species-specific conservation measures (finalized as Attachment 2 to the BO,

reprinted in Appendix C to this ROD) apply to ESA-listed species wherever they

occur, regardless of jurisdiction.

o These measures are designed to eliminate or minimize impacts on federally listed

species as identified in the BA and BO.




TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 12

o The measures must be included in the Wildlife and Plant Conservation Measures

Plan developed as part of the NTP POD.

• Reasonable and Prudent Measures with Terms and Conditions required by USFWS in the BO

(Appendix C to this ROD).

• Species-specific conservation measures for greater sage-grouse, developed through the

NEPA process and carried forward for consideration by the USFWS in the BA (finalized as

Attachment 2 to the BO, reprinted in Appendix C to this ROD). These measures must be

incorporated into the Wildlife and Plant Conservation Measures Plan contained in the NTP

POD. (These species-specific conservation measures apply to greater sage-grouse priority

and general habitat management areas.) These measures require compensatory mitigation

addressing impacts to greater sage-grouse that achieve a net conservation gain for Utah and

Colorado and no net loss for Wyoming (the Selected Alternative does not impact greater sagegrouse or its habitat in Nevada).

• Measures that satisfy the requirements set forth in the PA developed in compliance with the

NHPA, including posting a BLM-approved financial security instrument with the BLM in an

amount sufficient to cover estimated post-fieldwork costs associated with implementing the

Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP), or other mitigation activities. These requirements

must be reflected in the Applicant’s contracts for services in support of the PA and for

reclamation requirements and activities. The PA (Appendix E of this ROD) developed and

negotiated pursuant to the NHPA, 54 USC 306108, by BLM, State Historic Preservation

Officers (SHPOs) for Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, the Ute Indian Tribe of the

Uintah and Ouray Reservation, the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, the ACHP, and other

consulting parties, was executed by all required signatories and is incorporated into this ROD

(see Appendix E).

• All standard terms, conditions, and stipulations (43 CFR 2800).

Where one or more segments of the Project’s ROW is co-located with another project, the Applicant is 

nevertheless required to ensure that its NTP POD evidences fulfillment of all the required mitigation 

requirements described in this ROD (including Appendices C, E, and F) for the Project before BLM 

will issue an NTP. The BLM will consider joint proposals collaboratively developed by project 

applicants for co-located segments that address the mitigation requirements for each independent 

project collectively. Such joint proposals must be submitted to the BLM and include assurance that all 

required mitigation for actual disturbance within the co-located ROW will be fulfilled in the event that 

any participating project is not completed. Similarly, to the extent the Applicant wishes to rely on 

mitigation efforts already underway in a co-located segment, the application must also provide a joint 

proposal/agreement related to such ongoing efforts

This ROD and the approved ROW grant WYW-177893 will include requirements outlined in its terms 

and conditions that are based on: (i) the Final EIS; (ii) the greater sage-grouse analysis prepared for 

the Project; (iii) the applicant-committed mitigation measures, as reflected in the Habitat Equivalency 

Analysis (HEA) framework and Conservation Objectives Team (COT) checklist prepared for the 

Project; (iv) the final BA and BO; (v) the PA; and (vi) other federal rules and regulations. Additionally, 

the Applicant must obtain or meet all necessary State, local, and tribal approvals and/or permitting 

requirements, including obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the 

appropriate State Public Service/Utility Commissions. The right-of-way grant will also require

compliance with 43 CFR 2807.12(b) and BLM Colorado Instruction Memorandum (IM) (October 31, 

2016), both of which address liability for fire-related or other damage caused by right-of-way activities. 

Any required determinations related to such provisions shall be documented by the BLM in writing prior 

to right-of-way grant issuance, and the appropriate terms shall be included in the right-of-way grant. 

Prior to start of construction, the Applicant will be required to submit a performance bond for construction 

and initial reclamation for the right-of-way grant(s) to ensure compliance with all the terms and conditions
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 13

identified in this ROD, the NTP POD, and applicable regulations. Acceptable bond instruments include 

cash, irrevocable letter of credit, cashier’s or certified check, certificate or book entry deposits, negotiable 

U.S. Treasury bonds equal in value to the bond amount, or surety bonds from the approved list of 

sureties (U.S. Treasury Circular 570 available on-line), made payable to BLM. 

The TWE Project ROW grant will be issued for a term of 30 years for all long-term Project facilities and 

the 250-foot-wide ROW. The BLM will also issue a 10-year temporary ROW grant for areas to be used 

only during construction. Construction of the Project must commence within 5 years after the effective 

date of the ROW grant. The BLM has the discretion to renew a ROW grant if doing so is in the public 

interest. Renewal requests will be subject to NEPA review. The holder may, on approval from the 

BLM, assign the ROW grant to another party in conformance with the requirements of 43 CFR 2800. 

3.1.1 Structure Types

This ROD contains specific requirements related to transmission line tower structure types (i.e., power 

line poles) to minimize Project impacts on sensitive species and recreation. Specifically, the BLM and 

the USFWS agree that the scientific information included in the Final EIS analysis supports the 

conclusion that predation can be reduced by reducing predator perching opportunities. Accordingly, 

the BLM and USFWS have concluded that structure types that provide multiple horizontal surfaces 

(such as the self-supporting steel lattice and guyed steel lattice structures) have the greatest potential 

to contribute to increased predator presence and predation. Therefore, the BLM and the USFWS have 

determined that self-supported tubular monopole structures and/or measures to reduce perching 

opportunities and bird strike risk (e.g., perch and nest deterrents and guy wire markers) are required in 

certain areas/habitats occupied by sensitive species, including greater sage-grouse, Mojave Desert 

tortoise, white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, and black- footed ferret. This is especially important in 

landscapes that are not influenced by existing infrastructure. 

The specific measures, including locations where specific tower type requirements apply in order to 

minimize predation impacts to certain species and recreation uses, are described in detail in 

Appendix F of this ROD.

3.2 Land Use Plan Amendments Decision

BLM’s land use planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-3) require that Project-specific decisions, 

including authorized uses of land, conform to or be consistent with the applicable plan. If a proposed 

Project-specific decision does not conform to the applicable plan, the responsible official may modify 

the proposed decision to make it conform with the plan, reject the proposal, or amend the plan such 

that the action will be consistent with the plan as amended. 

Based on the analysis in the Final EIS (BLM 2015), the BLM will amend portions of the following BLM 

RMPs to: (1) expand or extend an existing utility corridor that allows for overhead utilities; (2) create a 

new utility corridor to allow for overhead utilities and adopt exceptions to other resource stipulations if 

avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not feasible within the designated corridor; and/or (3) 

create a onetime exception through a ROW exclusion area. The BLM analyzed these plan 

amendments simultaneously as part of the EIS process for this Project, including during the scoping 

and public availability periods for the EIS. The BLM is approving these plan amendments and the onetime exception to ensure that the Selected Alternative conforms to the applicable BLM RMPs 

consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5-3. 

3.2.1 Rawlins FO RMP Amendment

The Selected Alternative is located partly outside of a designated corridor and partly within an 

underground-only corridor crossing. According to the RMP (RMP ROD, p. 2-17), “all BLMadministered public lands, except WSAs and some SD/MAs (including ACECs), are open to 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 14

consideration for placement of transportation and utility ROW systems. Each transportation system 

and utility ROW will be located adjacent to existing facilities, when possible.” BLM analyzed a plan 

amendment to designate a new utility corridor to minimize environmental impacts and the proliferation 

of separate ROWs for the Project and other transmission projects in the future within the FO. ROW 

decisions listed under Section 2.3.5 Lands and Realty in the RMP ROD (p. 2-18) and Table A34-1 in 

Appendix 34 (p. A34-1) and Table A (page A-15) in the WWEC ROD will be amended as follows for 78 

and 81 miles, respectively (new text in bold italics): 

Utility/Transportation Systems

1. Areas with important resource values will be avoided where possible in planning for new

facility placement (600,290 acres). If it becomes necessary for facilities (i.e., linear ROWs) to

be placed within avoidance areas, effects will be intensively managed. Avoidance and

exclusion areas are identified on Map 2-33b and Table 2-5.

2. Utility corridors are designated as follows:

a. Rawlins-Wamsutter: The existing WWEC multi-modal utility corridor south of I-80 is

expanded to 7,000 feet in width between Rawlins and Wamsutter to allow for all

utilities including high voltage overhead transmission. Exceptions to resource

stipulations within the designated corridor may be granted if measures of

avoidance or minimization are not feasible. Minimum separation distance from

existing transmission is required in greater sage-grouse core areas. All possible

measures will be taken to avoid conflicts with other existing and proposed uses

(utility and otherwise) within the designated corridor.

b. Wamsutter-Powder Rim: A north-south, 3,500-foot-wide utility corridor is

designated along the Sweetwater/Carbon County line to allow for all utilities

including high voltage overhead transmission. Exceptions to resource stipulations

within the designated corridor may be granted if measures of avoidance or

minimization are not feasible. All possible measures will be taken to avoid conflicts

with other existing and proposed uses (utility and otherwise) within the designated

corridor.

Table A34-1. Designated ROW Corridors

Corridor Width Uses

Spence-Bairoil-Jim Bridger 230 kV Transmission Line 1,320’ Overhead utilities only 

CIG/Entrega/WIC Transmission lines 1,320’ Buried utilities only 

Lost Creek Pipeline 1,320’ Buried utilities only 

WAPA 115 kV Transmission Line 1,320’ Overhead utilities only 

I-80 Corridor 1,320’ on either side of the 

interstate 

Buried utilities only 

Rawlins-Wamsutter WWEC Corridor1 3,500’ 7,000’ Multi-modal

Highway 789 1,320’ east of the highway Overhead utilities 

Wamsutter-Powder Rim Corridor 3,500’ All utilities

Rock Springs to Dave Johnston 230-kV Transmission 

Line 

1,320’ north from the existing 

line 

Overhead utilities only 

1 Not included in the Table A34-1 of the RMP, but designated through the WWEC land use plan amendment process.

3.2.2 Little Snake FO RMP Amendment

The Selected Alternative is located partly outside of a designated corridor and partly within an 

underground-only corridor crossing. According to the RMP (RMP ROD, p. RMP-51), “Section 503 of 

FLPMA provides for the designation of ROW corridors and encourages use of in-common ROWs to 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 15

minimize environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs. BLM policy, as described in 

BLM Manual 2801.13B1, is to encourage prospective Applicants to locate their proposals within 

existing corridors. The remainder of the [Little Snake] FO will be open for the consideration of ROWs 

on a case-by-case basis, with stipulations identified during activity level environmental reviews.” The 

BLM analyzed a plan amendment to designate a proposed new utility corridor to minimize 

environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs for the Project and other transmission 

projects within the FO. ROW decisions listed in Table 2-17 for Lands and Realty in the RMP (p. 

RMP-53) will be amended as follows for 36 miles (new text in bold italics): 

ROWs

Encourage ROWs in the following existing corridors: major roads including county roads 

(e.g., CR 20, 4, 7, and 57), power transmission lines, and oil and gas pipelines.

A north-south, 1,800-foot-wide aboveground utility corridor is designated along the 

foothills of Sevenmile Ridge east of CR-75 from the Wyoming state line south to US-40 

at Maybell. Exceptions to resource stipulations within the designated corridor may be 

granted if measures of avoidance or minimization are not feasible.

Along US-40, additional areas have been added to accommodate utilities to cross 

Deerlodge Road associated with Dinosaur National Monument.

3.2.3 Vernal FO RMP

The Selected Alternative will be partially situated outside of a designated utility corridor. According to 

decision LAR-42 (RMP ROD, p. 91), major linear ROWs outside of designated corridors and 

exceeding specified size thresholds may require a plan amendment. Utility corridor decision LAR-42 in 

the RMP (ROD p. 91) will be amended as follows for 28 miles (new text in bold italics): 

LAR-42

Major linear ROWs meeting the above thresholds that are proposed outside of the preferred, 

designated corridors may require a plan amendment. 

The RMP has been amended to accommodate a new aboveground utility corridor up to 

one mile wide for high voltage transmission lines requiring straight east-west 

alignments between the Colorado State line near Dinosaur, Colorado, and Randlett, 

Utah. Exceptions to resource stipulations within the designated corridor may be 

granted if measures of avoidance or minimization are not feasible.

3.2.4 Pony Express RMP (Salt Lake FO)

The Selected Alternative does not cross BLM-administered land in the Salt Lake FO, but is situated 

adjacent to BLM parcels. Although the Selected Alternative will be in conformance with the current 

RMP, the potential exists for the Project alignment to be routed onto portions of the BLM parcels 

during the NTP process due to resource constraints and other micro-siting considerations identified 

during pre-construction surveys. The BLM analyzed a plan amendment to designate these areas as a 

proposed new utility corridor to accommodate other transmission projects within the FO while 

minimizing environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate ROWs. Transportation and utility 

corridor decisions associated with the RMP (p. 56) will be amended as follows (new text in bold 

italics): 

Decision 2 

An aboveground utility corridor is designated along U.S. Highway 89 from the junction 

of U.S. Highway 6 south to Birdseye to accommodate future high-voltage transmission 

lines.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 16

3.2.5 Ely District RMP (Caliente FO)

The Selected Alternative encompasses ROW exclusion areas associated with an area of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC), and a plan amendment is required to allow the Project to traverse a 

small portion of the ROW exclusion area located adjacent to a designated utility corridor. Map 23 and 

Table 26 (RMP ROD p. 116 and 119) associated with RMP decision SD-3 will be amended as follows 

for 1 mile (new text in bold italics, including a new footnote): 

Table 26 (Excerpt from Ely District Office RMP

Management Prescriptions for ACECs

Mormon Mesa (109,680 acres)

Management Activities Management Prescriptions for ACECs

Land Use Authorization Limited9/avoidance2/exclusion area15

2 Avoidance area; granting ROWs (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area will be avoided, but ROWs may be granted if 

there is minimal conflict with identified resource values and impacts can be mitigated. 9 ROWs; limit authorization of future communication sites to existing established ROWs unless technically unfeasible and 

encourage use of existing corridors for all future ROWs when possible. 15 A one-time exception is granted to accommodate one high-voltage transmission line through the ROW exclusion 

area adjacent to the existing utility corridor through the Mormon Mesa ACEC.

4.0 Alternatives Considered

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft and Final EIS

4.1.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and the USFS would not issue ROW grants or special use 

permits and the Project would not be constructed. Under the No Action Alternative, Western would not 

provide funding to the Project. No RMPs, Management Framework Plans (MFPs), or Forest Plans 

would need to be amended if the No Action Alternative were selected.

4.1.2 Proposed Action -- Alternative Facilities and Transmission Line Routes

This section describes the proposed action and alternative routes, including variations in transmission 

line routes and in the locations of connectors and ground electrode systems. For each alternative, this 

section describes the length and associated surface disturbance with each route. 

The Project has been split into four distinct regions, each of which requires independent transmission 

line route alternatives based on region-specific topographical or other resource constraints. The 

complete Project decision includes route selections for each Project regions. The alternative 

transmission line routes are depicted by region in Figures ROD-2 through ROD-5. The Selected 

Alternative selects one option from each region. Specifically, the selected alternative is:

• Region I - Alternative I-B with the Tuttle Micro-siting Option 4 (which avoids the Tuttle Ranch

Conservation Easement) and the Bolten Ranch ground electrode system siting

(Figure ROD-2);

• Region II - Alternative II-G (Figure ROD-3);

• Region III - Alternative III-D with the Halfway Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system

siting (Figure ROD-4); and

• Region IV - Alternative IV-A (Figure ROD-5).
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 17

The refined transmission corridors analyzed in the Final EIS range from the approximate ROW width 

(250 feet) to several thousand feet wide, depending upon terrain, access restrictions, existing access, 

designated utility corridors, environmental constraints, jurisdictional constraints, co-location

opportunities, landowner requests, and the potential for additional changes in areas with constraints. 

Each alternative route is further defined by a transmission alignment within the transmission corridor. 

The preliminary engineered alignments within the refined transmission corridors are based upon 

additional engineering, aerial terrain surveys, field engineering surveys, siting opportunities, and data 

identifying large-scale resource concerns or physical constraints that are not consistent with siting a 

transmission line. The Selected Alternative approved by this ROD provides for a 250-foot ROW.

4.1.2.1 Region I (Sinclair, Wyoming, to northwest Colorado near Rangely, Colorado, see 

Figure ROD-2)

Northern Terminal 

The Northern Terminal would be located approximately 3 miles southwest of Sinclair, Wyoming 

(Carbon County), on private land. The terminal would include an AC/DC converter station and 

adjacent AC substation. The AC/DC converter station would include a 600-kV DC switchyard; AC/DC 

conversion equipment; transformers; and multiple equipment, control, maintenance, and administrative 

buildings. Two buildings would house the AC/DC conversion equipment; smaller buildings would 

house the control room, control and protection equipment, auxiliary equipment, and cooling 

equipment. Connections to the existing transmission infrastructure also would be constructed. The 

three major components (AC/DC converter station, 500-/230-kV AC substation, and 230-kV AC 

substation) are planned to be co-located and contiguous.

Alternative I-A Transmission Line Route (Applicant’s Proposed Action)

TransWest’s proposed alignment would begin in Sinclair, Wyoming, and would travel west just south 

of the Interstate (I)-80 corridor to Wamsutter. At Wamsutter, it would turn south and generally follow 

the Carbon-Sweetwater county line along a corridor preferred by the Wyoming Governor’s Office and 

Carbon and Sweetwater counties. It then would continue south-southwest across the WyomingColorado state line and south along a corridor preferred by Moffat County and coordinated with the 

BLM Northwest Colorado District Office’s ongoing greater sage-grouse planning effort. It would then 

intersect with U.S. Highway 40 (US-40) just west of Maybell, Colorado. The alignment would then 

generally parallel US-40, turning southwest toward the Colorado-Utah border. 

Alternative I-A includes segments 1030, 1040, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1110, 1120, 1120.2,1180, and 1187, 

and is approximately 156 miles, 66 percent of which would be located on BLM lands. Twenty four

miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 25 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There would 

be 201 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative I-B Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative; Agency Selected 

Alternative, as modified by adoption of Tuttle Micro-siting Option 4) 

Alternative I-B as considered in the Final EIS would be the same as Alternative I-A for nearly its entire

length, with one exception just north of the Wyoming-Colorado state line. In this area, approximately 8 

miles of Alternative I-B would diverge to the southeast from Alternative I-A, to minimize potential 

impacts to areas eligible for historic trail designation (National Trails System Act (NTSA) 5(c) trails 

under study or suitable for congressional designation). 

Alternative I-B includes segments 1030, 1040, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1110, 1116, 1120, 1120.1, and 

1187, and is approximately 158 miles, 67 percent of which would be located on BLM lands. Twentyfour miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 25 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There 

would be 204 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 18

Alternative I-C Transmission Line Route

This alternative was developed to reduce the overall proliferation of utility corridors and associated 

impacts by following existing designated utility corridors. Alternative I-C would begin by following 

Alternative I-A to near Creston, Wyoming, where Alternative I-C would turn south and parallel 

Wyoming State Highway 789 (SH-789) toward Baggs, Wyoming. From there, Alternative I-C would 

continue south, deviating from SH-789 to the east and passing east of Baggs. After crossing into 

Colorado, this alternative would parallel Colorado SH-13 into Craig, Colorado. Alternative I-C would 

pass east and south of Craig, turning to the west after crossing US-40, generally paralleling the 

highway and joining with Alternative I-A to the end of Region I.

Alternative I-C includes segments 1030, 1100, 1106, and 1190, and is approximately 186 miles, 

44 percent of which would be located on BLM lands. Fifty-three miles would be in BLM RMP utility 

corridors and 60 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There would be 237 miles of access roads 

associated with this alternative.

Alternative I-D Transmission Line Route

Alternative I-D was developed to reduce multiple resource concerns, including impacts to visual 

resources and greater sage-grouse. It would follow the route of Alternative I-A, going west from 

Sinclair, Wyoming (Carbon County, Wyoming), basically paralleling I-80 in a designated WWEC, until 

turning south near Wamsutter. It would follow Alternative I-A south for approximately 15 miles. 

Alternative I-D then would diverge to the east, where it generally would parallel SH-789 at an offset 

distance of 2 to 5 miles to the west. Before reaching the Baggs area, Alternative I-D would turn west 

and follow the Shell Creek Stock Trail road for approximately 20 miles, where it would cross into 

Sweetwater County and again join Alternative I-A while turning south into Colorado (Moffat County).

Alternative I-D includes segments 1030, 1040, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1110, 1115, 1116, and 1187, and is 

approximately 168 miles, 70 percent of which would be located on BLM lands. Twenty four miles 

would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 25 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There would be 

213 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-siting Options

There are no alternative variations within Region I. The Region I alternative connectors were removed 

from further consideration at the request of the lead agencies in response to public comments 

received on the Draft EIS.

BLM developed and analyzed in the Final EIS two micro-siting options relevant to all Region I 

alternative routes. These options address specific land use concerns related to the Tuttle Ranch 

Conservation Easement and the Cross Mountain Ranch proposed conservation easement. 

• Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3 (segments 1103 and 1104); and

• Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4 (segments 1103 and 1105).

Both micro-siting options would replace segments 1101 and 1106. Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 3 

would avoid the Tuttle Ranch Conservation Easement, but would cross the NPS Deerlodge Road west 

of US-40 and would cross the largest portion of the Cross Mountain Ranch property. Tuttle Ranch 

Micro-siting Option 4 would avoid the Tuttle Ranch Conservation Easement and the NPS Deerlodge 

Road, and would cross the least amount of the Cross Mountain Ranch property. Tuttle Micro-siting 

Option 4 was chosen as part of the Selected Alternative.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 19

Ground Electrode Locations

One ground electrode system would be required within approximately 100 miles of the Northern 

Terminal to establish and maintain electrical current continuity during normal operations, and any 

unexpected outage of one of the two poles (or circuits) of the 600-kV DC terminal or converter station 

equipment. The ground electrode facility would consist of a network of approximately 60 deep earth 

electrode wells arranged along the perimeter of a circle expected to be about 3,000 feet in diameter. 

All wells at a site would be electrically interconnected and wired via approximately 10 low-voltage 

underground cable “spokes” to a small control building. A low voltage electrode line would connect the 

ground electrode facilities to the AC/DC converter stations. General siting areas and conceptual 

alternative site locations have been identified in Region I. Selection of specific location of the ground 

electrode systems would be identified during final engineering and design stages. 

There are four potential locations for ground electrode systems in Region I (Bolten Ranch, Separation 

Flat, Separation Creek, and Eight Mile Basin). All locations could apply to all alternatives.

4.1.2.2 Region II (Northwest Colorado to IPP near Delta, Utah, see Figure ROD-3)

Alternative II-A Transmission Line Route (Applicant’s Proposed Action)

TransWest’s proposed alignment would continue into Utah from Region I in a westerly direction, then 

deviate south from US-40 toward Roosevelt, Utah. From Roosevelt, it would pass north of Duchesne, 

again paralleling US-40 for several miles, then turn southwest and cross the Uinta National Forest 

Planning Area2 generally within a WWEC-designated utility corridor, then turn west along US-6 and 

Soldier Creek. At the junction with US-89, Alternative II-A would then turn south generally along US-89 

where it would cross a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The alignment would pass through 

Salt Creek Canyon then north around Nephi. It would continue west and then turn southwest following 

a path north of and adjacent to the IPP. 

Alternative II-A includes the following segments: 1210, 1211, 1212, 1320.05, 1320.15, 1320.2, 

1320.21, 1321.01, 1321.02, 1322.01, 1322.02, 1322.03, 1323.01, 1323.02, 1324, 1325, 1340, 1360, 

and 1430. Alternative II-A would be approximately 258 miles, 45 percent of which would be located on 

BLM/USFS lands. Thirty-four miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 63 miles would be in 

WWEC corridors. There would be 395 miles of access roads associated with this alternative. 

Portions of this corridor have been identified as preferred in a joint resolution by representatives of 

Juab and Millard counties.

Alternative II-B Transmission Line Route

Alternative II-B was developed to address impacts to private lands and to generally follow established 

utility corridors. These corridors are designated for underground utilities only, and use of the corridor 

for the transmission line would require a plan amendment. 

The route would travel southwest in Colorado from the beginning of Region II, cross the Yampa River, 

and pass east of Rangely, Colorado. It would continue southwest, cross the Colorado-Utah state line, 

and turn generally south, crossing back into Colorado in the Baxter Pass area. At that location, it 

would intersect the I-70 corridor, turning in a southwesterly and westerly direction, paralleling I-70. 

After passing south of Green River, Utah, Alternative II-B would diverge from I-70 and turn to the north 

along US-191. This highway generally would be followed until just south of the Emery-Carbon county 

2 In March 2008, the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest were combined into one administrative unit (Uinta-WasatchCache National Forest). Each of these forests continues to operate under individual forest plans approved in 2003. The term Uinta National Forest 

Planning Area is used to refer to that portion of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest managed under the Uinta National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP).
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 20

line, where Alternative II-B would turn west and pass near the county line for approximately 25 miles. 

Then it would turn generally south, pass west of Huntington, Utah, turn northwest, cross a portion of 

the Manti-La Sal National Forest, and pass northeast of Mount Pleasant, Utah. From there, it would 

pass through Salt Creek Canyon to Nephi, and then south around Nephi. It then would turn southwest 

and west adjacent to the IPP, following a path south of Alternative II-A across a portion of the Fishlake 

National Forest.

Alternative II-B includes segments 1220, 1222.05, 1222.3, 1310, 1320.21, 1350, 1370, 1380, 1420, 

and 1440. Alternative II-B would be approximately 346 miles, 65 percent of which would be located on 

BLM/USFS lands. One hundred and thirty-six miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 

33 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There would be 492 miles of access roads associated with this 

alternative.

Alternative II-C Transmission Line Route

Alternative II-C also would address impacts to private lands and generally would follow established 

utility corridors as well as avoid USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Alternative II-C would follow 

Alternative II-B through Colorado, along I-70 into Utah, and north at US-191. Approximately 15 miles 

north on US-191, Alternative II-C would diverge from Alternative II-B and turn in a general westerly 

direction toward Castle Dale. Approximately 3 miles east of Castle Dale, this alternative would turn 

south and roughly parallel Utah SH-10 at a distance of approximately 3 miles to the east. The 

alternative would cross State Road-10 (SR-10) near the Emery-Sevier County line and turn west, 

again generally following the I-70 corridor across a portion of the Fishlake National Forest into the 

Salina, Utah, area. Alternative II-C would pass south of Salina, turn north, and parallel US-50 toward 

Scipio, Utah. The alternative would turn west and pass Scipio on the south, again crossing a portion of 

the Fishlake National Forest, then turn north, passing east of Delta, Utah, continuing into the IPP.

Alternative II-C includes segments 1220, 1225.2, 1330.1, 1410, and 1440. Alternative II-C would be 

approximately 365 miles, 67 percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. 

One hundred and forty-six miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 17 miles would be in 

WWEC corridors. There would be 488 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative II-D Transmission Line Route

This alternative was developed to avoid USFS IRAs and to provide additional northern route options to 

avoid impacts to historic trails and areas designated for special resource management along the 

southern routes (Alternatives II-B and II-C). It would begin along the same route as Alternative II-A. 

However, as it entered Utah, it would diverge briefly to follow a designated utility corridor, causing it to 

zigzag once across Alternative II-A. It then would diverge to the south of the designated utility corridor 

and turn west-southwest, skirting the edge of the Ashley National Forest. Alternative II-D would cross 

into Carbon County northwest of Price, and then turn southwest in the Emma Park area along US-191. 

It would follow this highway west of Helper, across a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest and 

then turn west toward Salt Creek Canyon where it would join and follow Alternative II-B, skirt the edge 

of the Uinta National Forest Planning Area, then join and follow Alternative II-A into IPP. 

Alternative II-D includes segments 1210, 1214, 1215, 1217.01, 1217.02, 1217.1, 1217.15, 1320.2, 

1320.21, 1350, 1360, and 1430, and is approximately 259 miles, 57 percent of which would be located 

on BLM/USFS lands. Seventy one miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 46 miles would be 

in WWEC corridors. There would be 422 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative II-E Transmission Line Route

Alternative II-E also was developed to provide additional northern route options to address the 

previously mentioned resource impacts from the southern routes. This alternative would follow 

Alternative II-D into Utah and along the designated utility corridor, zigzagging across Alternative II-A. It 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 21

then would rejoin Alternative II-A to continue west across the Uintah/Duchesne county line. 

Approximately 10 miles east of Duchesne, Alternative II-E would turn southwest and generally parallel 

SH-191, offset by 1 to 6 miles, through a “utility window” (designated utility corridor) of the Ashley 

National Forest. At the Utah-Carbon County line, this alternative would turn west through the Emma 

Park area, then northwest along US-6 through a utility window of the Uinta National Forest Planning 

Area until rejoining Alternative II-A and following its siting through the Manti-La Sal National Forest to 

Salt Creek Canyon. At Salt Creek Canyon, Alternative II-E would begin to follow the alignment of 

Alternative II-B south of Nephi, then join and follow Alternative II-A adjacent and into the IPP.

Alternative II-E includes the following segments: 1210, 1214, 1215, 1215.05, 1217.051, 1217.052, 

1219.4, 1320.05, 1320.15, 1320.2, 1320.21, 1325.1, 1325.2, 1350, 1360, and 1430. Alternative II-E is 

approximately 268 miles, 44 percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Forty miles 

would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 66 miles would be in WWEC corridors. There would be 412 

miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative II-F Transmission Line Route

Alternative II-F was adjusted in the Final EIS from route in the Draft EIS at the request of the lead 

agencies in response to public comments. This alternative combines portions of other alternatives in 

the region and contains unique segments in the Emma Park area that together would minimize 

impacts to USFS IRAs, Tribal and private lands, and greater sage-grouse habitat, and avoid impacts 

to National Historic Trails (NHTs). 

As modified, this Alternative would begin in southwest Moffat County (Colorado) by following 

Alternative II-A in designated WWEC and BLM utility corridors. As it enters Utah (Uintah County), it 

would separate from Alternative II-A to the northwest and follow the designated utility corridors, which 

then turn southwest and cross Alternative II-A. It then would diverge to the south off of the designated 

WWEC (still following the BLM-designated corridor) and turn west-southwest, crossing the Uintah and 

Ouray Indian Reservation. It then would cross into Duchesne County, where it would turn westsouthwest out of the BLM utility corridor, skirt the Ashley National Forest and generally follow the 

southern county line. The alternative would follow Argyle Ridge west and US-191 to the southwest for a 

short distance, then would turn west and follow the base of Reservation Ridge. It would then turn 

northwest and cross US-6 at Soldier Summit where it would turn west-northwest and follow US-6 to 

Thistle (Utah County) through a portion of designated WWEC and BLM utility corridors and a utility 

window of the Uinta National Forest Planning Area. It then would turn south, following US-89 for about 

10 miles and through a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest before cutting south-southwest 

(Sanpete County) to SR-132. At this highway, it would turn west into Nephi (Juab County) and follow a 

path south around the community and continue west until turning southwest where it would parallel 

US-6 north of Lynndyl for a short distance, then diverging west, southwest, and finally west along the 

southern edge of the Millard-Juab county line into the IPP north of Delta (Millard County).

Alternative II-F includes the following segments: 1210, 1214, 1215, 1217.01, 1217.052, 1218, 1219.1, 

1219.3, 1219.5, 1219.6, 1320.15, 1320.2, 1320.21, 1350, 1360, and 1430. Alternative II-F is 

approximately 265 miles, 55 percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. 

Seventy two miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 31 miles would be in WWEC corridors. 

There would be 455 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative II-G Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative; Agency Selected 

Alternative) 

Alternative II-G is a reconfiguration of segments that are also included in multiple other alternatives, 

mainly Alternatives II-A and II-F. This specific alternative configuration was not included in the 

Draft EIS, but was added to the Final EIS to reflect the Agency Preferred Alternative in Region II. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 22

This alternative avoids crossing Tribal trust lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, while 

also avoiding NHTs, maximizing avoidance of potential habitat of federally protected plant species, 

and maximizing co-location with existing above-ground utilities. It would begin in southwest Moffat 

County (Colorado) by following the other alternatives in designated WWEC and BLM utility corridors. 

After entering Utah, this alternative would follow Alternatives II-F, II-D, and II-E and continue along the 

designated utility corridor, zigzagging across Alternative II-A. At this point, it would follow Alternative IIE to the northwest, and rejoin Alternative II-A to continue west across the Uintah/Duchesne county 

line. Alternative II-G would continue to follow Alternative II-A to near Fruitland. East of Fruitland it 

would diverge from Alternative II-A, but would parallel closely to the south for several miles, avoiding a 

conservation easement, and then rejoin Alternative II-A. The alignment would then turn southwest and 

cross portions of the Uinta National Forest Planning Area, then turn west along US-6 and Soldier 

Creek, rejoining Alternative II-F. At the junction with US-89, Alternative II-G would then turn south 

generally along US-89 where it would cross a portion of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The 

alignment would pass through Salt Creek Canyon. Here Alternative II-G would again diverge from 

Alternative II-A and pass south around Nephi. It would continue west and then turn southwest 

following a path north of and adjacent to the IPP. Portions of this corridor have been identified as 

preferred in a joint resolution by representatives of Juab and Millard counties.

Alternative II-G includes the following segments: 1210, 1211, 1212, 1320.05, 1320.15, 1320.2, 

1320.21, 1321.01, 1321.02, 1322.21, 1322.22, 1322.23, 1322.51, 1323.02, 1324, 1325, 1350, 1360, 

and 1430. Alternative II-G is approximately 252 miles, 45 percent of which would be located on 

BLM/USFS lands. Thirty two miles would be in BLM RMP utility corridors and 63 miles would be in 

WWEC corridors. There would be 395 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-siting Options

One alternative variation (Reservation Ridge Alternative Variation, segment 1219.2) was developed to 

address potential impacts to greater sage-grouse issues along comparable portions of Alternative II-F 

(segments 1219.5 and 1219.6). 

Micro-siting options for Alternative II A and Alternative II-G have been developed to address concerns 

with construction in Uinta National Forest Planning Area IRAs at a location where the designated 

WWEC offsets from a continual corridor: Strawberry IRA Micro-siting Option 2 (segment 1324.2) and 

Strawberry IRA Micro-siting Option 3 (segment 1324.4). Both of these micro-siting options would 

replace segments 1324.

Three micro-siting options for Alternative II-A and Alternative II-G were also developed to address 

conflicts with siting through the Town of Fruitland, a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

conservation easement, and greater sage-grouse habitat:

• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 1: segments 1321.02, 1322.51, 1322.52, 1322.53, and 1323.01.

• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 2: segments 1321.02, 1322.01, 1322.11, 1322.12, 1322.22, and

1322.23.

• Fruitland Micro-siting Option 3: segments 1322.23, and 1322.71.

For Alternative II-G, each of these micro-siting options would replace Segments 1321.02, 1322.21, 

1321.22, 1322.23, and 1322.51.

Five alternative connectors were developed in Region II to provide the flexibility to combine alternative 

segments to address resource conflicts. One connector could be used with Alternative II-B, two 

connectors could be used with Alternative II- C, and one could be used with Alternative II-E.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 23

4.1.2.3 Region III (IPP to North Las Vegas, Nevada, see Figure ROD-4)

Alternative III-A Transmission Line Route (Applicant’s Proposed Action)

The TransWest proposed alignment would leave the IPP to the west and turn south toward Milford, 

Utah, following the WWEC. For the remainder of Utah, the alignment roughly would parallel I-15

approximately 20 miles west of the highway. The alignment would pass west of Milford, then generally 

trend south-southwest, passing east of Enterprise, Utah, across a portion of the Dixie National Forest, 

and directly west of the community of Central, Utah; exiting Utah just north of the southwest corner of 

the state. In Nevada, the alignment would cross I-15 west of Mesquite, Nevada, and remain on the 

south side of I-15 until reaching the North Las Vegas area northeast of Nellis Air Force Base. 

Alternative III-A includes the following segments: 1450, 1470, 1480, 1500, 1500.02, 1500.05, 1501.1, 

1501.15, 1502.5, 1530, 1550.1, 1550.2, 1560, and 1600. Alternative III-A is approximately 276 miles, 

84 percent of which would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Sixty-seven percent of the route would be 

within a designated RMP or WWEC corridor (107 miles and 158 miles, respectively). There would be 

335 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative III-B Transmission Line Route

Alternative III-B was developed to decrease resource impacts in southwestern Utah (including 

potential impacts to the Mountain Meadows National Historic Landmark (NHL) and Site and IRAs in 

the Dixie National Forest). It would begin following Alternative III-A through Millard and Beaver 

counties. Near the Beaver-Iron county line, it would diverge toward the west. Alternative III-B would 

follow a west-southwest course, crossing into Lincoln County, Nevada, near Uvada, Utah, where it 

would turn to a general southerly direction, rejoining Alternative III-A to the northwest of Mesquite. It 

then would diverge to the west from Alternative III-A approximately 16 miles west of Mesquite, cross 

into Clark County, pass southeast of Moapa, Nevada, pass through the designated utility corridor on 

the Moapa Reservation, and rejoin Alternative III-A approximately 4 miles north of the end of 

Region III.

Alternative III-B includes the following segments: 1450, 1470, 1480, 1490, 1490.05, 1510, 1530, 

1540.1, 1540.2, 1590, and 1600. Alternative III-B is approximately 284 miles, 74 percent of which 

would be located on BLM lands. Fifty-four percent of the route would be within a designated RMP or 

WWEC corridor (103 miles and 80 miles, respectively). There would be 320 miles of access roads 

associated with this alternative.

Alternative III-C Transmission Line Route

Alternative III-C also was developed to address the same resource impacts as Alternative III-B, and to 

take advantage of an existing corridor with existing transmission line development, thereby potentially 

consolidating cumulative transmission line impacts. This alternative would follow Alternatives III-A and 

III-B before diverging from them shortly after traveling west out of the IPP, where it would follow the

existing IPP power line to the south for approximately 30 miles and would then rejoin Alternative III-B

to the Utah-Nevada state line. After passing into Nevada at Uvada, Alternative III-C would turn west

away from Alternative III-B, passing north of Caliente, Nevada; turning south approximately 15 miles

west of Caliente. This alternative would follow that southern course, intersecting with US-93 and

paralleling the highway for all but the last 15 miles into North Las Vegas. Alternative III-C would rejoin

Alternative III-A northeast of Nellis Air Force Base at the end of Region III.

Alternative III-C includes the following segments: 1450, 1460, 1480, 1490, 1490.05, 1520, and 1610. 

Alternative III-C is approximately 308 miles, 83 percent of which would be located on BLM lands. 

Sixty-three percent of the route would be within a designated RMP or WWEC corridor (160 miles and 

121 miles, respectively). There would be 338 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 24

Alternative III-D Transmission Line Route (Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative, Agency Selected 

Alternative, as modified by adoption of the Halfway Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system 

siting) 

Alternative III-D was developed as a minor reconfiguration to Alternative III-B for the purpose of 

decreased resource impacts in southwestern Utah (including potential impacts to the Mountain 

Meadows NHL and Site and IRAs in the Dixie National Forest) as well as addressing concerns raised 

by the DOD. Alternative III-D would begin following Alternative III-B, would diverge through Millard 

County to maintain co-location with the existing IPP power line to the south for approximately 30 miles, 

and then rejoin Alternative III-B through the remainder to Region III. 

Alternative III-D includes the following segments: 1450, 1460, 1480, 1490, 1490.05, 1510, 1530, 

1540.1, 1540.2, 1590, and 1600. Alternative III-D is approximately 281 miles, 75 percent of which 

would be located on BLM/USFS lands. Fifty-five percent of the route would be within a designated 

RMP or WWEC corridor (137 miles and 50 miles, respectively). There would be 303 miles of access 

roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-siting Options

Three alternative variations were developed to address potential impacts to the Mountain Meadows 

NHL resulting from Alternative III-A: the Ox Valley East Variation (Segments 1503, 1503.5, and 1505); 

the Ox Valley West (Segments 1503.5, 1504, and 1505); and the Pinto Alternative Variation 

(Segment 1506). Each of these variations would replace Segments 1501.1 and 1501.15 of 

Alternative III-A.

Three alternative connectors were also developed in Region III to provide the flexibility to combine 

alternative segments to address resource conflicts. One connector could be used with Alternative III-A, 

two connectors could be used with Alternatives III-B and III-D, and one could be used with 

Alternative III-C.

Ground Electrode Locations

There are eight potential locations for ground electrode systems in Region III. Three of the locations 

would only apply to Alternative III-A (Mormon Mesa-Carp Elgin Road, Halfway Wash - Virgin River, 

and Halfway Wash East); three would apply only to Alternative III-B or Alternative III-D (Mormon MesaCarp Elgin Road, Halfway Wash - Virgin River, and Halfway Wash East); one would apply only to 

Alternative III-C (Meadow Valley 2); and one would apply only to Design Option 2 (Delta). The route 

approved by this ROD use the Halfway Wash-Virgin river electrode location. 

4.1.2.4 Region IV (North Las Vegas to Marketplace Hub in the City of Boulder, Nevada, see 

Figure ROD-5)

Southern Terminal

The Southern Terminal facilities would be located in the Eldorado Valley on private land, within the city 

limits of Boulder City, in Clark County, Nevada. The Southern Terminal would include an AC/DC 

converter station and adjacent AC substation. The AC/DC converter station would include a 600-kV 

DC switchyard and a converter building containing power electronics and control equipment. The 

Southern Terminal would connect to all four of the existing 500-kV substations (Eldorado, 

Marketplace, Mead, and McCullough) located at the Marketplace Hub. Connections to the existing 

transmission infrastructure at the Mead and Marketplace substations would be via the existing 

Mead-Marketplace 500-kV transmission line, and connections to the Eldorado and McCullough 

substations would be constructed. 

The three major components (AC/DC converter station, 500-/230-kV AC substation, and 230-kV AC 

substation) are planned to be co-located and contiguous with one another. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 25

Alternative IV-A Transmission Line Route (Applicant’s Proposed Action, Final EIS Agency Preferred 

Alternative; Agency Selected Alternative) 

The TransWest proposed action would follow a designated WWEC following existing transmission 

lines running to the south, passing North Las Vegas to the east, and through the Rainbow Gardens 

area. It would run between Whitney, Nevada, and the Lake Las Vegas development skirting the edge 

of Henderson, Nevada. It would then turn in a general southwest direction at Railroad Pass, and then 

in a southern direction to the Marketplace endpoint.

Alternative IV-A includes the following segments: 1620, 1630, 1660, 1700, 1740, 1790, and 1830. 

Alternative IV-A is approximately 37 miles, 92 percent of which would be located on federally managed 

lands. There would be 11 miles of BLM RMP corridors and 14 miles of designated WWEC. There 

would be 49 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative IV-B Transmission Line Route

Alternative IV-B was originally developed to provide an alternative that did not require crossing the 

Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA), a wilderness study area (WSA) that was recently released 

from consideration by Congress. This alternative would follow the proposed alternative for 

approximately 7 miles, diverge to the southeast as it passed directly east of Nellis Air Force Base, and 

travel south through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA), passing between the Lake Las 

Vegas development and Lake Mead. Along the south edge of Lake Las Vegas, it would turn 

southwest, north of Boulder City, Nevada, then turn west and join with Alternative IV-A west of 

Henderson to the Marketplace endpoint. 

Alternative IV-B includes the following segments: 1620, 1640, 1670, 1710, 1750, 1760, 1772, 1800, 

1820, and 1830. Alternative IV-B is approximately 40 miles, 55 percent of which would be located on 

federally managed lands. There would be 5 miles of BLM RMP corridors and 5 miles of designated 

WWEC. There would be 51 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative IV-C Transmission Line Route 

Alternative IV-C would decrease impacts to populated areas. This alternative would follow Alternative 

IV-B through the Lake Mead NRA and between the Lake Las Vegas development and Lake Mead to

north of the Boulder City. It would then continue south before it turned southwest around the southeast

edge of the metropolitan area of Boulder City, and into the Marketplace endpoint. It also was originally

developed to provide an alternative that did not require crossing the Sunrise Mountain ISA.

Alternative IV-C includes the following segments: 1620, 1640, 1670, 1710, 1750, and 1771. 

Alternative IV-C is approximately 44 miles, 55 percent of which would be located on federally 

managed lands. There would be 5 miles of BLM RMP corridors and 5 miles of designated WWEC. 

There would be 54 miles of access roads associated with this alternative.

Alternative Variations, Connectors, and Micro-siting Options

One alternative variation (the Marketplace Variation, segment 1810) was developed to address 

impacts to private lands. This variation would replace segment 1820 of Alternative IV-B.

Five alternative connectors were developed in Region IV to provide the flexibility to combine 

alternative segments to address resource conflicts. Each of the five connectors could be used with

Alternative IV-B and four could be used with Alternative IV-C. 

4.1.3 Alternate Development Design Options 

A range of design options were evaluated for the Project. TransWest identified three design options in 

the SF 299 ROW application that may have had the potential to meet the Project goals and objectives. In 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 26

August 2012, TransWest submitted an amendment to the application eliminating Design Option 1 from 

further consideration. Design Options 2 and 3 are discussed below. 

4.1.3.1 Design Option 2

Under Design Option 2, the Northern Terminal would be constructed as in the Proposed Action. The 

Southern Terminal would be relocated to the IPP in Millard County near Delta, Utah. A series 

compensation station would be necessary along the AC-configured alternative routes of Region III. 

There are three potential sites for this station, each corresponding to a specific alternative route. 

Additional studies would be performed to identify specific locations.

4.1.3.2 Design Option 3

Under Design Option 3, a substation would be constructed near IPP in Phase 1, and the Southern 

Terminal would be constructed in Nevada in Phase Two. 

A series compensation station would be necessary along the alternative routes of Region II during the 

first phase (AC operation). There are three potential sites, each corresponding to specific alternative 

routes. Series Compensation Station 1 corresponds to Alternatives II-A and II-E, and would be located 

near the Uintah-Duchesne County line approximately 7 miles east of the Town of Roosevelt, Utah, and 

2 miles south of US-40. Series Compensation Station 2 corresponds to Alternatives II-B and II-C, and 

would be located approximately 5 miles west of the Utah-Colorado state line on the north side of I-70. 

Series Compensation Station 3 corresponds to Alternatives II-D and II-F, and would be located in the 

Uinta Basin area approximately 8 miles west of the Green River and near the Uintah-Duchesne 

County line. Additional studies would be performed to identify specific locations. 

Upon completion of Phase 2 of Design Option 3, when the series compensation station would no 

longer have utility, the site would be deconstructed and reclaimed to the original condition.

4.1.4 Land Use Plan Amendments

As explained above, BLM’s land use planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-3) require that Projectspecific decisions, including authorized uses of land, conform to or be consistent with the applicable 

plan. Actions that result in a change in the scope of resource uses, terms, conditions, and decisions of 

federal agency land use plans, including the approval of this proposal, may require amendment of one 

or more of the plans. The BLM, Western, and cooperating agencies worked together to develop routes 

that would conform to existing federal land use plans where practicable. However, this objective was 

not reached for a number of the alternative routes analyzed in the EIS. As a result, the BLM has 

elected to amend the affected plans where the Project does not conform to applicable plan 

requirements. Plan amendments that would be necessary to implement each of the evaluated 

alternatives were identified by affected agencies and analyzed in Chapter 4.0 of the Final EIS. 

The proposed BLM plan amendments would: (1) expand or extend an existing utility corridor that 

allows for overhead utilities; (2) create a new utility corridor to allow for overhead utilities and 

exceptions to other resource stipulations if avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not feasible 

within the designated corridor; and/or (3) create a one-time exception through a ROW exclusion area. 

Depending on the route alternative selected, potential BLM plan amendments could include the 

following:

• Rawlins FO: Alternative I-A, I-B, I-C, and I-D would all require land use plan amendments

designating a new utility corridor to allow for overhead utilities and exceptions to other

resource stipulations if avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not feasible.

• Little Snake FO: Alternative I-A, I-B, I-C, I-D, as well as the Tuttle Micro-siting Options 3 and 4

would all require land use plan amendments designating new utility corridors to allow for
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 27

overhead utilities and exceptions to other resource stipulations if avoidance measures or 

impact mitigation are not feasible.

• Grand Junction FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

• White River FO: Alternatives B and C would require land use plan amendments designating a

utility corridor to allow for overhead utilities and exceptions to other resource stipulations if

avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not feasible.

• Vernal FO: Alternatives II-A, II-B, II-C, II-D, II-E, II-F, and II-G would all require land use plan

amendments designating new utility corridors allowing for exceptions to other resource

stipulations if avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not feasible. Alternatives II-D and

II-F would require an amendment to: (1) exempt the designated utility corridor at Four Mile

Bottom through the Lower Green River ACEC to allow for overhead utilities; and (2) change

the tentative classification of the Lower Green River from scenic to recreational at the

intersection with the Four Mile Bottom utility corridor.

• Moab FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

• Price FO: Alternatives II-B, II-C, II-D, and the Castle Dale and Price alternative connectors

would all require land use plan amendments designating new utility corridors allowing for

exceptions to other resource stipulations if avoidance measures or impact mitigation are not

feasible.

• Salt Lake FO: Alternatives II-A, II-E, II-F, II-G, and the Reservation Ridge alternative variation

would all require land use plan amendments designating new utility corridors.

• Richfield FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

• Fillmore FO (within Regions II and III): No plan amendments would be necessary under any

alternative.

• Cedar City FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

• St. George FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

• Caliente FO: Alternatives III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, would all require one time exceptions.

Alternatives III-A, III-B and III-D would require the exception to cross a ROW exclusion area.

Alternative III-C would require the exception to cross an area that is managed by the BLM as a

Visual Resources Management (VRM) Class II area.

• Las Vegas FO: No plan amendments would be necessary under any alternative.

Project-specific plan amendments would be needed for all national forests affected by the Project. 

The specific land use plan amendments that are needed depend upon which route is selected in the 

ROD. In the Final EIS, the BLM identified the Agency Preferred Alternative and the requisite proposed 

plan amendments necessary to implement that alternative. 

The Selected Alternative identified in this ROD requires the same plan amendments as the Agency 

Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS, including, as detailed in Part 3.2: amendments to the 

land use plans for the Rawlins FO, Little Snake FO, and Vernal FO to designate new utility corridors to

allow for overhead utilities and exceptions to other resource stipulations if avoidance measures or 

impact mitigation are not feasible within the designated corridor; an amendment to the land use plan 

for the Salt Lake FO to designate a new utility corridor to allow for overhead utilities; and an 

amendment to the land use plan for the Caliente FO for a one-time exception to cross a ROW 

exclusion area. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 28

4.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

4.2.1 Undergrounding Alternative

During scoping, numerous questions were raised regarding the ability to route the transmission line, or 

portions of the transmission line, underground. Underground cable systems have been considered 

and evaluated for the Project; however, there are substantial issues with undergrounding that make it 

unsuitable for very long high-voltage transmission lines crossing the multiple physiographic areas 

traversed by the Project. The length of the Project and the fact that it crosses large areas of 

undisturbed habitat with large variations in topography raises several environmental, technical, and 

economic issues. These include the following.

• Economic Issues – Undergrounding increases the costs of a transmission line from 12 to17

times relative to that of an overhead transmission line. In the case of the TWE Project, this

would make Project construction economically infeasible.

• Technical Issues – Burying long, high-voltage transmission lines requires consideration of two

key issues: (1) providing sufficient insulation so that cables can be within inches of grounded

material; and (2) dissipating the heat produced during the operation of the electrical cables.

Addressing these issues would require the use of special fluid-filled or gas-filled pipe or the

use of solid cable with cross-linked polyethylene. These systems have the potential for fluid

leaks or corrosion that can cause additional environmental concerns or have potential longterm maintenance requirements. The use of undergrounding also requires the installation of

ancillary facilities, including large buried vaults for cable splicing and maintenance. The vaults

are large concrete boxes approximately 10 x 10 x 30 feet, and, depending on the type of cable

used, would be required every 900 to 2,000 feet along the entire length of the transmission

lines. For large voltage lines such as the Project, two adjacent vaults may need to be

constructed at each of these intervals.

• Environmental Issues – Burying the Project transmission line and required ancillary facilities

(such as vaults) would require continuous excavation through all habitat types along the entire

length of the transmission line. This would result in large-scale impacts related to visual

resources, habitat loss, erosion, and sedimentation.

Based on the technical, economic, and environmental impact issues described above, undergrounding 

all or portions of the Project was not considered for further analysis.

4.2.2 Double-Hanging Alternative

Commenters also suggested that “double-hanging” this Project on existing transmission line structures 

should be considered. The Project’s Technical Subcommittee, consisting of representatives from both 

Western and TransWest, considered the feasibility of using common structures. 

Reliability standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and WECC limit the 

total capacity carried by an individual structure to no greater than 3,000-MW, (the capacity of the 

Project) to avoid a blackout of the entire Western grid in the event of a single structure’s failure.

Additionally, double-hanging is technically infeasible because AC and DC systems are incompatible on 

shared structures because of interference with DC current from the electro-magnetic fields created by 

AC circuits.

4.2.3 Alternative Corridor Segments

A number of alternative corridor segments were considered through the public scoping period, but 

were subsequently eliminated from detailed analysis in the Final EIS because the BLM determined 

that these segments provided no benefits beyond the existing range of alternatives or had equal or 

greater impacts to alternatives being retained for detailed analysis. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 29

Additionally, certain segments and ground electrode sites included in the Draft EIS were removed from 

the Final EIS because the BLM determined these alternatives provided no benefits beyond the 

existing range of alternatives or had equal or greater impacts to alternatives being retained for detailed 

analysis. Section 2.7 of the Final EIS identifies the segments and notes the rationale for elimination 

from detailed analysis.

4.3 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative

The Agency Preferred Alternative was identified in the Final EIS as the following combination of 

Project regional alternatives and facilities:

• Alternative I-B through Region I in Wyoming and Colorado;

• The Bolten Ranch Ground Electrode System location (northern);

• Alternative II-G through Region II in Colorado and Utah;

• Alternative III-D through Region III in Utah and Nevada;

• The Halfway Wash East Ground Electrode System location (southern); and

• Alternative IV-A through Region IV in Nevada.

Each of these routes and Project elements are described in greater detail in Section 4.0, above. As 

explained above, this ROD largely adopts the Agency Preferred Alternative, with two minor 

modifications.

The Agency Preferred Alternative was identified through a comparative evaluation of routing 

opportunities and constraints and the relative potential impacts among the various alternative 

segments. The Agency Preferred Alternative within each Project region was identified by the BLM and 

Western with input from the USFS and other cooperating agencies considering criteria linked to the 

CEQ criteria for significant impacts. 

While these criteria informed the decision, there is no hierarchy for consideration of criteria or 

requirement that the Agency Preferred Alternative fulfill any particular criteria. These criteria were 

broadened and refined based on input from the Project’s cooperating agencies regarding other key 

resource concerns, as follows:

• Maximizing the use of appropriate (e.g., non-underground-only) existing designated utility

corridors by locating within or paralleling areas of existing utility ROWs.

• Minimizing the need for plan amendments through maximizing conformance to current land

use plans.

• Avoiding or minimizing resource impacts that are regulated by law (Endangered Species Act,

Clean Water Act (CWA), NHPA, WSAs ISAs, IRAs, etc.) after consideration of Project design

features and agency BMPs. This includes impacts to greater sage-grouse (a candidate

species for listing under the ESA when the Final EIS was issued).

• Avoiding or minimizing proximity to private residences and residential areas, thereby

addressing public health and safety, aesthetic, visual, and other concerns.

• Avoiding or minimizing potentially unavoidable adverse impacts (residual impacts) to

resources after consideration of Project design features and agency BMPs, even though those

resources may not be specifically regulated by law.

• Minimizing use of private lands, if natural resource impacts are similar.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 30

• If multiple alternatives meet the preceding criteria, the Agency Preferred Alternative will be the

alternative that minimizes construction, operation, and maintenance expense and/or time.

In their identification of the Agency Preferred Alternative for the Project, the joint-lead agency decision 

makers reviewed the Draft EIS and considered the alternatives and their relative impacts on 

resources, as well as corresponding public and agency input. The Agency Preferred Alternative 

presented in the Final EIS was chosen to meet the agencies’ purpose and need and the Applicant’s

objectives while balancing federal land managers’ multiple use mandate. The Agency Preferred 

Alternative complies with the ESA, NHPA, Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and 

CWA, which were enacted to protect finite resources – endangered animals, historic artifacts and 

sites, and water. Approximately 276 miles (38 percent) of the Agency Preferred Alternative is located 

within designated federal utility corridors. The Agency Preferred Alternative is co-located with existing 

transmission lines for a distance of 408 miles (56 percent) of the total length.

Because identification of the Agency Preferred Alternative has been considered by the four individual 

BLM state offices, the supporting rationale is discussed by state.

4.3.1 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Wyoming

The Agency Preferred Alternative route through Wyoming was chosen to minimize impacts to natural 

resources (including greater sage-grouse), visual resources, cultural resources, and private lands. 

This required consideration not only of the potential impacts on these resources in Wyoming, but also 

of the impacts on resources in Colorado, because the Agency Preferred Alternative must match 

across state lines. The specific considerations in choosing the Agency Preferred Alternative in 

Wyoming included the following:

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route exits the State of Wyoming and enters Colorado at a

location that corresponds to the Colorado State Office’s Agency Preferred Alternative.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route provides less visual impacts from key observation

points along SH-789 and from the Town of Baggs due to the distance from these areas. A

trade-off that was considered is the impact to areas along the Old Cherokee Trail where the

Agency Preferred Alternative route parallels, and/or is within sight of the Cherokee Trail for 14

to 15 miles through areas with very little modern development (NTSA Sec. 5(c) trails under

study or recommended as suitable for congressional designation).

• The Agency Preferred Alternative crosses non-contributing segments of both the Overland

and Old Cherokee trails (NTSA Sec. 5(c) trails under study or recommended as suitable for

congressional designation).

• The route crosses the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (unavoidable).

• The route follows the Wyoming Governor’s transmission corridors established in Wyoming

E.O. 2015-4. There are fewer greater sage-grouse leks along the Agency Preferred

Alternative route. However, when comparing the number of birds that attend the leks, there is

not a significant difference between alternative routes.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route will minimize habitat impacts to the federally listed Ute

ladies’-tresses orchid.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route will minimize impacts to big game crucial winter range.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route reflects the route agreed upon by the Tri-county

Resolution among Carbon and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming, and Moffat County, Colorado,

adopted July 5, 2011.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 31

In Wyoming, the Agency Preferred Alternative crosses 59 miles of federal, 4 miles of state, and 

30 miles of private land.

4.3.2 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Colorado

The Agency Preferred Alternative route through Colorado was chosen to minimize impacts to natural 

resources (including greater sage-grouse), as well as visual resources and private lands. This required 

consideration not only of the potential impacts on these resources in Colorado, but also of the impacts 

on resources in Wyoming and Utah because the Agency Preferred Alternative must match across 

state lines. The specific considerations in choosing the Agency Preferred Alternative in Colorado 

included the following:

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route exits the State of Wyoming and enters Colorado at a

location that corresponds to the Wyoming State Office’s Agency Preferred Alternative. The

Agency Preferred Alternative route exits the State of Colorado and enters Utah at a location

that corresponds to BLM Utah State Office’s Agency Preferred Alternative.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route will minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat,

as compared with other alternatives that are not co-located with existing transmission.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route will minimize impacts to big game crucial winter range.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route maximizes Project placement on public lands, and

minimizes crossing of private lands.

• While the Agency Preferred Alternative avoids impacts to a number of important resources,

those choices did result in a trade-off where more undeveloped areas are impacted by the

Agency Preferred Alternative as it uses less existing designated utility corridors in order to

avoid the resource impacts identified above.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route minimizes the length of the ROW and the need for

construction and operation disturbance, thus minimizing overall Project impacts.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative route reflects the route agreed upon by the Tri-county

Resolution between Carbon and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming, and Moffat County,

Colorado, adopted July 5, 2011.

In Colorado, the Agency Preferred Alternative crosses 62 miles of federal, 12 miles of state, and 15 

miles of private land.

4.3.3 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Utah

The Agency Preferred Alternative route through Utah was chosen to minimize impacts to natural 

resources (including greater sage-grouse), visual resources, cultural resources, and private lands. 

This required consideration not only of the potential impacts on these resources in Utah, but also of 

the impacts on resources in Colorado and Nevada because the Agency Preferred Alternative must 

match across state lines.

The specific considerations in choosing the Agency Preferred Alternative in Utah include the following:

• The Agency Preferred Alternative avoids desert tortoise habitat in Utah.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative maximizes avoidance of potential habitat for threatened and

endangered plant species. The preferred route avoids 43 miles identified as potential habitat

for the Uintah Basin hookless cactus and reduces the crossing of modeled potential clay

phacelia habitat.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 32

• The Agency Preferred Alternative avoids impacts to the outstandingly remarkable values of

the Lower Green River and the River’s tentative classification as suitable for wild and scenic

designation.

• There are a multitude of historic sites along all alternatives, but three important resources

(Yellow-Springs cultural complex, Mountain Meadows NHL, and the Old Spanish NHT) occur

along the alternatives that cross the Dixie National Forest. The area crossed on the Dixie

National Forest also has the highest known and expected density of archaeological sites

among the alternatives. The Agency Preferred Alternative minimizes impacts to important and

sensitive cultural and historic resources in southwestern Utah by avoiding these resources in

and near the Dixie National Forest.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative avoids the San Rafael Swell, and avoids conflicts with

significant cultural resources including the Old Spanish NHT and Quitchupah Creek area. The

San Rafael Swell is an area of high geologic and anthropologic importance. It is critical to

maintaining the cultural and scenic integrity of this area. The Old Spanish NHT also is present

in the vicinity of several of the alternatives that transect the San Rafael Swell. The Agency

Preferred Alternative avoids crossing the Quitchupah Creek area, which is considered to be

sacred and a traditional use area by the Paiute Tribe of Utah.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative avoids crossing tribal trust lands on the Uintah and Ouray

Indian Reservation.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative maximizes miles of transmission line co-located with

existing above-ground utilities.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative minimizes new access road construction in steep or

mountainous terrain when compared to other alternatives.

• The agencies recognize that there are trade-offs in resource impacts when comparing

alternative alignments, and that some of the choices identified above result in such trade-offs.

For example, the Agency Preferred Alternative route involves a small portion of inventoried

roadless areas (IRA) in the Uinta National Forest Planning Area. Because IRA impacts can be

minimized through micro-siting, and because Project-wide impacts to IRAs are minimized by

avoiding IRAs in other areas, the BLM and Western determined this to be a reasonable tradeoff with the issues identified above. The BLM and Western also recognize that this Agency

Preferred Alternative affects more total acres of occupied greater sage-grouse habitat as

compared to some other alternatives, but it minimizes impacts to threatened and endangered

plants.

In Utah, the Agency Preferred Alternative crosses 210 miles of federal, 27 miles of state, and 

153 miles of private land.

4.3.4 Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative in Nevada

The Agency Preferred Alternative route through Nevada was chosen to minimize impacts to natural 

resources, including desert tortoise, and private lands through maximized use of designated corridors 

and co-location with existing transmission infrastructure. This required consideration, not only of the 

potential impacts on these resources in Nevada, but also of the impacts on resources in Utah because 

the preferred alternative must match across state lines. The specific considerations in choosing the 

Agency Preferred Alternative in Nevada include the following:

• The Agency Preferred Alternative minimizes impacts to desert tortoise while connecting with

the Agency Preferred Alternative in Utah.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 33

• The Agency Preferred Alternative maximizes co-location with existing transmission

infrastructure and use of designated utility corridors while connecting with the Agency

Preferred Alternative in Utah.

• The Agency Preferred Alternative avoids the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA).

In Nevada, the Agency Preferred Alternative crosses 137 miles of federal, 14 miles of tribal, and 5 

miles of private land.

4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) require the ROD to identify one or more environmentally 

preferred alternatives. An environmentally preferred alternative is an alternative that causes the least 

damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Because it would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment, the BLM has 

determined that the No Action Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative. 

However, the No Action Alternative would not allow development of a project that would potentially 

transmit renewable and conventional energy, and would not meet the BLM’s purpose and need, 

including increasing reliability of the national grid and advancing renewable energy development. For 

the reasons detailed in this ROD, the BLM has not selected the No Action Alternative.

Identification of the environmentally preferable alternative among the action alternatives involves some 

difficult judgments regarding tradeoffs between different natural and cultural impacts and values. With 

consideration of these tradeoffs, the BLM has determined that the Selected Alternative is the 

environmentally preferable action alternative. The rationale for this decision includes the following: 

• The Selected Alternative avoids or minimizes impacts to physical, biological, and cultural

resource that are regulated by law (ESA, CWA, NHPA, ARPA, etc.);

• The Selected Alternative minimizes impacts to sage-grouse habitat;

• The Selected Alternative minimizes impacts to big game crucial winter range;

• The Selected Alternative avoids desert tortoise habitat in Utah, and minimizes impacts to desert

tortoise in Nevada;

• The Selected Alternative avoids potential habitat for threatened and endangered plant species,

including Uintah Basin hookless cactus;

• The Selected Alternative minimizes impacts to modeled potentially suitable clay phacelia habitat;

• The Selected Alternative minimizes impacts to the Overland Trail and Cherokee trail by crossing

the trails at segments that are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP);

• The Selected Alternative minimizes impacts to important and sensitive cultural and historic

resources in southwestern Utah by avoiding the crossings in and near the Dixie National Forest,

which has the highest known and expected density of archaeological sites among the

alternatives. These resources include three sites of particular cultural importance: YellowSprings cultural complex, Mountain Meadows National Historic Landmark, and the Old Spanish

NHT;

• The Selected Alternative avoids the Old Spanish NHT in the Moab and Price FOs; and

• The Selected Alternative maximizes use of existing utility corridors and co-location with existing

transmission to the extent practicable.
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 34

5.0 Mitigation and Monitoring 

5.1 Project-Specific Mitigation Measures

Mitigation and monitoring measures beyond those identified by the Applicant in the POD were 

developed through the NEPA, ESA, and NHPA compliance processes in order to avoid, minimize, and 

compensate for impacts to resource impacted by the Project. Proposed mitigation measures were 

initially described in Chapter 3.0 and Appendix C of the Final EIS (Section C.5, Table C.5-1). The 

mitigation measures required are described in Section 3.1 of this ROD and are addressed in more 

detail in its Appendices. These measures are incorporated into the Environmental Protection Plans 

contained in the attached POD and Table 17, POD Section 8.3.2, Additional Mitigation Measures for 

the Project (Appendix B of this ROD). Additional mitigation and monitoring measures required as a 

condition of the ROW grant that are not contained in the POD can be found in Appendices C and F of 

this document.

The mitigation and monitoring requirements applicable to the Project are set forth in Appendix F of 

this ROD, which contains a detailed explanation of the NTP process. That Appendix includes, among 

other things: (i) compensatory mitigation measures for impacts to greater sage-grouse that have been 

designed to achieve a net conservation gain in Colorado and Utah and no net loss in Wyoming; (ii)

requirements that address impacts to other species, such as sagebrush obligate species, special 

status species (e.g., desert tortoise and rare plants), and migratory birds; (iii) requirements that 

address cultural resources, impacts National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHT), and lands with 

wilderness characteristics for which a management decision has not been made; and (iv) the use of 

one energy corridor in Southern Nevada designated by BLM pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy 

Policy Act, which was identified as a “corridor of concern” by plaintiffs in the settlement agreement for 

a lawsuit challenging BLM’s designation of the Section 368 energy corridors. As explained in 

Appendix F the Project-related monitoring requirements will include an adaptive management 

component for certain mitigation measures. 

5.2 Statement of All Practicable Mitigation Adopted

Based on the foregoing and consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2(c), the BLM has determined that all 

practicable mitigation measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the Selected 

Alternative for the Project have been adopted by this ROD. 

6.0 Management Considerations in Choosing the Selected 

Alternative 

The decision to approve the TWE Project takes into account statutory, legal, and national policy 

considerations, as well as the Applicant‘s technical and financial capability to construct the Project for 

which the ROW is requested. The decision was also based on input provided by the public, industry, 

other federal and state agencies, and affected Native American tribes. Through this review process, all 

practicable methods to reduce environmental harm have been incorporated into the decision. No 

undue or unnecessary degradation will result from this Project. The decision is consistent with BLM’s 

multiple use mandate under FLPMA and all applicable laws, policy and guidance. 

The Selected Alternative will help modernize and upgrade the Nation’s energy grid and could 

potentially help displace older fossil-fuel-fired electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power

by providing a means to transmit renewable energy to load centers, which would contribute to the 

reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, the Project is consistent with the direction 

in the EPAct and FAST Act and will further the objectives of the Executive Office of the President’s
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 35

Climate Action Plan (2013) to reduce GHG emissions and promote the deployment of renewable 

energy technologies. 

The decision to approve the proposed resource management plan amendments takes into account the 

requirements of Section 202 of FLPMA that states: “The Secretary shall, with public involvement...

...develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for 

the use of the public lands” (43 USC 1712), as outlined in this ROD. 

The Selected Alternative approved by this decision largely tracks the Agency Preferred Alternative in the 

Final EIS, with the modifications noted above for the Tuttle Ranch Micro-siting Option 4 and Halfway 

Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system siting option. The Department has chosen the Selected 

Alternative because it meets the agencies’ purpose and need and Applicant’s objectives, while reflecting 

the BLM’s other management obligations. The decision to authorize this ROW grant to use federal lands 

for this transmission project is also based on the rationale described in the following sections and the 

rationales specific to the Final EIS Agency Preferred Alternative for each state found in Sections 4.3.1 

through 4.3.4 of this ROD. 

Subsequent to release of the Final EIS for the Project, the BLM finalized its west-wide sage grouse 

planning effort and the USFWS issued its “not warranted” finding for the greater sage-grouse. In 

preparing this ROD the BLM reviewed those decisions and determined pursuant to 40 CFR 

1502.9(c)(1)(ii), that the issuance of: 1) the Final EIS/Proposed Resource Management Plan

Amendments (RMPAs) for Northwest Colorado and Utah, 2) the RODs approving the RMPAs for the 

Great Basin Region Greater Sage-grouse sub-regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and 

Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (BLM 2015b) and for the Rocky Mountain Region, including 

the sub-regions of Lewiston, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, and Wyoming (BLM 2015c), and 3) the 

USFWS finding that the greater Sage-grouse is “not warranted” for listing as a threatened or endangered 

species under the ESA, do not represent significant new circumstances or information triggering a need 

to supplement the TWE Final EIS. The TWE Final EIS addresses the relevant information regarding 

greater sage-grouse and Greater Sage-grouse habitat in the Greater Sage-grouse Final EISs/Proposed 

RMPAs, BLM’s RMPA decisions, and FWS’s finding. Additionally, the TWE projects and other identified 

priority transmission projects were not required to comply with the conservation measures in the BLM 

RMPA decisions and the FWS’s finding of “not warranted” finding means that the greater sage-grouse’s 

status as a sensitive species (as analyzed in the TWE EIS) did not change.

6.1.1 Response to the BLM Purpose and Need

Approval of the ROW grant for the Selected Alternative responds to BLM’s purpose and need for the 

Project by responding to the Applicants’ application under Title V of FLPMA (43 USC 1701) for a ROW 

grant to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate a 600-kV electric transmission line and other 

facilities on public lands in compliance with the FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, and other applicable 

federal laws. With the adoption of land use plan amendments listed in Section 3.2 of this ROD, the 

Selected Alternative is also consistent with all BLM RMPs where the Project is located.

6.1.2 Response to the Applicants’ Need and Objectives

The Selected Alternative meets all Project objectives, and is technically and economically feasible. 

The Selected Alternative will provide for efficient, cost-effective, and economically feasible 

transmission of clean and sustainable renewable (or non-renewable) electric energy from Wyoming to 

markets in the desert southwest region. It will maximize use of existing and designated utility corridors 

and access roads to the extent practicable, while meeting North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation Reliability Standards and WECC planning criteria and line separation requirements. A 

detailed description of the Applicant’s objectives for the Project is presented in Chapter 1.0 of the Final 

EIS, as well as in Section 2 of the POD (Appendix B of this ROD).
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 36

6.1.3 Consideration of Resource Issues

In approving the Selected Alternative, the BLM carefully considered the effects of each alternative 

route on climate and air resources; geological, mineral, and paleontological resources; soils; water; 

vegetation, including special status plant species; wildlife, including special status wildlife species and 

migratory birds; aquatic resources; cultural resources and Native American concerns; visual 

resources; recreation; land use, including rangeland resources; special designations; transportation; 

social and economic resources; public health and safety; wild horses; NSHT; lands with wilderness 

characteristics; and wildland fire. The evaluation of potential impacts to these resources was integral 

to the identification of the Agency Preferred Alternative in the EIS. This analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Environmental documents that were considered in making this decision 

included the Draft and Final EIS, BA and BO, as well as documents specific to National Forest System 

lands (technical reports for Aquatic Biological Resources, Terrestrial Wildlife Species, and Special 

Status Plant Species, Biological Evaluation, and IRA and Unroaded/Undeveloped Area Worksheets for 

the Evaluation of Wilderness Qualities or Attributes and Roadless Area Characteristics).

As explained above, the Selected Alternative is the same as the Agency Preferred Alternative 

identified in the Final EIS with two minor modifications. This ROD approves the Tuttle Micro-siting 

Option 4 and Halfway Wash-Virgin River ground electrode system siting. In selecting these 

modifications, the BLM worked through the same resource issues in the applicable regions as were 

considered in the Final EIS. As a result of these considerations, the BLM decided to approve these 

modifications because they addressed specific resource concerns such as reducing impacts to

conservation easements and planned future land uses. 

In addition to helping inform the selection of the Preferred Alternative, the BLM’s evaluation of 

resource impacts was used to identify all practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm to resources. The implementation of these measures is a requirement of this ROD, as noted in 

Section 3.0. 

6.1.4 Consideration of Public Comments and Concerns

The Selected Alternative was chosen by the BLM after careful consideration of public comments and 

concerns. As detailed in Section 8.2 of this ROD, the BLM and Western received a total of 562 

submittals containing comments on the Draft EIS. As a result of cooperating agency input and public 

comments, refinements were made to the Agency Preferred Alternative presented in the Final EIS. 

Appendix L of the Final EIS contains each unique substantive comment received, and its associated 

response.

6.1.5 Statement of No Unnecessary or Undue Degradation 

Congress declared that the public lands must be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, in a 

manner that protects certain land values, to provide food and habitat for species, and to provide for

outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use (43 USC 1701(a)(7), (8)). Multiple use and 

sustained yield management means that public land resources are to be managed to best meet the 

present and future needs of the American public, balanced to take into consideration the long-term 

needs of future generations without permanent impairment of the lands (43 USC 1702(c)). The BLM 

manages public land through land use planning, acquisition, and disposition, and through regulation of 

use, occupancy, and development of the public lands (Subchapters II and III, respectively, 43 USC 

1711 to 1722, and 1731 to 1748).

FLPMA specifically provides that in “managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or 

otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands” 

(43 USC 1732(b)). The process for siting and evaluating the Project has involved extensive efforts on the 

part of the BLM, Western, the USFS, the States of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, Native 

American tribes, local governments, public commenters, and other agencies. This process identified an 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 37

alternative that accomplishes the purpose and need, while preventing any unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the lands. This process included:

• The evaluation of siting the proposed facility in or adjacent to designated corridors or existing

linear facilities, and avoiding lands that have been specifically designated for the protection of

any resources.

• The evaluation of Project location alternatives which could meet the purpose and need for the

proposed Project while avoiding and minimizing impacts.

• The development of mitigation measures to further avoid or minimize impacts and to

compensate for residual impacts.

In addition, BLM ROW regulations at 43 CFR 2805.11(a)(1) to (5) require that BLM limit the grant to 

those lands which BLM determines:

• The applicant for the ROW will occupy with authorized facilities;

• Are necessary for constructing, operating, maintaining, and terminating the authorized facilities;

• Are necessary to protect the public health and safety;

• Will not unnecessarily damage the environment; and

• Will not result in unnecessary or undue degradation.

The lands in the Selected Alternative are the minimum necessary to accommodate the Project. The 

Applicant has identified and proposed to utilize previously disturbed access routes and disturbed 

areas to the extent practicable to minimize the need to disturb additional areas. Additionally, all 

temporary disturbances associated with the Project will be immediately restored and revegetated to 

minimize erosion in accordance with approved restoration and revegetation plans. Public health and 

safety will not be compromised by the Project as construction work areas will be posted and public 

access to those areas controlled to prevent possible injury to members of the public.

The Selected Alternative will achieve all of the beneficial impacts of the proposed Project, including 

improved energy transmission capacity and the socioeconomic benefits of increases in employment 

and fiscal resources. Based on the comparative analysis of the ability of each alternative to meet the 

purpose and need, and the environmental impacts that will be associated with each alternative as 

discussed in the Final EIS and as summarized above, the Selected Alternative does not unnecessarily 

damage the environment or create unnecessary or undue degradation of lands managed by the BLM. 

6.1.6 Statement of Technical and Financial Capability

The BLM’s ROW regulations require a project application to include information on an applicant’s 

financial and technical capability to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate the project (43 CFR 

2804.12(a)(5)). The Applicant’s statement of technical and financial capability is provided in its ROW 

application for the Project.

The Applicant, TransWest, is a Limited Liability Company that was formed in July 2008. TransWest is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of The Anschutz Corporation (TAC). In turn, TAC is a 100 percent owned 

subsidiary of Anschutz Company (Anschutz), a privately held multi-billion dollar diversified company 

based in Denver, Colorado. TransWest was formed to hold and develop certain electric transmission 

assets for Anschutz. TAC was formed in 1965 by Philip F. Anschutz, initially as an oil and gas drilling 

and exploration company. Today, Anschutz has worldwide investments in natural resources (oil and 

gas development and pipelines, ranching and agriculture), real estate, telecommunications, 

transportation, sports and entertainment, film production, movie theaters, and newspaper and internet 

publishing. TAC has successfully developed large and complex energy infrastructure projects. In the 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 38

1990s, TAC constructed a 130-mile intrastate common carrier crude oil pipeline to transport heavy 

crude from California’s San Joaquin Valley to refineries and terminal facilities in the Los Angeles 

Basin. In the mid-1990s, TAC founded Qwest Communications which constructed the country’s first 

transcontinental high-speed fiber-optic link between Los Angeles and Boston. Through its whollyowned subsidiary Anschutz Entertainment Group, Anschutz has successfully developed and 

constructed a number of sports, entertainment and real estate assets involving several billion dollars of 

direct investment. 

TAC’s resources and commitment to developing the Project are demonstrated by the substantial 

investment of capital and time already made by TAC. Since 2008, TAC has funded TransWest’s 

extensive development activities. This includes undertaking and funding a comprehensive review of 

the environmental impacts of the Project. To date, TransWest has expended approximately $34 million 

dollars in developing the Project – a significant capital investment by TransWest and TAC. 

As noted above, Transwest and Western have entered into a Development Agreement to evaluate 

potential joint ownership of the Project. Pursuant to that agreement Western has reimbursed 

TransWest approximately $8 million dollars of this investment pursuant to the Development 

Agreement. 

Based on the information provided, the BLM has determined that the Application has the technical and 

financial capability to construct the Project. 

6.1.7 Consideration of Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies

The BLM has met all federal obligations requiring specific actions or reviews as part of federal 

approval, as described in Section 7.0 of this ROD (Relationship to Other Plans, Policies, and 

Programs).

6.2 Connected Actions

The BLM has determined that the Project is independent of, and will be built regardless of, any specific 

proposed generation or other transmission projects. Two of the primary purposes of the Project are to 

provide for efficient, cost-effective, and economically feasible transmission of clean and sustainable 

electric energy from Wyoming to markets in the desert Southwest region and provide system flexibility 

and increased access to the grid for third-party transmission users. For these goals to be met, a 

backbone of high-capacity transmission lines is needed to transport the electricity from where it is or can 

be generated (in this case, Wyoming), to where it is needed (in this case, the desert southwest region). 

Independent electricity generators may arrange transmission contracts on existing transmission lines, 

this Project, or other proposed high-voltage transmission lines. Therefore, there is no interdependence 

between this Project and proposed generation or high-voltage transmission lines. However, these other 

proposed projects would contribute to cumulative impacts on resources affected by the Project. 

Accordingly, their effects were disclosed in the cumulative analysis section of the Final EIS (Chapter 

5.0).Relationship to Other Plans, Policies, and Programs 

6.3 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans

The approximately 728-mile Selected Alternative route between Rawlins, Wyoming, and Las Vegas, 

Nevada, will cross public lands administered by 10 BLM FOs. Lead and cooperating agencies worked 

together to develop alternative routes that will largely conform to existing federal land use plans. As 

determined through the Project-specific impact analysis, some areas of the Selected Alternative would 

not conform to or be consistent with portions of the applicable administering federal agency’s land use 

plan. In addition, because of the large-scale nature of the Project and other reasonably foreseeable 

transmission projects proposed in similar areas, administering agencies have determined that certain 

targeted plan amendments were necessary to establish new utility corridors in some areas to inform 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 39

lead agency decision making on current and future projects. As a result, amendments of five BLM 

RMPs are necessary to allow the Project to proceed. The specific BLM land use plan amendments 

that are needed for the Selected Alternative are detailed in Section 3.2 and Section 4.1.4 of this ROD. 

Consistent with applicable regulations, BLM plan amendments are subject to public review and 

comment procedures outlined in federal regulations (43 CFR 1610.2-4). Pursuant to these regulations, 

outreach activities were conducted to gather public input on the Project and proposed amendments

(Section 8.0 of this ROD); planning criteria were developed and circulated for use in evaluating the 

amendments; and an analysis of the plan amendments was incorporated into the Final EIS. Pursuant 

to plan amendment procedures, the BLM held a 90-day public review period for the plan amendments, 

which were issued concurrently with release of the Draft EIS. A concurrent 30-day public protest 

period and 60-day Governors’ Consistency Review for the plan amendments were provided with the 

release of the Final EIS. 

During the public protest period, the BLM received six formal protest letters. In general, these protests 

were not in support of the proposed amendments and raised the following issues, among others: NEPA 

adequacy, use of the best available science, and compliance with FLPMA to prevent undue degradation 

to lands with wilderness characteristics and greater sage-grouse habitat. All protesting parties received 

response letters from the BLM Director conveying the Director’s decision on the concerns raised in their 

protests. The responses concluded that BLM followed the applicable laws, regulations, and policies and 

considered all relevant resource information and public input in developing the Draft and Final EIS. 

Therefore, all protests were denied or dismissed, and no changes were made to the Departmental 

decision as a result of the protests. Responses can be found in Appendix D of this ROD. More detailed 

information on protests may be found online at the following location:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/protest_resolution.html

6.4 State, County and Local Plans

State, county, and local plans were considered during the development of the Draft and Final EISs. 

Applicable plans are listed and referenced in Section 3.14 in the Final EIS. Comments were provided 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination 

Office (UPLPCO) during the 60-day Governors’ Consistency review. The Project is consistent with

Wyoming E.O. 2015-4. 

Additionally, three counties affected by the Selected Alternative and one Congressional representative 

on behalf of another county provided comments on the Final EIS, even though there was no formal 

comment period. These comments were addressed. Responses can be found in Appendix D of this 

ROD. One county’s submission was considered a protest and was addressed as explained in 

Appendix D of this ROD. 

6.5 Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation

The USFWS has jurisdiction over most threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA, as 

amended. Under the provisions of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, a federal agency that carries out, 

permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes an activity must consult with the USFWS as 

appropriate to ensure the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species 

listed under the ESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Informal consultation for the proposed Project began with BLM’s submittal of a written notification to 

the USFWS in July 2009. On August 25, 2010, the USFWS responded with a list of threatened and 

endangered species and species proposed or candidates for listing with potential to occur within the 

proposed Project’s action area. In early 2011, the USFWS, BLM, USFS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), federal agencies with the authority and responsibility to 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 40

perform certain actions associated with the proposed Project, entered into a Consultation Agreement. 

Additional federal agencies signed the Agreement in 2013 (i.e., URMCC, NPS). On February 21, 

2014, the USFWS sent a letter to the lead agencies confirming the list of species to be addressed in 

the BA, and providing general and species-specific recommendations for those species and detailed 

comments on the BA outline. 

The BLM submitted the Final BA to the USFWS on April 8, 2015. On May 7, 2015, the USFWS 

provided official non-concurrence and requested additional information on the Final BA. The BLM 

developed Addendums I and II to the BA (dated October 26, 2015, and January 20, 2016, 

respectively) to address USFWS concerns related to Colorado River fish and designated critical 

habitat, Platte River species, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, clay phacelia, Deseret milkvetch, Ute 

ladies’-tresses, water depletions during operation, and Mojave Desert tortoise impacts in relation to 

existing infrastructure. The BLM submitted Addendum III to the BA on April 8, 2016 to provide the 

USFWS additional information regarding federally listed Platte River species and to address 

comments received from the Applicant on the draft BO related to impacts on Mojave Desert tortoise. 

Candidate species or species undergoing status review prior to any listing determinations are discussed 

in an advisory context in the BA as their listing status may change over the timeline of Project 

development. 

The BLM made “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations on April 8, 2015, for the 

following species in the BA, and requested concurrence from the USFWS for the informal consultation:

• Barneby Ridgecress

• California Condor

• Canada Lynx

• Clay Phacelia

• Gray Wolf

• June Sucker

• Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

• Utah Prairie Dog

• Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid

• Virgin River Chub

• Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

• Yuma Clapper Rail

The BLM requested formal consultation for Platte River Species, Colorado River Fish, Deseret 

milkvetch, and Mojave Desert tortoise. 

On August 25, 2016, USFWS submitted final Concurrence for the “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” determinations and a Final BO for Colorado River Fish Species and their critical habitat, 

Deseret milkvetch, and Mojave Desert tortoise and their critical habitat, resulting in the completion of 

Formal Section 7 consultation (Appendix C of this ROD, Biological Opinion). 

This ROD and the BLM’s issuance of an NTP require that the Applicant comply with all speciesspecific conservation measures identified in the BA, and as analyzed in the BO and Informal 

Consultation for the Project. To support this, the ROW grant contains a standard stipulation that 

requires compliance with the mitigation measures resulting from the Section 7 consultation. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 41

The BO and its Attachment D are included in this ROD as a portion of Appendix C. Species-specific 

conservation measures from the ESA Section 7 consultation will be added to Section 8 of the NTP POD 

and will apply to the range of each federally listed species and its habitat. The Applicant also must 

comply with the non-discretionary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 

required by USFWS in the BO. 

6.6 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Executive 

Order 13186

The BLM, Western, and the USFS have entered into MOUs with the USFWS as directed under E.O. 

13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) in order to promote interagency conservation efforts. Interagency coordination regarding migratory bird conservation among 

the BLM, Western, USFS, USFWS, state wildlife agencies, and other stakeholders was completed 

throughout the development of the EIS via meetings, conference calls, letters, and e-mail 

correspondence. Complete analysis of potential impacts to migratory bird species covered under the 

MBTA in addition to further analysis of species identified as species of conservation priority by 

USFWS is located in Section 3.22 of the Final EIS. The analysis regarding migratory birds presented 

in the Final EIS complies with the terms of E.O. 13186. 

TransWest has committed to implementing design features during construction and operation of the 

Project that ensure consistency with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

recommendations (APLIC 2012, 2006) and has prepared an Avian Protection Plan, which is included 

as Appendix B of the ROD POD (Appendix B of this ROD). Additionally, TransWest has included 

additional mitigation measures in the ROD POD that will avoid and minimize impacts to avian species 

as described in the Final EIS. The Applicant will incorporate those mitigation measures into the final 

design process for the Project in collaboration with the USFWS, state wildlife agencies, and local 

stakeholders. These will be included in a finalized Avian Protection Plan of the NTP POD. 

6.7 Clean Air Act 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, requires all states to control air pollution emission 

sources so that National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are met and maintained. The 

NAAQS are established by the USEPA and represent maximum acceptable concentrations as 

averaged over specific time periods. The NAAQS that were evaluated for the Project included carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ozone. Details of the air quality impact 

analysis are provided in Section 3.1.6 of the Final EIS. The BLM has determined that Project 

construction and operation activities will be consistent with current federal and state air quality 

regulations and that the Selected Alternative will not cause adverse impacts to resources with Air 

Quality Related Values or exceed federal or state general conformity thresholds.

6.8 Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990

The CWA, E.O. 11988 (Floodplain Management), and E.O. 11990 (Wetland Protection) are 

regulations and policies that protect the water quality in waters of the U.S., as well as floodplains and 

wetlands. Section 402 of the CWA created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which 

is administered by most individual states and includes storm water permits and requirements for 

construction areas. Section 404 of the CWA regulates dredging and filling of waters of the U.S., with 

permits issued by the USACE. The construction and operation of the Selected Alternative will comply 

with the requirements of E.O. 11988; E.O. 11990; and Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA through 

effective implementation of design features, BMPs, and proposed mitigation (refer to Section 3.4.6 of 

the Final EIS, Impacts to Water Resources, and Section 3.5.6, Impacts to Vegetation Resources).
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 42

6.9 National Historic Preservation Act - Section 106 Consultation

Section 106 of the NHPA (54 USC 306108) requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of 

their undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, 

which may include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object. The executed 

PA and the stipulations outlining the process for identification, evaluation, and mitigation apply to all 

federal and non-federal lands involved in the Project. The Section 106 process outlined in the 

regulations (36 CFR part 800) seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of 

federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other parties with an interest 

in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36 CFR 800.1). These parties include the 

ACHP, SHPO, Native American tribes, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, state and other federal 

agencies, and individuals or organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking due to their 

legal or economic relationship to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the 

effects of undertakings on historic properties (36 CFR 800.2).

The BLM has elected to prepare a PA pursuant to the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR 

800.14(b)(1)(ii)) because of the complexity of the Project and the inability to fully determine the effects 

on historic properties prior to approval of the undertaking. The PA was executed by the required 

signatories and was also signed by all twelve invited signatories along with 15 concurring parties. The 

PA sets forth the requirements for complying with the Section 106 process, which TransWest must 

satisfy prior to receiving a NTP from BLM. It specifically outlines general and specific measures the 

federal agencies will take to fulfill their objectives and responsibilities regarding the protection of 

historic properties under the NHPA. The BLM and Western consulted with local governments, 

organizations, agencies, interested parties, and Native American Tribes in the development of the PA 

through face-to-face meetings in 2011, 2013, and 2014, as well as regular telephone conference calls 

throughout the PA development process. A complete description of development of the PA can be 

found in the Final EIS (Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.3.2 of the Final EIS).

The signature process for the Final PA was completed on October 18, 2016. The PA, which is 

attached as Appendix E of this ROD, contains a list of all signatories, invited signatories, and

concurring parties. All parties signing the PA agreed that the Project would be administered in 

accordance with stipulations and measures set forth in the PA. Note that Section 8 of the NTP POD 

will be updated with information contained within the executed PA and the information required by the 

executed PA, including the completed Class III cultural inventory reports; Historic Properties 

Treatment Plans that detail mitigation requirements in specific areas; and monitoring plans that 

encompass plans for the discovery of previously unknown cultural resources, tribal and archaeological 

monitoring, and plans for the treatment of human remains. 

6.10 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

E.O. 12898 requires each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission. 

Potential environmental justice populations are not expected to be disproportionately affected by 

impacts associated with construction of the Selected Alternative (see Section 3.17 of the Final EIS).

7.0 Consistency and Consultation Review 

7.1 Governors’ Consistency Review 

Comments were provided by the WGFD and the UPLPCO during the Final EIS’s 60-day Governors’ 

Consistency review. Responses to these comments are provided in Appendix D of this ROD. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 43

7.2 Cooperating Agencies

The BLM and Western invited interested federal, state, tribal, and county governments to participate 

as cooperating agencies for the preparation of the Project EIS. To date, 49 agencies and 2 tribes have 

accepted the invitation. These cooperating agencies are listed below.

7.2.1 Federal Agencies 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Region, representing:

− Rocky Mountain Region, Billings, Montana

− Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico

• Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region

• National Park Service,

− Intermountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado 

− Pacific West Region, San Francisco, California

• Natural Resource Conservation Service

• Navy Region Southwest, San Diego, California (managing entity of Nellis AFB)

• Nevada Army National Guard

• U.S. Army, Region 8

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

− South Pacific Division 

− Northwestern Division 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representing:

− Mountain Prairie Region, Lakewood, Colorado 

− Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California 

• U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah (representing the Ashley, Dixie,

Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests)

• Utah Reclamation Mitigation Conservation Commission

7.2.2 Tribal Governments 

• Moapa Band of Paiutes

• Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah and Ouray Reservation)

7.2.3 State Agencies 

• State of Colorado

− Colorado Department of Agriculture 

− Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

− Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

− Colorado State Land Board 

• State of Nevada

− Nevada Department of Agriculture 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 44

− Nevada Department of Wildlife 

− Nevada Division of State Lands 

• State of Utah

− Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office 

− Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

− Utah Department of Agriculture 

− Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• State of Wyoming

− Wyoming County Commissioners Association 

− Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

− Wyoming Game and Fish Department

7.2.4 Local Agencies 

• Wyoming: Carbon, Sweetwater Counties

• Colorado: Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco Counties

• Utah: Beaver, Carbon, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Iron, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete,

Sevier, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington Counties

• Nevada: Clark, Lincoln Counties.

• The BLM and Western have also coordinated with Little Snake River Conservation District,

Medicine Bow Conservation District, Douglas Creek Conservation District, SaratogaEncampment-Rawlins Conservation District, Sweetwater County Conservation District, White

River Conservation District, N-4 State Grazing Board, and the University of Wyoming.

7.3 Government-to-Government Consultation

The U.S. has a unique legal relationship with Native American tribal governments as set forth in the 

Constitution of the United States, treaties, E.O.s (e.g., E.O. 13175), federal statutes, federal policy, 

including DOI Secretarial Order 3206 and DOl Policy on Consultation with Native American tribes, and 

tribal requirements, which establish the interaction that must take place between federal and tribal 

governments. An important basis for this relationship is the trust responsibility of the U.S. to protect tribal 

sovereignty, self-determination, trust lands, assets and resources, and treaty and other federally 

recognized and reserved rights. Government-to-government consultation is the process of seeking, 

discussing, and considering views on policy, and/or, in the case of this project, environmental and 

cultural resource management issues. 

In development of this ROW grant, tribal consultation occurred with 53 federally recognized Native 

American tribes that resided in or had cultural ties to the Project analysis area. Details of the consultation 

process are described in Section 6.2.3.1 of the Final EIS. The BLM sent letters to tribes initiating 

government-to-government consultation regarding the Project and inviting the tribes to be consulting 

parties and cooperating agencies. The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians signed MOUs to be cooperating agencies for the Project. BLM managers, 

as well as line officers from other federal agencies, such as Western and USFS, participated in multiple 

meetings with tribes, particularly the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, whose reservation lands are crossed by the Project. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 45

After the Final EIS was published, the BLM met multiple times with both the Ute Indian Tribe of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the Moapa Band of Paiutes in government-to-government 

consultation to provide additional information and address concerns about the draft PA. Both tribes have 

signed the PA. The BLM and TransWest Express have also signed tribal consultation agreements with 

the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians and the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation that outline 

how the project will be implemented on tribal lands. Consultation with the tribes and pueblos will continue 

throughout the Project as stipulated under E.O. 13175, November 6, 2000.

8.0 Agency and Public Involvement

8.1 Scoping Process

Pre-scoping activities were conducted in 2009 and spring 2010 with the BLM FOs, the USFS, and the 

cooperating agencies. Comments received during pre-scoping were considered in developing the 

alternative corridors presented to the public during the formal scoping period in 2011. 

The Notice of Intent for the Project was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2011. A Project 

newsletter was concurrently mailed to approximately 23,000 interested parties including federal, state, 

and local agencies; tribal governments; and potentially affected landowners along the proposed and 

alternative routes. The BLM and Western placed display advertisements in local newspapers, and public 

service announcements were submitted for broadcast on local radio and television announcing the public 

scoping meetings. TransWest also conducted additional outreach related to the scoping process. The 

BLM and Western hosted 23 public scoping meetings near the proposed Project area and alternative 

routes. In total, 678 individuals attended these meetings. During the scoping period, BLM and Western 

also met with representatives of several county commissions. Those meetings were scheduled to 

coincide with the scoping meetings in their respective counties. 

During the public scoping period, the BLM and Western received a total of 622 comment submittals (e.g., 

letter, comment form, email). Following the close of the public scoping period, comments were compiled 

and analyzed to identify substantive issues and concerns (as directed by Section 6.9.2.1 of BLM NEPA 

Handbook H-1790-1). Within each comment submittal, individual comments were identified, reviewed, 

and entered into an electronic database. The comment analysis process resulted in approximately 2,300

individual comments. The comments were synthesized by issue and topic area and were used to help

define and focus the NEPA analyses in the Draft and Final EIS. A detailed summary of the scoping 

issues is contained in the Project Scoping Summary Report, which is posted on the BLM Wyoming State 

Office website: http://bit.ly/TransWestExpress

8.2 EIS Public Review process

8.2.1 Draft EIS 

The BLM and Western released the Draft EIS for a 90-day public comment period, publishing a Notice 

of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on July 3, 2013.. In August and September 2013, the BLM 

and Western hosted a series of 13 public meetings/hearings throughout the areas crossed by the 

proposed Project and alternative routes to provide information on the proposed Project and the Draft 

EIS. Each meeting contained informational displays about the EIS process and schedule, Project 

locational maps, impacts to resources, and potential land use plan amendments and provided a 

station for people to provide written and oral comments on the Draft EIS. Attendees had the 

opportunity to have their verbal comments transcribed by a court reporter for the public record.

The BLM and Western received a total of 453 individual comment submittals (e.g., letter, comment 

form, email, or court reporter transcription). Additionally, there were 109 submittals that contained all 

or portions of one of the four form letters that were submitted for the Project. Following the close of the 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 46

Draft EIS public comment period, comments were compiled and analyzed to identify substantive 

issues and concerns (as directed by Section 6.9.2.1 of the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1). The 

comment analysis process resulted in 1,963 substantive comments requiring responses. 

In accordance with the administrative review process for USFS projects as codified in 36 CFR parts 

215 and 218, the USFS released a Federal Register notice on December 7, 2013, that formally 

adopted the Draft EIS, provided notice that the proposed decision will be subject to the USFS predecisional review process, and opened a 45-day public comment period. Legal notices to this effect 

were placed on December 17 and 18, 2013, in the six major newspapers that serve the communities 

near the five national forests potentially affected by the Project. The USFS received two comment 

submittals during this comment period. The comment analysis process resulted in 28 additional 

substantive comments requiring responses, all of which also were represented in the comments 

received during the BLM/Western comment period. In preparing the Final EIS, the BLM and Western 

carefully considered all comments received. Appendix L of the Final EIS contains each unique 

substantive comment received, and its associated response. 

8.2.2 Final EIS

On May 1, 2015, BLM and Western published the NOA of the Final EIS and the Final EIS was 

circulated for public availability. During the 30-day land use plan amendment protest period and 30-

day Final EIS public availability period, the BLM received 16 submissions providing input on the Final 

EIS even though there was no formal comment period on the document. Those comments were 

considered. Appendix D of this ROD summarizes the submissions received during this period and 

describes how BLM has addressed these issues. 

9.0 References

American Wind Energy Association. 2008. Wind Energy Basics. Accessed on November 26, 2008 at: 

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2005. Edison Electric Institute –Report Research. 

Washington, D.C.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: 

The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy 

Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. TransWest Express Transmission Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. BLM/WY/PL-13/021+5101. BLM Wyoming State Office and 

Western Area Power Administration. June 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/TransWestExpress

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. TransWest Express Transmission Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. BLM/WY/PL-15/012+5101; DOE/EIS-0450. BLM Wyoming 

State Office and Western Area Power Administration. April 2015. Available at:

http://bit.ly/TransWestExpress

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2011. Obama Administration Announces Job-Creating Grid 

Modernization Pilot Projects. Executive Office of the President, CEQ. October 5, 2011. 

Available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/October_5_2011. 
TransWest Express Transmission Project December 2016

Record of Decision 47

Executive Office of the President. 2013. The President’s Climate Action Plan. Accessed on 

May 5, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan. 

Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC). 2011. 2011 WECC 10-Year Regional Transmission 

Plan.