TransWest Express Transmission 

Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Summary Report

Western

BLM 
Mission Statement

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment 

of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, 

livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and 

other resources on public lands.

Mission Statement

Western is a Federal agency under the Department of Energy that markets and transmits wholesale electrical power 

through an integrated 17,000-circuit mile, high-voltage transmission system across 15 western states. Western’s mission: Market and deliver clean, renewable, reliable, cost-based Federal hydroelectric power and related services.
Submitted to: Submitted by: 

 Bureau of Land Management, WY AECOM 

 Western Area Power Administration, CO Fort Collins, CO 

 60139683 

 July 2011

Environment

TransWest Express Transmission Project 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Summary Report 
AECOM Environment i

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Contents

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

1.1 Joint Lead Agencies’ Purpose and Need............................................................................1-1

1.2 Description of the TWE Project ...........................................................................................1-1

1.3 TWE Project Background ....................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Purpose of Scoping..............................................................................................................1-3

2.0 Summary of the Scoping Process ..............................................................................................2-1

2.1 Pre-scoping Activities...........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Notification............................................................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Consultation and Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Governments....2-3

2.2.2 Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation.................................................2-5

2.3 Scoping Meetings.................................................................................................................2-6

2.4 County Commissioners’ Meetings.......................................................................................2-8

3.0 Summary of Scoping Comments ................................................................................................3-1

4.0 Identification of Issues .................................................................................................................4-1

5.0 Activities Following Scoping .......................................................................................................5-1

List of Appendices

Appendix A Summary of Scoping Comments

Appendix B Notification

Appendix C Libraries with Scoping Materials

Appendix D Scoping Materials
AECOM Environment ii

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Media Notification ...............................................................................................................2-2

Table 2-2 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................................2-4

Table 2-3 Status of Additional Cooperating Agencies .......................................................................2-5

Table 2-4 Scoping Meetings ...............................................................................................................2-6

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Proposed Transmission Line Corridor and Alternative Corridors .....................................1-5

Figure 5-1 NEPA Process....................................................................................................................5-1
AECOM Environment 1-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

1.0 Introduction

Two primary principles of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are full disclosure of potential 

environmental effects and open public participation throughout the decision-making process. The Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and Western Area Power Administration (Western) are preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed TransWest Express Transmission Project 

(TWE Project). The BLM and Western are joint-lead agencies responsible for the preparation of the EIS. 

This Scoping Summary Report provides an overview of the public scoping process and a summary of 

the scoping comments, issues, and concerns identified during public scoping.

1.1 Joint Lead Agencies’ Purpose and Need

Bureau of Land Management’s Purpose and Need

The BLM is responding to a request from TransWest Express, LLC (TWE), to obtain a right-of-way 

(ROW) for the use of public lands to construct and operate an extra-high voltage transmission line. The 

BLM will prepare an EIS in conformance with NEPA. The purpose of the EIS is for the BLM to evaluate 

and disclose potential impacts of the proposed project and alternatives; to determine whether to issue a 

ROW Grant; and to amend BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) as needed.

The BLM is required to evaluate and make decisions regarding the granting of ROWs in response to 

proponent applications. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Title V and the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 BLM is authorized to issue ROW grants. It is the policy of the BLM to 

authorize all ROW applications that are in conformance with approved land use plans at the discretion of 

the authorized officer.

Western Area Power Administration’s Purpose and Need

Under Section 402 of the Recovery Act, Western may borrow funds from the United States (U.S.)

Treasury to construct, finance, facilitate, plan, operate, maintain, and/or study construction of new or 

upgraded electric power transmission lines and related facilities. Prior to committing funds, Western must 

certify that the project is in the public interest; will not adversely impact system reliability or operations, or 

other statutory obligations; and it is reasonable to expect that the proceeds from the project shall be 

adequate to make repayment of the loan.

On March 4, 2009 Western solicited interest in proposed transmission projects that resulted in the 

submission of Statements of Interest including one for the TWE Project.

Western needs to decide whether to participate in the TWE Project as a joint owner with TWE as part of 

Western’s Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP) and consistent with its Recovery Act authority. For 

Western to participate, Western needs the TWE Project to satisfy the requirements of Western’s TIP and 

its Recovery Act authority.

1.2 Description of the TWE Project

TWE and Western are proposing to construct, own, and operate the TWE Project, which would be an 

extra-high voltage (EHV), direct current (DC) transmission system extending from south-central 

Wyoming to southern Nevada. The TWE Project is intended to provide the transmission infrastructure 

and capacity necessary to deliver approximately 3,000 megawatts of electric power from renewable 

energy resources in south-central Wyoming to markets in the Desert Southwest region. The TWE Project 

would consist of an approximately 725-mile-long, 600-kilovolt, DC transmission line and two Alternating 

Current (AC)/DC converter stations – a Northern AC/DC Converter Station to be located near Sinclair, 

Wyoming, and a Southern AC/DC Converter Station to be located near the Marketplace Hub in the 

Eldorado Valley, approximately 25 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada. TWE also is retaining an option 
AECOM Environment 1-2

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

for a future interconnection with the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) transmission system in Millard 

County, Utah.

1.3 TWE Project Background

In 2005, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) announced plans to explore the feasibility of the TWE 

Project to meet its customers’ long-term growth needs. The TWE Project, as originally conceived, was to 

transport fossil fuel and renewable wind energy from Wyoming to utilities in Arizona, California, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. In addition to providing access to energy resources for rapid 

growth areas in the Southwest, the TWE Project was intended to benefit all western states by providing 

improved reliability of the western electrical grid. In March 2006, APS signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority (WIA) and National Grid (an 

international electricity and gas company) to collaborate on a transmission corridor study. In December 

2006, APS completed a feasibility report that concluded that the TWE Project potentially would create 

significant benefits for its customers.

During the same timeframe, Rocky Mountain Power (a subsidiary of PacifiCorp) was investigating the 

feasibility of developing the Gateway South Transmission Project (later to become known as the Energy 

Gateway South Project [EGS Project]), a proposed transmission line from eastern Wyoming into Utah, 

terminating at the Crystal Substation in Nevada. The EGS Project shared many corridor location aspects 

with the TWE Project. 

In August of 2007, National Grid, APS, Rocky Mountain Power, and the WIA entered into an interim 

agreement (IA) to plan for development of new EHV transmission lines for the western U.S. These 

proponents’ system studies concluded that there was a demonstrated need to transmit electrical power 

from Wyoming to energy demand areas in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Southern California. Because 

both APS and Rocky Mountain Power had sponsored previous feasibility studies, those previous studies 

were incorporated into the collaborative effort to identify feasible transmission corridors developed under 

the IA.

The collaborative study area originally encompassed much of Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, 

southeastern Idaho, much of Utah, far eastern Nevada, and central Arizona. The analysis that resulted 

from the IA collaboration between National Grid, APS, Rocky Mountain Power, and WIA identified a 

preliminary set of EHV transmission corridors within which construction and operation of these facilities 

were considered to be environmentally feasible.

The APS interests in the TWE Project were acquired by National Grid, which filed a Standard Form 299 

(SF 299) Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Right-ofWay Grant application [ROW application]) with the BLM on November 30, 2007. In 2008, The Anschutz 

Corporation (TAC) formed TransWest Express, LLC (TWE – a wholly owned subsidiary of TAC), and 

acquired the TWE Project from National Grid. Subsequently, on September 2, 2008, National Grid and 

TWE submitted an amended ROW application requesting the assignment of the unserialized application 

and related project file to BLM. TWE submitted an amended ROW application for the TWE Project in 

December 2008, and another amended ROW application in January 2010.

Following the December 2008 ROW application, TWE and the BLM conducted a number of pre-scoping 

activities that identified several resource issues and land management concerns. These activities are 

summarized below:

• BLM internal scoping in 2008 and early 2009.

• Pre-scoping meetings with the BLM field offices (FOs) and national forests located within the 

TWE Project area during February and March 2009.
AECOM Environment 1-3

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Pre-scoping meeting with military representatives from Hill Air Force Base, Utah Test and 

Training.

• Pre-scoping meeting with military representatives from Nellis Air Force Base.

In January 2010, TWE submitted another amended ROW application. The primary difference between 

the amended 2008 ROW application and the TWE’s amended 2010 ROW application is TWE’s stated 

need to allow for future interconnection with the IPP transmission system near Delta, Utah. In its January 

2010 ROW application, TWE “identified a need to provide flexibility and maximize the use of 

transmission capacity that may become available by configuring the TWE Project to allow for future 

interconnections with other existing and planned electrical systems that can deliver electric energy from 

Wyoming to markets in the Desert Southwest region. This need is met by providing for a potential 

interconnection with the IPP transmission system near Delta in Millard County, Utah, as well as to the 

Marketplace Hub near Boulder City, Nevada.” The 2010 ROW application also moved the TWE Project 

origination point farther south and west to the Sinclair, Wyoming, area. However, the Aeolus Substation 

would be an alternative origination point. Additionally, based on agency pre-scoping input, other corridors 

or segments were added, deleted, and/or modified to meet the revised project interests and objectives. 

These pre-scoping activities are further discussed in Section 2.1.

Following TWE’s submittal of the amended January 2010 ROW application, TWE and Western entered 

into a non-binding term sheet through which they are evaluating each holding a 50 percent joint 

ownership in the TWE Project. TWE and Western are developing the terms of their joint ownership, such 

as construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, Western was granted authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to (among 

other things) plan, finance, and construct new or upgraded transmission facilities that deliver renewable

energy. Western would use this authority for its participation on the project. The BLM and Western are 

serving as joint-lead agencies in preparing the TWE Project EIS.

This scoping summary report describes the pre-scoping and scoping process following TWE’s amended 

2010 ROW application submission and the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal 

Register on January 4, 2011. Figure 1-1 shows TWE’s proposed transmission line corridor and the 

alternative corridors identified by BLM and Western that were presented to the public during the scoping 

process.

1.4 Purpose of Scoping

Scoping is the process of actively soliciting input from the public and other interested federal, state, tribal, 

and local agencies. Information gained during scoping assists the BLM and Western in identifying 

potential environmental issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures associated with developing the 

proposed TWE Project. The process provides a mechanism for determining the scope and the significant 

issues associated with the TWE Project (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1507.7 and 40 CFR 

1508.25) so the EIS can focus the analyses on areas of interest and concern. Therefore, public 

participation during the scoping period is a vital component to preparing a comprehensive and sound 

NEPA document. Scoping provides the public, tribes, and agencies opportunities for meaningful public 

involvement in the decision-making process.

BLM and Western’s overall scoping goal for the TWE Project is to engage a diverse group of public and 

agency participants in the NEPA process, solicit relevant input, and provide timely information throughout 

the duration of the project. Four specific goals were established in the TransWest Express Transmission 

Project Public Involvement Plan, March 5, 2010, and are provided below:
AECOM Environment 1-4

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

1. Provide accurate and timely information to the public;

2. Provide ample opportunities for the public to be involved in order to achieve supportable 

decisions;

3. Promote multi-level agency and multi-jurisdictional participation; and 

4. Integrate technical information and science into the public involvement program to produce 

supportable management decisions that protect resource values.
!! ! !! !

!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !

!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !

"J

U

T

A

H

U T A H

I D A H O N E V A D A

I D A H O

I

C

O

A R I Z O N A

U T A H

W

Y

O

M I N

G

A

R

I

Z

O

N

A

N

E

V

A

D

A

C

A

L

I

F

O

R

N

I

A

N

E

V A

D

A

A

R

I

Z

O

N

A

U

TAH

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

N E V A D A

O R E G O N

N

E

V

A

D

A

U

T

A

H

S A N J UAN

N A V A J O

C O C O N I N O MOH A V E A P A C H E

YAVA PAI

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

C L A R K

I N Y O

G A R F I E L D I R O N

W A S H I N G T O N K A N E

M 

ELKO

HUMBOLDT

WHI TE P I N E

BOX ELDER

SWEET

UINTA

LANDER EUREKA

PERSHING

CHURCHILL

MINERAL

MALHEUR OWYHEE HARNEY

POWER

TWIN FALLS

RICH

F

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

BANNOCK

CASSIA ONEIDA BEAR LAKE FRANKLIN

CACHE

S 

WEBER

SUMMIT

UTAH UINTAH

J U A B

C A R BON

SANPETE

WAYNE

S E V I E R

B E A V E R

PIU T E

MORGAN

DAVIS

TOOELE

SALT LAKE

WASATCH

DAGGETT

DUCHESNE

E M E R Y

G R A N D

M I L L A R D

N Y E

L I NCOL N

ESME R A LDA

Central

Enterprise

Cedar

Caliente City

Moab

Milford

Richfield

Castle

Dale

Delta

Nephi

Duchesne R

Vernal

RockSprings

Henderson

Las Vegas

SaintGeorge

Pine Valley

Overton(MoapaValley)

£¤95

£¤93

£¤40

£¤491

£¤89

£¤40

£¤50

£¤95

£¤95

£¤191

£¤91

£¤93

£¤191

£¤6

£¤163

£¤89

£¤191

£¤189

£¤180

£¤191

£¤30

£¤95

£¤191

£¤50

£¤93

£¤160

£¤89

£¤6

£¤189

£¤89 

Intermountain

Power Plant

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦515

SALT LAKE CITY

The Project Corridor is the area where the Projecttransmission line right-of-way could be routed. Thisarea varies in width due to topography andadministrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.
AECOM Environment 2-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

2.0 Summary of the Scoping Process

2.1 Pre-scoping Activities

The BLM and Western conducted pre-scoping activities following the January 2010 SF 299 submittal. 

During the spring of 2010, comments were received from the interdisciplinary team, BLM FOs, Forest 

Service, and the Cooperating Agencies. These comments were considered in developing the alternative 

corridors presented to the public during the scoping period. Key concerns and issues received prior to 

publication of the NOI for the EIS include:

• Suggestions to avoid the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest and the Nine Mile Canyon 

cultural resource area (Utah).

• Duchesne County prefers the proposed corridor parallel existing major utility lines in their county 

(Utah).

• BLM Cedar City FO commented on why the southern Utah corridor (segment C260) did not 

follow the West-Wide Energy Corridor (Utah).

• BLM Vernal FO supports the elimination of Segment U400A because there are habitat areas of 

concern along that corridor segment (Utah).

• BLM Fillmore FO noted that there is a Congressional moratorium on amending their planning 

documents (House Range and Warm Springs RMPs). The existing corridor route along 

Interstate 15 (I-15) is an underground-only corridor (segments U125, U190, U195, U235 in the 

Fillmore FO) and would require a plan amendment to construct an above-ground transmission 

line. As such, the BLM Fillmore FO would support eliminating segments U125 and U195 (Utah).

• BLM Fillmore FO commented that there are many cultural resources near the Intermountain 

Power Line as well as a 90-mile transmission line associated with a wind energy development 

project north of Milford (Utah).

• The proposed corridor would conflict with the Ag 20 Zone of the Millard County Plan (Utah).

• BLM White River Office prefers that the proposed and alternative corridors be sited within 

existing utility corridors (Colorado).

• Commenter suggests avoiding Baggs, Wyoming, and prefers the far eastern corridor 

(Colorado/Wyoming).

• Alternatives surrounding Baggs could interfere with existing irrigated pasture lands (Wyoming).

• Alternatives crossing the Little Snake River could conflict with deed lands; therefore, suggestions 

were submitted regarding an alternative near Baggs, Wyoming (Wyoming).

• Concerns expressed about the TWE Project’s approach to conflicts with sage-grouse 

(Colorado).

• The BLM Nevada State Office noted that the Las Vegas area is very congested and there is a 

proposal to expand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands north of Las Vegas 

(Nevada).

2.2 Notification

The initial step in the NEPA process is to notify the public, other government agencies, and tribes of the 

lead agency’s intent to prepare an EIS by publishing the NOI in the Federal Register. The NOI for the 

TWE Project was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2011 (see Appendix B). Additionally, 

a TWE Project newsletter was mailed to approximately 23,000 interested parties including federal, state, 

and local agencies, and tribes as well as potentially affected landowners within the proposed 2-mile-wide 
AECOM Environment 2-2

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

corridors for the proposed and alternative routes. The newsletters provided a description about the 

proposed TWE Project and alternatives, information about the NEPA scoping process, contact 

information, and scoping meeting dates, times, and locations.

BLM and Western placed display advertisements in local newspapers and Public Service 

Announcements (PSAs) were submitted for broadcast on local radio and television announcing the 

public meetings. A Media Plan was prepared to identify the appropriate media outlets for notifying the 

public in each individual geographic area. As part of the Media Plan, BLM Public Affairs personnel from 

each of the BLM FOs were contacted to identify the appropriate media outlets and optimum time for 

conducting a public meeting in their area. The information was compiled and used to schedule the public 

scoping meetings and media placement for notification. Table 2-1 provides a summary of media 

accessed for notification of the public scoping meetings. A copy of the display advertisements and PSAs 

are located in Appendix B.

Table 2-1 Media Notification

Newspapers Dates Published

Rio Blanco Herald Times 1/13/2011

Craig Daily Press 1/10/2011, 1/22/2011

Uinta Basin Standard 1/11/2011, 1/25/2011

Vernal Express 1/12/2011

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 1/17/2011, 1/30/2011

Glenwood Springs Post Independent 1/19/2011, 1/31/2011

Salt Lake Tribune 1/14/2011, 2/6/2011, 2/14/2011, 2/15/2011, 2/18/2011

Deseret News 1/25/2011, 2/7/2011, 2/14/2011, 2/15/2011, 2/19/2011

Emery County Progress 1/18/2011, 2/2/2011

Sun Advocate 1/20/2011, 2/1/2011

Nephi Times News 1/26/2011

Millard County Chronicle Progress 1/26/2011

Richfield Reaper 2/2/2011

Salina Sun 2/2/2011

St. George Spectrum 2/3/2011, 2/13/2011, 2/20/2011

Iron County Today 2/2/2011

Lincoln County Record 2/17/2011

Moapa Valley Progress 2/16/2011

Las Vegas Review Journal 2/14/2011, 2/27/2011

Rawlins Daily Times 2/25/2011, 3/2/2011

Green River Star 2/23/2011

Rocket Miner 2/22/2011, 3/6/2011

Casper Star Tribune 2/21/2011, 3/7/2011
AECOM Environment 2-3

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Table 2-1 Media Notification

Radio Requested Air Dates

KIFX Requested PSA to air 1/20 – 2/24, 2011

KNEU Requested PSA to air 1/20 – 2/24, 2011

KVEL Aired 6 times on 1/19/2011 as a news story

KLCY Aired 5 times on 1/20/2011 as a news story

KXRQ Requested PSA to air 1/20 – 1/24, 2011

KZMU (UT) Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/1/2011

KCYN (UT) Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/1/2011

KOAL (UT) Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/1/2011

KIFX Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/7/2011

KNEU Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/7/2011

KVEL Requested PSA to air 1/24 – 2/7/2011

KSVC Requested PSA to air 1/31 – 2/5/2011

KSUU Requested PSA to air 1/31 – 2/17/2011

KSUU Requested PSA to air 2/7 – 2/24/2011

KDXU Requested PSA to air 2/16 – 2/24/2011

Television Requested Air Dates

ABC 8 – Colorado Requested PSA to air 1/17 – 1/31/2011

NBC 11 – Colorado Requested PSA to air 1/17 – 1/31/2011

CBS 5 – Colorado Requested PSA to air 1/17 – 1/31/2011

Fox 5 – Las Vegas Requested PSA to air 2/14 – 3/3/2011

NBC 3 – Las Vegas Requested PSA to air 2/14 – 3/3/2011

ABC 13 – Las Vegas Requested PSA to air 2/14 – 3/3/2011

CBS 5 – Las Vegas Requested PSA to air 2/14 – 3/3/2011

Additionally, materials and information presented at the scoping meetings were compiled in a three-ring 

binder and distributed on January 21, 2011, to 23 public libraries located in communities where scoping 

meetings would be held for public access and review. A list of the libraries that received the scoping 

information is provided in Appendix C.

2.2.1 Consultation and Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Governments

The BLM and Western are engaged in coordination and consultation with federal, state, and local 

agencies about the potential for the proposed TWE Project and alternatives to affect sensitive resources 

(40 CFR, 1508.5; 1508.6; Forty Questions No. 14 [a], 14[b], 14[c], and the Council on Environmental 

Quality Advisory Memorandum, Designation of Non-Federal Agencies to Be Cooperating Agencies in 

Implementing the Procedural Requirements of NEPA, July 1999). The coordination and consultation 

must occur in a timely manner and are required before any final decisions are made. Issues related to 
AECOM Environment 2-4

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

agency consultation include biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and land and 

water management. For example, biological resource consultations would apply to the potential for 

activities to disturb sensitive species or habitats; cultural resource consultations apply to the potential for 

impacts to important cultural archaeological and historic sites.

Prior to public scoping, 50 federal, state, and county governments were invited to participate as 

cooperating agencies for the TWE Project EIS. To-date, 32 agencies have accepted the invitation and 

are listed in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Cooperating Agencies

Federal

U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representing:

- Mountain Prairie Region, Lakewood

- Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

- South Pacific Division

- Northwestern Division

Navy Region Southwest, San Diego

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region

Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Region, representing:

- Rocky Mountain Region, Billings

- Southwest Region, Albuquerque

State

State of Wyoming State of Colorado

State of Utah State of Nevada

County

Carbon County, Wyoming Juab County, Utah

Garfield County, Colorado Millard County, Utah

Mesa County, Colorado Piute County, Utah

Moffat County, Colorado Sevier County, Utah

Rio Blanco County, Colorado Uintah County, Utah

Beaver County, Utah Wasatch County, Utah

Duchesne County, Utah Washington County, Utah

Emery County, Utah Clark County, Nevada

Iron County, Utah Lincoln County, Nevada

Other

Little Snake River Conservation 

District

Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

Medicine Bow Conservation District Sweetwater County Conservation District

During the scoping period, several additional agencies and groups requested participation in the 

preparation of the EIS as a Cooperating Agency. Several organizations, representing the descendants of 
AECOM Environment 2-5

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

the Mountain Meadows Massacre, are assisting in the development of the TWE Project Programmatic 

Agreement (PA). Table 2-3 below shows the status of these requests to participate as a Cooperating 

Agency in the TWE Project EIS as of May 24, 2011.

Table 2-3 Status of Additional Cooperating Agencies

Finalized with Signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs)

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

Grand County, Utah

MOUs still in Signature

Sweetwater County, Wyoming

Douglas Creek Conservation District

White River Conservation District

MOUs in Preparation

N-4 State Grazing Board

2.2.2 Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation

Federal agencies are responsible for compliance with a host of laws, Executive Orders (EOs) and 

Memoranda, treaties, departmental policies and other mandates regarding their legal relationships with 

and responsibilities to Native Americans. The government-to-government relationship that the U.S. has 

with federally recognized Indian Tribes started with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution where 

Tribes were recognized as sovereign nations, and has continued in federal laws and policies including 

but not limited to the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, Archaeological Resources Protect Act, 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, and 

EOs 12875, 12898, 13077, and 13175. Compliance with this body of law requires consultation with 

Tribes on the effects of proposed actions. Specific guidance includes (but is not limited to) formal 

government-to-government consultation, discoveries of burials and Native American objects, and 

treatment of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and landscapes. Under EO 13175,

November 6, 2000, federal agencies are required to establish regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with Native American tribal governments on the development of regulatory policies and 

issuance of permits that could significantly or uniquely affect their communities and/or their traditional 

territories. The BLM and Western sent letters to 48 tribes and pueblos notifying them about the proposed 

TWE Project on July 22, 2010. The letter included the TWE Project location, notification about the 

preparation of an EIS, and a request to provide BLM and Western with information about any known 

resources or places of traditional, cultural, and religious importance to the tribes. Three tribes, the Moapa 

Band of Paiutes, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and the Las Vegas Paiute 

were sent a separate letter on July 27, 2010, because the proposed or alternative TWE Project corridors 

either cross nearby or are adjacent to reservation land. 

To-date, the following seven tribes have responded to the initial notification and include: the Ely 

Shoshone, Duckwater Shoshone, Las Vegas Paiute, Paiute Tribe of Utah, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of 

Santo Domingo, and Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation. Of these seven tribes, three 

tribes requested BLM and Western to attend their monthly tribal meetings to discuss the TWE Project. 

These tribes include the the Paiute Tribe of Utah, Duckwater Shoshone, and Confederated Tribes of the 

Goshute Reservation. 
AECOM Environment 2-6

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

BLM and Western met with the Paiute Tribe of Utah on December 1, 2010, and the Duckwater 

Shoshone as well as the Ely Shoshone on January 12, 2011. In January of 2011, the Utah BLM 

contacted the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation in response to their request for a 

meeting. During their discussion, the Goshute tribe determined that the proposed TWE Project was “not 

very close to their tribe,” and therefore, no meeting would be necessary. Three tribes and pueblos 

(Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas Paiute) returned a response indicating 

that the information provided in the letter notification was sufficient and no further consultation was 

necessary. The Ely Shoshone sent a response requesting more information about the TWE Project; the 

BLM contacted the tribe in August 2010 to discuss the TWE Project. Representatives from the Ely 

Shoshone attended the meeting on January 12, 2011, with BLM and Western. At this meeting, the 

Duckwater Shoshone requested large project maps of the areas where the proposed TWE Project could 

affect tribal lands. These maps were provided to the Duckwater Shoshone through the Ely, Nevada, BLM 

FO.

In early 2011, follow-up phone calls were made to all the tribes to update tribal contact information. New 

information was updated to the TWE Project’s tribal contact list in preparation for a second letter to be 

mailed in the fall of 2011. The second letter will request more focused information regarding tribal 

concerns and sites, provide additional information about the consultation process, development of the 

PA, and findings from the file search conducted in the winter of 2010/2011.

Consultation with the tribes and pueblos will continue throughout the TWE Project as stipulated under 

EO 13175, November 6, 2000.

2.3 Scoping Meetings

Public Scoping Meetings

Public scoping meetings offer an opportunity for the public to participate in the TWE Project during the 

scoping period. The meetings promote information exchange about the proposed TWE Project and to 

gather public input. BLM and Western hosted 23 public scoping meetings throughout the project area 

with a total attendance of 678 individuals. The dates, locations, and number of public attendees at each 

of the public scoping meetings are provided in Table 2-4 below. All of the public scoping meetings were 

held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Table 2-4 Scoping Meetings

Meeting Location Meeting Date

Number of Attendees 

that Signed In

Vernal, Utah Tuesday, January 25, 2011 25

Craig, Colorado Wednesday, January 26, 2011 49

Rangely, Colorado Thursday, January 27, 2011 21

Grand Junction, Colorado Monday, January 31, 2022 32

Moab, Utah Tuesday, February 1, 2011 19

Castle Dale, Utah Wednesday, February 2, 2011 17

Duchesne, Utah Monday, February 7, 2011 30

Nephi, Utah Tuesday, February 8, 2011 52

Delta, Utah Wednesday, February 9, 2011 32

Richfield, Utah Monday, February 14, 2011 17
AECOM Environment 2-7

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Table 2-4 Scoping Meetings

Meeting Location Meeting Date

Number of Attendees 

that Signed In

Milford, Utah Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6

Cedar City, Utah Wednesday, February 16, 2011 25

St. George, Utah Thursday, February 17, 2011 33

Pine Valley, Utah Tuesday, February 22, 2011 41

Central, Utah Wednesday, February 23, 2011 30

Enterprise, Utah Thursday, February, 24, 2011 14

Caliente, Nevada Monday, February 28, 2011 14

Overton (Moapa Valley), Nevada Tuesday, February 29, 2011 11

Henderson, Nevada Wednesday, March 1, 2011 53

Las Vegas, Nevada Thursday, March 2, 2011 37

Rawlins, Wyoming Tuesday, March 8, 2011 56

Rock Springs, Wyoming Wednesday, March 9, 2011 33

Baggs, Wyoming Thursday, March 10, 2011 31

TOTAL ATTENDANCE 678

Public scoping meetings were conducted as informal open houses to allow for an open exchange of 

information and provide the opportunity for attendees to ask agency personnel, the TWE Project 

applicant, and EIS contractor questions about the TWE Project. Attendees were greeted at the Welcome 

Station to sign in and record their attendance. Once 

they signed in, they were then invited to review the 

TWE Project and NEPA process information at 

seven additional stations: 

1. TWE Project Scope and Applicant’s 

Purpose and Need;

2. NEPA and Agencies’ Purpose and Need;

3. Engineering/Construction/Maintenance;

4. Lands Acquisition;

5. Map Book Table;

6. GoogleEarthTM Demonstration; and 

7. Geographic Information System (GIS) Comment Station. 

Each information station had display boards and handouts/fact sheets to provide more detailed 

information. There were two display boards positioned in the center of the room; one showing the entire 

TWE Project area, the other showing a more regional map (depending on the meeting location). TWE 

Project map books also were displayed on tables in the center of the room at a scale of 1 to 12,000. 

Display boards and informational materials (excluding the map books) presented to the public at the 

scoping meetings are provided in Appendix D.
AECOM Environment 2-8

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

There were several opportunities for attendees to 

locate the area or parcel(s) of interest in relationship to 

the proposed TWE Project and corridor alternatives. 

Landowners could locate their property at the map 

book table and/or the GoogleEarthTM demonstration 

station, before proceeding to the GIS Comment 

Station. 

Public meeting comments were electronically submitted 

at the GIS Comment Station. The proposed TWE 

Project and TWE Project alternatives were downloaded 

to the GIS program 

as well as parcel 

and land use information. Two GIS stations (computer, monitor, and 

color printer) were available to receive public comments. Each 

station was staffed with a GIS specialist and one comment facilitator. 

The GIS specialist retrieved the commenter’s parcel and/or area of 

concern and noted the area of concern. Commenters could visually 

view map notations on large, computer monitors. The comments 

were electronically transcribed and geospatially connected to the 

area noted on the map. Facilitators were available to ensure that the 

commenter’s input was accurately recorded. Commenters were 

provided a color printout of their comment with the associated map 

and a copy was retained for the TWE Project’s Administrative Record

(AR). Hard copy comment forms also were available for those 

attendees who preferred to write and submit their comments at the 

meeting or to mail in them in at a later date. 

2.4 County Commissioners’ Meetings 

During the scoping period, BLM and Western met with representatives of several County Commissions. 

The meetings were scheduled to coincide with the scoping meeting in their respective county. The 

meetings provided TWE Project information and explain the EIS process. Packets containing the 

materials available to the public at the scoping meetings were distributed to the Commissioners. In 

addition to the County Commissioners, BLM and Western met with the Clark County, Nevada,

Conservation Program on March 1, 2011. 
AECOM Environment 3-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

3.0 Summary of Scoping Comments

The BLM and Western received a total of 622 comment submittals (e.g., letter, comment form, email) 

containing 2,319 individual comments during the public scoping period. Following the close of the public

scoping period, comments were compiled and analyzed to identify issues and concerns. Within each 

comment submittal, individual comments were identified, reviewed, and entered into an electronic 

database. As comments were entered, contact information for the commenter was entered/updated in 

the TWE Project mailing list to ensure that all interested parties would receive project information 

throughout the EIS process. Once the comment was entered and the TWE Project mailing list updated, a 

unique record number was assigned to the comment submittal and registered in the TWE Project’s 

official AR.

Of the comment submittals received, six form letters were identified. Form letters are described as 

submittals that are identically written, but submitted by different individuals. Comments from the form 

letters were entered once into the database and each individual’s contact information was added to the 

TWE Project mailing list and assigned an AR number.

Once the individual comments were compiled in the database, reports were generated categorizing the 

issues first by TWE Project region (e.g., Wyoming to IPP, IPP to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Marketplace) 

and then by resource (e.g., biology, corridor alternatives, geology, etc.). The summary reports were 

reviewed to identify data entry errors. Some of the comments may be categorized under one region, but 

could apply to another region as well. For example, the concern about introduction of noxious weeds 

may appear under the Wyoming to IPP Region, but may be a concern in the Las Vegas to Marketplace 

Region. A comprehensive list of the scoping comments is presented in Appendix A.
AECOM Environment 4-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

4.0 Identification of Issues

Information acquired during the scoping period assists the BLM and Western in identifying the potential 

environmental issues, alternative corridors, and mitigation measures associated with developing the 

proposed TWE Project. As previously discussed, the process provides a mechanism for narrowing the 

scope of issues so that the EIS can focus the analysis on areas of high interest and concern.

After evaluating the comments received during the scoping period, several key issues emerged. The 

following issues are topics that represent the most public concern about the proposed TWE Project.

Corridor Alternatives

Most of the comments were about corridor alternative locations. Concerns about a particular corridor 

alternative were related to avoidance of sensitive resources, including special status species habitat, 

impacts to visual resources, special designated areas, and/or historic or cultural sites. Some of the 

commenters were landowners concerned about public health and safety issues and impacts to property 

values.

Potential Private and Public Land Use Conflicts

Conflicts with existing or potential future land uses were a comment concern for many of the TWE 

Project alternatives. Corridor alternatives located in Colorado would conflict with private landowner 

property, new airport location, state lands, and federal special designated lands. Corridor alternative 

concerns within Wyoming primarily were associated with impacts to special status species, historic and 

cultural resources, and visual resources. In northern Utah, landowners in the Fruitland and Duchesne 

area were concerned that the TWE Project would conflict with agricultural activities and limit economic 

growth. Concerns about corridor alternatives ranged from impacts to reservoirs in northern Utah, 

agriculture lands, Uintah/Ashley National Forest, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), and the Mountain 

Meadows Massacre site. Numerous comments about conflicts with existing or potential future land uses 

came from the Las Vegas area, specifically north of Las Vegas (Apex), northwest Las Vegas, and the 

Henderson areas.

Impacts to Fish, Wildlife, Vegetation, Special Status Species, and Habitat

Comments about impacts to the Greater sage-grouse were of high concern in Wyoming, Colorado, and 

Utah. Wildlife concerns in Wyoming and Colorado included impacts to big game migration and 

winter/spring range habitat for elk, mule deer and pronghorn. There were numerous concerns about 

impacts to desert tortoise habitat in southern Utah and Nevada as well as impacts to bighorn sheep 

where the proposed TWE Project would traverse desert mountain ranges. Bird collisions with 

transmission lines were a concern throughout the TWE Project area.

Public Health and Safety

Numerous comments about public health and safety were received from areas where the proposed TWE 

Project crossed – or was adjacent to – private property. Residents in the community of Central, Utah,

were concerned about co-locating the transmission line with gas pipelines and the potential for fire as 

well as concerns about firefighter safety in an area where wildland fires are a high risk. Several residents 

in Henderson, Nevada, voiced concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans, sabotage 

activities, and structure/conductor failure near homes. Increased construction traffic on roadways was a 

concern throughout the TWE Project area.

Impacts to Special Designated Areas

Throughout the TWE Project area, there were numerous comments about impacts to Special 

Designated Areas such as Areas of Environmental Concern, roadless Forest Service Lands, WSAs, 
AECOM Environment 4-2

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

National Monuments/Landmarks, historic trails, and state and federal parks. Concerns were primarily 

associated with impacts to visual resources, degradation of environmental quality, and to visitors and 

recreational users.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative effects of numerous transmission lines being proposed within already overcrowded 

corridors was a concern throughout various geographies within the TWE Project area. Specific areas of 

concern were along Interstate 80 (I-80) in Wyoming, through the Dixie Forest and Central, Utah, and in 

the Las Vegas area on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley.

Socioeconomic Impacts (Property Values and Tax Base) 

Many landowners were concerned about how the TWE Project would affect property values, particularly 

where the proposed TWE Project crosses private lands or was located near urban areas. Comments 

from landowners about property values primarily came from the Henderson, Nevada, area; however, this 

concern also was shared by landowners in Central, Utah and Colorado. Throughout the TWE Project 

area, there were some comments that saw the TWE Project as an economic benefit to their rural 

communities through expansion of their tax base and temporary employment during construction.

Concerns About Mitigation/Reclamation and Noxious Weed Control

TWE Project mitigation and reclamation were an important concern, particularly in areas where the 

proposed corridor and alternative corridors would impact Special Status Species and wildlife. Many of 

the comments provided recommendations such as construction timing, buffer zones, perching 

deterrents, and mitigation plans. 

Appendix A summarizes the key concerns expressed during scoping. These key concerns were 

identified so BLM and Western can determine the alternative corridors and concerns to be analyzed in 

the EIS. The comments are arranged by TWE Project region and then by resource topic (e.g., Region A 

– Wyoming to Intermountain Power Project; Region B – Intermountain Power Project to Las Vegas; and 

Region C – Las Vegas to Marketplace). Each key concern that has a geographical reference is noted 

with a map identification number at the end of each comment (bolded). The map identification number 

corresponds to a location on the map, which is located at the end of each set of comments. Grid 

coordinates are provided parenthetically after each map identification for ease in locating the comment 

on the map.

For example, to locate a comment with the Map Identification Number of A-23, you would use the grid 

coordinates, H: 2 to locate the general area on the map. Within that area on the map, you would identify 

the Map Identification Number, A-23. 
AECOM Environment 5-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

5.0 Activities Following Scoping

The NEPA process provides additional opportunities for public input. Following the scoping period, the 

Draft EIS will be prepared, incorporating information received from the public during the scoping period. 

Once the Draft EIS is completed, BLM and Western will publish the Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register and distribute the draft document for public review. Because of the size and complexity of the 

TWE Project, preparing the Draft EIS could take several months (see Figure 5-1). During the Draft EIS 

review period, the public can comment on key issues and the adequacy of the purpose and need, 

alternatives analysis, impacts analysis, and proposed mitigation presented in the Draft EIS. Public 

hearings will take place to allow the public to formally present their comments. Public comments will be 

recorded by a court reporter. Figure 5-1 identifies additional opportunities and the anticipated schedule 

for the public to provide comments and participate in the EIS process. Comments received on the Draft 

EIS will be addressed in the Final EIS.

Figure 5-1 NEPA Process
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Appendix A

Summary of Scoping 

Comments
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Region A – Wyoming to Intermountain Power Project
AECOM Environment A-1

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Agriculture

• Concerns about impacts to agricultural activities, ability to irrigate, existing pivot irrigation, and 

pasture lands, around the Baggs, Wyoming area (Highway 789), Colorado, and the 

Vernal/Roosevelt City, Utah area. (Map ID: A-1; Map Coordinates: I-3)

• Alternative corridors should be sited to the east avoid agricultural areas near New Castle, Utah.

(Map ID: A-2: Map Coordinates: F-4)

Air Quality

• Concerns about air quality and dust control measures during construction; in particular, where 

soils in Utah are not conducive to dust control. (Map ID: A-3: Map Coordinates: B-6)

Aquatic Species

• Potential impacts to aquatic species resulting from construction activities at stream crossings 

(Colorado squaw fish, cutthroat species). (Map ID: A-4: Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Construction mitigation measures should require 300-foot buffers on each side of a stream and 

decontamination of equipment to minimize the potential spread of invasive species.

Corridor Alternatives

Colorado

• The alternative corridor that parallels Highway 13 needlessly impacts the environment; 

commenters voiced opposition to this alternative corridor. (Map ID: A-5: Map Coordinates: H-4)

• Prefers the alternative corridor be sited along the Sevenmile Ridge. (Map ID: A-6: Map 

Coordinates: G-3)

• Does not support the far eastern corridor alternative in Colorado because of its impact to Moffat 

County residents and there are greater impacts to private landowners. (Map ID: A-7: Map 

Coordinates: I-4)

• Opposes alternative route that follows Interstate-70 through DeBeque Canyon, around the base 

of Mt. Garfield, along the Book Cliffs to the Mesa County line. (Map ID: A-8: Map Coordinates: 

H-6)

• Segments C180 and C190 could impact the proposed relocation of the Grand Junction Regional 

Airport. (Map ID: A-9: Map Coordinates: H-6)

• Recommendation to eliminate the corridor alternative through Big Hole Gulch, Great Divide, and 

Axial Basin because of impacts to sage-grouse core areas and habitat. (Map ID: A-10; Map 

Coordinates: H-3)

• The corridor alternatives through the BLM Little Snake FO is unacceptable because of impacts 

to greater sage-grouse, sensitive wildlife habitat, state trust lands, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs), and Citizen’s Proposed Wilderness Areas; the Craig/Meeker 

corridor alternative has less impacts. (Map ID: A-11; Map Coordinates: H-3, I-3)

• The proposed corridor in the BLM White River Office FO exiting Colorado crosses sage-grouse

habitat and a State Wildlife area (SWA); however, it presents the least impacts. (Map ID: A-12: 

Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The Grand Junction to Utah corridor alternative could impact private landowners, visual 

resources (Mt. Garfield) and special designations. (Map ID: A-13: Map Coordinates: G-6)
AECOM Environment A-2

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Wyoming 

• The US 191 – Little Mountain – Red Creek routes should be eliminated from consideration 

because of impacts to high quality scenic and recreation resources. (Map ID: A-14: Map 

Coordinates: F-3)

• Prefers the corridor segment that follows I-80. (Map ID: A-15: Map Coordinates: I-1)

• Conflicts with co-location with other proposed transmission line projects along I-80. (Map ID: 

A-16: Map Coordinates: I-1)

• Corridor alternative along Highway 13 near Baggs could impact sage-grouse habitat. (Map ID: 

A-17: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Prefers corridor alternative from Baggs, Wyoming, to Craig, Colorado. (Map ID: A-18: Map 

Coordinates: I-3)

• The proposed TWE Project should include the alternative from Rawlins to Aeolus to gain access 

to wind energy in the Laramie Range. (Map ID: A-19: Map Coordinates: J-1)

• Opposition to any route that follows Highway 789 through Baggs or east of Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir. (Map ID: A-20: Map Coordinates: H-2, G-2)

• Prefers the “Underground Utility Corridor” east of Highway 789 to avoid impacts to sage-grouse.

(Map ID: A-21: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Wyoming Wildlife Federation opposes the far eastern route because of potential impacts to fish 

and wildlife. (Map ID: A-22: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Prefers the two western routes near Rawlins to avoid impacts to mule deer migration corridors 

and winter range. (Map ID: A-23: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Opposes any corridor that would impact sage-grouse core areas, Adobe Town, and any features 

within the Willow Creek Rim, Haystack, and Powder Mountain. (Map ID: A-24: Map 

Coordinates: H-3)

• Prefers the proposed corridor because it would avoid crossing the Overland and Cherokee 

Trails. (Map ID: A-25: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Prefers the corridor alternative along Highway 789 because it avoids cultural resources and 

minimizes visual impacts. (Map ID: A-26: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Sweetwater County opposes any corridor alternative that impacts natural features and 

viewsheds in the eastern portion of the county. (Map ID: A-27: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Prefer the corridor alternative be sited south of the Rawlins Water Treatment Plant. (Map ID: 

A-28: Map Coordinates: I-1)

• Suggests the alternative corridor go south on I-80 near Fort Steele to avoid Fort Steele, and 

residents north of the interstate. (Map ID: A-29: Map Coordinates: J-1)

Utah

• Prefers the proposed Utah corridor alternative, but the alternative would clip Roadless Areas 

and Citizen Proposed Wilderness Areas.

• Opposes the proposed TWE Project corridor near the Strawberry River below the dam. (Map ID: 

A-30: Map Coordinates: C-5)

• No proposed or alternative corridors should be sited near the Fruitland, Utah area. (Map ID: 

A-31: Map Coordinates: D-4)

• Concerned about the corridor alternative that passes through the San Rafael Swell in Emery 

County. (Map ID: A-32: Map Coordinates: D-6)
AECOM Environment A-3

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The proposed corridor through Duchesne and Uintah/Ashley Forest would have negative natural 

resource impacts. (Map ID: A-33: Map Coordinates: C-5, D-4)

• Opposes any corridor alternative through the Mexican Mountain WSA. (Map ID: A-34: Map 

Coordinates: D-7)

• A corridor alternative along State Route (SR) 10 in Utah could potentially impact threatened and 

endangered plant species. (Map ID: A-35: Map Coordinates: C-7)

• Corridor alternatives in the Diamond Mountain area could impact sage-grouse and should be 

eliminated. (Map ID: A-36: Map Coordinates: F-4

• Concerns about the proposed corridor impacting reservoir operations on the north side of 

Starvation Reservoir and the south side of Strawberry Reservoir. (Map ID: A-37: Map 

Coordinates: C-5, D-4)

• Opposes the U145 corridor alternative because of conflicts with state trust lands for mineral and 

surface development. (Map ID: A-38: Map Coordinates: A-6)

• Corridor segments U55, U70, U90, U10, and U20 would impact Wildlife Management Areas.

(Map ID: A-39: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• The proposed corridor through the Wasatch needs to be kept narrow to avoid impacts. (Map ID: 

A-40: Map Coordinates: B-5)

• Prefers corridor alternative north of Vernal because it follows existing corridors. (Map ID: A-41: 

Map Coordinates: F-4)

• In the area near the Intermountain Power Project, the transmission line corridor should be colocated with existing lines. (Map ID: A-42: Map Coordinates: A-6)

General Comments on Corridor Alternatives

• Prefers the proposed corridor because it makes use of existing utility corridors, has less impacts 

to private landowners, and has a reduced impact to visual resources.

• Prefers using corridors within existing corridors to minimize greenfield effect.

• Many landowners preferred the proposed corridor.

• Prefers the proposed TWE Project stay on federal lands.

Cultural Resources

• Concerns about additional human activity resulting in impacts to cultural resources.

• Concerns about impacts to the sensitive landscapes near Adobe Town in Wyoming. (Map ID: 

A-43: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Concerned about impacts to the Old Spanish Trail in Utah. (Map ID: A-44: Map Coordinates: 

C-7, B-7, E-7, D-6)

• TWE Project impacts to cultural resources near the Book Cliffs up Sego Canyon (Utah).

(Map ID: A-45: Map Coordinates: E-7)

• Concerned about impacts to the Old Uintah Railway (Colorado). (Map ID: A-46: Map 

Coordinates: G-6, F-5)

Cumulative Impacts

• Concerned about the cumulative effects of additional proposed transmission line projects in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming. (Map ID: A-47: Map Coordinates: G-2)
AECOM Environment A-4

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Colorado Department of Wildlife is concerned about the cumulative effects to big game species 

and habitat resulting from the TWE Project as well as other energy projects proposed in 

Colorado. (Map ID: A-48: Map Coordinates: H-4)

• TWE Project development could encourage additional transmission lines to be built (Utah).

• Concerned about the TWE Project’s cumulative effects to land disturbance with the oil and gas 

development (Utah). (Map ID: A-49: Map Coordinates: E-4)

• The EIS should address cumulative impacts of the TWE Project and additional proposed land 

use actions.

− Additional oil and gas leasing (Colorado)

− Proposed wind farm west of Medicine Bow and east of the Laramie Range (Wyoming)

− Proposed nuclear power plant (Blue Castle Project) (Utah)

− Proposed new residential development in the City of Ballard (Utah)

• Cumulative effects of additional transmission lines on landowner property.

Engineering/Design

• Prefers 4-legged structures to the guyed structures; guyed structures increase bird mortality.

• Transmission towers and access roads should not be constructed in the Strawberry River Valley 

below the dam. Road access to existing power line should be used (Utah). (Map ID: A-50: Map 

Coordinates: C-5)

• Concerned about increased congestion at the Clover substation (Utah). (Map ID: A-51: Map 

Coordinates: B-5)

• Design should consider burying the transmission line to reduce visual impacts, minimize 

environmental impacts, reduce public safety issues, and preserve real estate values.

• Concerns about co-locating the proposed TWE and proposed Gateway projects along I-80 while 

maintaining adequate separation (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-52: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Reference center lines need to be identified and provided for public input to assist in maximizing 

separation between for the TWE and Gateway projects within the 2-mile-wide corridors.

• Question about whether power could be transmitted from the Craig Power Plant.

• Question about whether wind turbines could interconnect with proposed transmission line.

• Suggests a substation along Interstate 70 (I-70) to deliver electricity to areas with inadequate 

power (Utah). (Map ID: A-53: Map Coordinates: E-7)

• Construction should occur during mid-July and end of September (Colorado).

Fire Management

• BLM lands between Rangely, Colorado, and the Utah border are considered “let burn wildfire 

areas.” (Map ID: A-54: Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Road and traffic impacts could increase fire potential.

Geology

• Corridor through the Rangely, Colorado, area has rough terrain and very unstable and erosive 

soils. (Map ID: A-55: Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Geologic formations within the San Rafael Swell and the Green River-Grand Valley area are 

susceptible to sinkholes and subsidence (Utah). (Map ID: A-56: Map Coordinates: E-7, D-7)
AECOM Environment A-5

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The Carmel, Moenkopi, Chinle Formations and the Arapien and Mancos Shale are difficult for 

construction (Utah).

Hazardous Materials

• The EIS should discuss the likelihood of vehicular spills or hazardous material releases. 

Lands and Realty

• Concerned about adverse impacts (visual, property values) to private lands with the eastern 

most alternative (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-57: Map Coordinates: H-3)

• The proposed corridor through Horse Canyon would devalue landowner’s property.

• Concerned about impacts to city utilities located within the corridors (Utah).

• Supports siting the transmission line on public lands over private lands (Colorado).

• Objects to a one-time payment to landowners in return for decades of land use and doesn’t 

offset the resulting environmental effects (Wyoming).

• Local governments need to make separate determinations regarding the TWE Project’s 

consistency with local plans, ordinances, ROW use, and permitting.

• Concerned about trespassing issues in the Elk Springs area (Colorado). (Map ID: A-58: Map 

Coordinates: G-4)

• The Uinta Tribe would possibly favor a corridor through their new jurisdiction land, if granted.

(Map ID: A-59: Map Coordinates: E-4)

• Concerns about how landowners would be compensated for granting a ROW on their land.

Livestock Grazing

• TWE Project access roads would interfere with grazing activities.

• Concern about magnetic fields and their effects on livestock.

• Construction work force could impact grazing operations.

• TWE Project development should avoid clearing trees, as trees provide protection for livestock.

• Concerns about TWE Project development impacts to good pastureland.

• Concerned about impacts to grazing on the Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit land near Rangely, 

Colorado. (Map ID: A-60: Map Coordinates: G-5)

• The transmission line’s “buzzing” affects horses, sheep, and livestock (Wyoming). 

Mineral Resources

• Concerns about impacts to existing coal leases through Cottonwood Canyon (Map ID: A-138; 

Map Coordinates: C-6)

• TWE Project alternative corridor could potentially impact coal resource area. (Map ID: A-139; 

Map Coordinates: C-6)

Mitigation/Reclamation

• Recommend following the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for reduced disturbance within 

buffer zone of sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse critical breeding and nesting periods.

• Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to bald eagles along the North Platte River should be 

identified in the EIS. (Map ID: A-61: Map Coordinates: J-1)
AECOM Environment A-6

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Prompt project reclamation and long-term monitoring of noxious weeds where the TWE Project 

crosses the Red Rim/Daley Wildlife Habitat Management Unit should be included in the EIS 

(Wyoming). (Map ID: A-62: Map Coordinates: I-1)

• Environmental training about public lands laws and Wyoming Game and Fish regulations should 

be conducted.

• A plan for detection, prevention, control, and treatment procedures for noxious weeds should be 

developed. 

• Adequate mitigation measures for protection of the Wyoming pocket gopher should be identified.

• Unavoidable wetland impacts should be compensated through restoration (preferably), creation, 

and enhancement.

• Mitigation measures should include discussion about funding, permitting, measurement of 

success, and time frames (Colorado).

• Active raptor nests should be identified prior to construction to avoid loss of active sites.

• Power lines should be raptor-safe and have adequate separation between conductors and 

grounded hardware.

• Recommend no construction from November 15 – April 30 in big game crucial winter habitat 

(Wyoming).

• A comprehensive monitoring and unanticipated cultural resources discovery plan is required 

(Wyoming).

• Construction schedules will have to be in accordance with timing limitations in the BLM RMP

(Colorado).

• Mitigation measures should be developed if impacts to greater sage-grouse lek and core sites; 

and white-tailed prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, elk, and mule-deer habitat occur 

(Colorado – Sevenmile Ridge area). (Map ID: A-63: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• TWE Project development should avoid impacts to sensitive species such as sage-grouse

(following Wyoming’s sage-grouse conservation strategy) and black-footed ferret in the Uinta 

Basin (Utah). (Map ID: A-64: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• Raptor nests should be avoided and perching deterrents should be installed (Colorado).

NEPA Process

• The NEPA process should evaluate TWE Project effects to the Dinosaur National Monument 

(Colorado). (Map ID: A-65: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• Utah Mitigation Commission requests being a Cooperating Agency because of the potential for 

the TWE Project to impact Mitigation Commission lands in Duchesne and Uintah counties 

(Utah).

• Suggest coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation – Provo Area Office concerning the 

proposed TWE Project corridor’s vicinity to Starvation Reservoir and Soldier Creek Dam on 

Strawberry Reservoir (Utah). (Map ID: A-66: Map Coordinates: C-5, D-4)

• Request the EIS and permitting process be expedited.

• Sweetwater County, Wyoming, requests to participate in the EIS Process as a Cooperating 

Agency.

• Additional alternatives, including in-state power generation and geothermal energy should be 

considered in the EIS (Utah).
AECOM Environment A-7

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The EIS should analyze and describe methods for staying consistent with BLM’s recently 

released Instructional Memorandum for renewable energy projects.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers request consultation to determine the presence of wetlands 

and for Section 404 permitting.

• EO 13007 should be addressed in the EIS separate from Section 106.

• The EIS should address the outcome of tribal consultation.

• The USFWS has been designated as a Cooperating Agency and agrees to serve on the 

interdisciplinary team for the EIS analysis.

• Formal consultation with the USFWS is required.

• Requests that the Alliance for Historic Wyoming be considered an interested party for all 

consultations under Section 106.

Noise

• TWE Project noise could adversely impact the Dinosaur National Monument’s soundscape 

(Colorado). (Map ID: A-67: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• Roads and tower construction noise could impact the Ashley, Uintah, Manti La Sal, and Dixie 

National Forests (Utah). (Map ID: A-68: Map Coordinates: A-6, B-5, C-5, )

• TWE Project noise from the alternative route parallel to SR 31 (Huntington Canyon), which is a 

scenic byway, could degrade the outdoor experience (Utah). (Map ID: A-69: Map Coordinates: 

C-6)

• Concerns about noise from the transmission line in the Baggs, Wyoming, and Laramie Peak 

area (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-70: Map Coordinates: I-3)

• Landowner concerns about noise in relation to their homes.

Noxious Weeds (also see Mitigation/Reclamation comments)

• Pre- and post-construction weed mapping should be required and post-construction reclamation 

needs to be included in the EIS.

• Use of herbicides should be avoided in the portion of corridor alternative that passes through the 

Wasatch Plateau where off-road vehicle trails are near roadless areas (Utah). (Map ID: A-71: 

Map Coordinates: C-6)

• Landowner concerns about noxious weeds in an area where vegetation is fragile (Utah).

Opinion

• Moffat County residents support natural resource development and the TWE Project (Colorado).

(Map ID: A-72: Map Coordinates: H-3)

• Supports the TWE Project and the proposed corridor.

• Opposes the TWE Project through Sand Wash Basin in northwest Colorado. (Map ID: A-73: 

Map Coordinates: H-4)

• The TWE Project would have negative impacts to private property north of Craig, Colorado.

(Map ID: A-74: Map Coordinates: I-4)

• The TWE corridors within Mesa County, Colorado, do not benefit the county. (Map ID: A-75: 

Map Coordinates: G-6)

• Strongly oppose the TWE Project through Leamington Canyon in Millard County, Utah. (Map ID: 

A-76: Map Coordinates: A-6)
AECOM Environment A-8

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Sweetwater County supports the TWE Project.

• The TWE Project will facilitate the exploitation of unsustainable resources in Wyoming and 

cause environmental degradation (Wyoming).

• The TWE Project is an example of Colorado’s commitment to clean energy development.

• The TWE Project will litter 429 miles of Utah with even more transmission lines.

• Move the wind farm to Nevada, closer to the end customer – this is a waste of our taxes and a 

typical government over spend (Wyoming).

• Emery County, Utah, is generally supportive of the alternative corridors.

Paleontological Resources

• The EIS should address paleontological resources that could be affected.

Permitting

• Colorado Permitting Comments

− Conditional Use Permit required in Mesa County, followed by submittal of Major Site Plan 

Application.

− The TWE Project must apply for the appropriate county approvals and landowner ROWs.

• Wyoming Permitting Comments

− Construction use permits currently not required in Sweetwater County, but that could 

change.

− Short-term facilities will require a Conditional Use permit in Sweetwater County.

− Construction Use permits are required for any substations, transformer stations, or similar 

long-term facilities.

− The County Engineer must be contacted before moving heavy equipment over county 

roads.

− Crossing, access, or utilization of road ROW for utility purposes requires an access permit 

or a license from the County Engineer.

− Work camps and electrical facilities for the proposed TWE Project need to be permitted.

Public Health and Safety

• Concerned about safety of project vehicles on public road to the Soldier Creek Dam Road 

(US 40) (Utah). (Map ID: A-77: Map Coordinates: C-5)

• Sweetwater County, Wyoming, recommends that the TWE Project applicant maintain 

communication with potentially affected communities regarding county services such as law 

enforcement and health services (Wyoming).

• Concerned about safety issues associated with the transmission line parallel to the CIG gas 

pipeline ROW. (Map ID: A-78: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Conductor needs to be hung high over road crossings.

• Concerned about health risks to people, wildlife, and vegetation from electromagnetic fields.

• Concerned about impacts to law enforcement resulting from an increase in construction workers 

in the area (Colorado).

• General landowner concerns about living near high voltage transmission lines.

• All guy wires and transmission lines should be marked to eliminate aerial collision hazards.
AECOM Environment A-9

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Public Participation

• Approves scoping process for the TWE Project; scoping meetings were complete and staff 

professional and knowledgeable.

• The TWE Project needs to correct contact information for the University of Utah.

• Public participation process needs to be maintained for the best interest of stakeholders and the 

TWE Project.

• BLM needs to continue to provide opportunities for public involvement.

• Several requests to be added to the TWE Project mailing list.

• Thompson Spring residents would like to have notification of any TWE Project-related 

information meetings and a meeting their area if the corridor, near their community, is retained 

(Utah). (Map ID: A-79: Map Coordinates: E-7)

Purpose and Need

• Supports the applicant’s purpose and need to expand the energy infrastructure and maintain a 

reliable electric grid.

• Applicant’s purpose and need should discuss market, end users, locations to be served, and the 

states’ renewable energy goals.

• The EIS should include an analysis of the TWE Project’s purpose and need.

• The EIS should address the need for power in the Southwest from the TWE Project and other 

projects.

• The TWE Project will help meet customer demand, improve the electric system reliability, 

increase access to the grid, and expand economic development (Wyoming).

• Need for the TWE Project in Daggett County needs to be addressed, since it appears there is 

over load on existing lines (Utah). (Map ID: A-80: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• Commenter would like some assurance that the line is being built for renewable energy (Utah).

Recreation

• The TWE Project could negatively impact recreation in the Strawberry River area (Utah).

(Map ID: A-81: Map Coordinates: C-5)

• Public recreation areas within the proposed corridor need to be protected (Utah).

• The proposed corridor near the northwest boundary of the Dinosaur National Monument will 

impact visitor experience. (Map ID: A-82: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• The US 191 – Little Mountain – Red Creek corridor alternative would impact high quality scenic 

and recreation resources (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-83: Map Coordinates: F-3, F-4)

• Big game is a valuable recreation and economic resource. Concern about TWE Project impacts 

to big game species and habitat (Colorado).

• The TWE Project traffic and construction crews could impact recreation (Wyoming).

• The Draft EIS should recommend off-road vehicle use through the Wasatch Plateau be deterred 

(Utah). (Map ID: A-84: Map Coordinates: C-6)

• Would like for access roads to be available for public use (off-road vehicles and other recreation 

uses) and not closed.

• In Wyoming, the westernmost alternative near Rock Springs could impact recreational users that 

hunt and camp (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-85: Map Coordinates: G-2)
AECOM Environment A-10

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Concerns about impacts to outdoor recreation, particularly hunting if alternative corridors are 

used for TWE Project development (Wyoming).

• Concerns about impacts to hunting areas and state wildlife and ranching program (Colorado).

• Concerned about impacts to tourism and visitors to Fort Steele (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-86: 

Map Coordinates: J-1)

Socioeconomics

• The TWE Project would bring much needed jobs and beneficial tax moneys to Moffat County, 

Colorado. (Map ID: A-87: Map Coordinates: H-3)

• General landowner concerns about reduced property values.

• The proposed TWE Project will hinder agricultural and economic growth (Utah).

• General landowner concern about the proposed transmission line being sited over homes.

• Concern about impacts to property values and development opportunities in Mesa County, 

Colorado. (Map ID: A-88: Map Coordinates: G-6)

• The EIS should include the monetary impact to private landowners for each alternative.

• The economic benefits to the applicant should be discussed in the EIS.

• Support for the TWE Project as it will benefit the economy of rural Utah.

• Concern about the proposed TWE Project adversely affecting property values in Nephi, Utah.

(Map ID: A-89: Map Coordinates: B-5)

• Support for the alternative corridor following I-70 through Grand County, Utah because of the 

economic benefits the TWE Project would bring (Utah). (Map ID: A-90: Map Coordinates: F-7)

• General landowner concerns about condemnation of their homes.

• The EIS should analyze the socioeconomic benefits to Wyoming and entire western region 

resulting from TWE Project development.

Soils

• TWE Project development located on alkali soils would be difficult/impossible to reclaim (Utah).

• Ecosystem in eastern Utah is very fragile and contains cryptobiotic soils (Utah).

• Soils on steep ridges are very shallow and highly erosive (Utah).

• Soils in the Green River Formation are difficult to reclaim and should be re-seeded with salttolerant species.

Special Designated Lands

Colorado

• The proposed and alternative corridors could impact the following Wilderness areas: Cross 

Mountain, Yampa River, Black Mountain/Windy Gulch Pinyon Ridge, Oil Spring Mountain, 

Grand Hogback, Roan Plateau, Prairie Canyon, Bitter Creek, Demaree Canyon, Bitter Brush 

SWA, and Piceance SWA. (Map ID: A-91: Map Coordinates: G-6, G-5, H-5, H-4, G-4)

• Concern about TWE Project impacts to Colorado’s Canyon Wilderness Proposal.

• Potential impacts to sensitive habitat and proposed wilderness in the corridor alternatives that 

cross the Little Snake Resource area.

• The Sevenmile Ridge alternative corridor crosses Colorado State Trust Lands, WSA, and 

Citizen Proposed Wilderness areas; recommends avoiding these land designations. (Map ID: 

A-92: Map Coordinates: G-4)
AECOM Environment A-11

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The alternative corridor that passes through the Meeker/Rifle area could impact special land 

designations and Citizen’s Wilderness Proposals. (Map ID: A-93: Map Coordinates: H-5)

• The alternative corridors that cross the BLM White River FO impact a state wildlife area.

(Map ID: A-94: Map Coordinates: G-5, H-5)

• The Rifle/Grand Junction corridor alternative could impact special designated lands and should 

be avoided. (Map ID: A-95: Map Coordinates: H-6)

• Brown’s Park ACEC was created as mitigation habitat for the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and 

should be avoided and preserved. (Map ID: A-96: Map Coordinates: F-3)

• Concerned about impacts to wild horses in the Sand Wash Basin Herd Management Area.

(Map ID: A-97: Map Coordinates: H-4)

Utah

• The proposed corridor through Utah could impact Citizen Proposed Wilderness Areas.

• Concern about impacts to the Mexican Mountain Wilderness Area; the alternative corridor 

through this wilderness area is unacceptable. (Map ID: A-98: Map Coordinates: D-7)

• Concerned about impacts to Wildlife Management areas crossed by Corridor Segments U55, 

U70, U90, U10, and U20. (Map ID: A-99: Map Coordinates: B-6, B-5, D-4, F-3)

Wyoming

• Concerned about potential impacts to Citizen Proposed Wilderness Areas and Adobe Town.

(Map ID: A-100; Map Coordinates: H-2)

• Concerned about Wyoming alternative crossing the Greater Red Creek ACEC and impacts to 

big game migration. (Map ID: A-101; Map Coordinates: F-3)

• Concerned about impacts to wildlife through the Red Rim/Daley Wildlife Habitat Management 

Unit. (Map ID: A-102; Map Coordinates: I-2)

• Wilderness inventories will need to be conducted and the appropriate mitigation imposed; new 

Wildlands policy needs to be considered.

• The TWE Project needs to consider all sage-grouse core designations for all alternative 

corridors in Wyoming.

• Corridor alternatives should avoid the Fort Fred Steele State Historic Site. (Map ID: A-103; 

Map Coordinates: J-1)

Special Status Species

Colorado

• The BLM Little Snake FO recommends elimination of the Great Divide alternative corridor (C40, 

C60, C85) to avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse. (Map ID: A-104; Map Coordinates: H-4, 

H-3)

• Any corridor alternative that follows Highway 13 would impact greater sage-grouse and 

black-footed ferret. (Map ID: A-105; Map Coordinates: I-3)

• Any proposed corridor alternative through Big Hole Gulch and Great Divide as well as Axial 

Basin should be eliminated because of the potential impacts to the greater sage-grouse.

(Map ID: A-106; Map Coordinates: H-3)

• All of the corridor alternatives could potentially impact Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek and 

production areas.
AECOM Environment A-12

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The corridor alternatives in Colorado cross the black-footed ferret Wolf Creek introduction area.

(Map ID: A-107; Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The corridor alternatives in Colorado could impact Gibben’s Penstemon and the Narrow-leaf 

Primrose.

• The TWE Project corridor alternatives north of Craig, Colorado, could potentially impact 

sage-grouse habitat, bald eagle nests, and black-footed ferret habitat. (Map ID: A-108; Map 

Coordinates: I-4)

• The corridor alternative from Grand Junction, Colorado, to the Utah border could impact rare 

plants. (Map ID: A-109; Map Coordinates: G-6)

• The corridor alternative east of the Book Cliffs could potentially impact sage-grouse core areas.

(Map ID: A-110; Map Coordinates: H-6)

• Rare plants, Debeque milkvetch (Astragalus debequaeus) (and Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

Sclerocactus glaucus, could potentially be impacted from TWE Project development based on 

previous survey work conducted in 1998.

• Corridor alternatives could potentially impact the rare plant, Debeque phacelia (Phacelia

submutica). 

Utah

• Concerned about impacts to golden eagle nest and native cutthroat trout.

• Commenter noted rare plants could be located along corridor alternative near Utah State 

Highway 10, west of the San Rafael Swell. (Map ID: A-111; Map Coordinates: C-7)

• Uintah Basin Adaptive Resource Management Group supports any measures to reduce the 

potential impacts to sage-grouse populations.

• Concerned about TWE Project impacts to the Columbia spotted frog, which is a Conservation 

Species and state sensitive species in Utah.

Wyoming

• The EIS should evaluate impacts to burrowing owls and prairie dog towns along the Fort Steele 

breaks between Rawlins and the North Platte River. (Map ID: A-112; Map Coordinates: I-1)

• Concerned about TWE Project impacts to the bald eagle along the North Platte River. (Map ID: 

A-113; Map Coordinates: I-1)

• The proposed TWE Project should adhere to the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Core Area Program 

guidelines.

• Adequate mitigation should be included in the EIS to reduce impacts to the Wyoming pocket 

gopher.

• The TWE Project plans should be designed to meet the objectives of conservation agreements 

for the Columbia spotted frog and Northern Goshawk if these species are impacted.

• The EIS should discuss the potential impact to pygmy rabbits.

• Concerned about mountain plover impacts on the proposed corridor.

Systems Alternatives

• Consider constructing a plant in Fort Duchesne or Vernal to service eastern Utah.

• Suggests building a substation along I-70 in Utah to make additional power available to an area 

that lacks available sources.
AECOM Environment A-13

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Suggests that other sources of power have the capability to interconnect such as the proposed 

nuclear power station (Blue Castle project) in Utah. 

Transportation and Access

• The proposed TWE Project should use the access roads for existing power lines.

• Concerns about increased traffic and human presence displacing wildlife into adjacent habitats.

• The southernmost corridor alternative in Utah, in the vicinity of Sears Canyon, is more 

accessible.

• Concerns about TWE Project access roads interfering with grazing activities.

• General landowners concerns about access roads on their property.

• Crossing, access, or utilization of road ROW for utility purposes will require an access permit 

from County Engineer (Wyoming).

• Concerns about an increased number of animal-vehicle collisions because of increased 

construction traffic (Colorado).

• Permanent access roads should be designed to minimize unpermitted off-road vehicle use.

• Commenter would like to see access roads open for public use.

• Access roads will require changes to the Forest Service Travel Management Plan.

Vegetation (also see Special Status Species)

• Concerns about TWE Project impacts to vegetation if water sources from the National Forests 

are affected (Utah).

• Requests a vegetation management plan be prepared that includes noxious weeds.

• The EIS should address impacts to vegetation resulting from access road construction.

• General landowner concerns about removal of trees on their property.

Visual Resources

Colorado

• The alternative corridor in Garfield County, Colorado would impact visual resources. (Map ID: 

A-114; Map Coordinates: H-6)

• Crossing any portion of western Colorado will impact visual landscapes.

• Concerns about visual impacts to the corridor alternative that follows I-70 through DeBeque 

Canyon, around the base of Mt. Garfield and then along the base of the Book Cliffs to the Mesa 

County line. (Map ID: A-115; Map Coordinates: G-6)

• The Energy Master Plan states that transmission lines will be designed with due consideration to 

visual resources; therefore, the proposed TWE Project needs to consider visual impacts to 

DeBeque Canyon, Book Cliffs, and the Colorado River. (Map ID: A-116: Map Coordinates: 

G-6)

• Requests that the BLM avoid areas with wilderness characteristics and to not impact viewsheds.

• Alternative corridors should follow existing pipeline corridors to avoid transmission line views 

from the river.
AECOM Environment A-14

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Utah

• Corridor alternative northwest of Dinosaur National Monument would impact the viewshed and 

diminish visitors’ experience. (Map ID: A-117: Map Coordinates: F-4)

• Concerns about impacts to visual quality near the Starvation Reservoir and the Strawberry 

Reservoir/Soldier Dam. (Map ID: A-118: Map Coordinates: C-5, D-4)

• Transmission line should be sited east of the existing power line to limit visual impacts to 

residents in Pine Hollow. (Map ID: A-119: Map Coordinates: C-5)

• The portion of the corridor alternative near Sears Canyon would impact the viewshed. (Map ID: 

A-120: Map Coordinates: F-3)

• Access roads and transmission line tower construction would impact the visual quality in the 

Ashley, Uintah, Manti La Sal, and Dixie National Forests. (Map ID: A-121: Map Coordinates:

B-7, A-6, C-6, B-5, C-5)

• Concerns about visual resource impacts to SR 31 (Huntington Canyon), which is a scenic 

byway. (Map ID: A-122: Map Coordinates: C-6)

• Concerns about visual impacts to the Red Cliffs area.

Wyoming

• Preference to the proposed corridor in Wyoming because this corridor would have the least 

amount of impacts to visual resources.

• The TWE Project development in the eastern corridor alternative (along Highway 13) in 

Wyoming would result in impacts to visual resources. (Map ID: A-123: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• The TWE Project development should not occur near scenic trails (e.g., Cherokee Trail), Adobe 

Town, and Citizen Proposed Wilderness Areas to preserve visual quality. (Map ID: A-124: 

Map Coordinates: H-3, G-2, I-1)

• Concerns about impacts to scenic quality and important viewsheds such as Little Mountain, Pine 

Mountain, Miller Mountain, Tepee Mountain, and Richards Mountain. (Map ID: A-125: 

Map Coordinates: F-3)

• General landowner concerns about impacts to landscapes and viewsheds and its effects on 

property values if transmission lines are built near homes.

• Concerned about impacts to Laramie Peak. (Map ID: A-126; Map Coordinates: 50 miles east 

of TWE Project area)

• Sweetwater County, Wyoming, request that the eastern corridor be avoided because of the 

impacts to natural features and viewsheds.

• Concerned about impacts to visual resources if transmission lines are sited outside of existing 

ROWs.

• The EIS should include visual simulations of the TWE Project looking south of Rawlins, 

Wyoming. (Map ID: A-127: Map Coordinates: I-1)

Water Resources

• The corridor alternative that follows part of the Deep Cut Irrigation Ditch has a high water table 

and would not support transmission line structures (Colorado).

• There are source water protection zones around springs that provide the city with drinking water 

(Utah).

• The TWE Project could impact water resources flowing from the National Forests (Utah).
AECOM Environment A-15

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The northern alternative corridor could impact Tyzack Aqueduct and the Jensen Drains in the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region (Utah). (Map ID: A-128: Map Coordinates: 

F-4)

• The EIS needs to describe the waterbodies and groundwater resource that could be affected by 

the proposed TWE Project.

• The EIS needs conduct an analysis of the area’s topography, soils, and stream stability to 

assess impacts to surface and subsurface water quality (Colorado).

• The EIS needs to describe the natural drainage patterns within the project area and determine if 

project facilities are within a 50- or 100-year floodplain.

• Information regarding project impacts to impaired waters within the project area should be 

provided in the EIS.

• The EIS should analyze the function and locations of ephemeral drainages within the project 

area.

• The Yampa River floods and transmission line structures should not be located in the river 

floodplain. (Map ID: A-129: Map Coordinates: H-4, G-4)

• The most southern corridor alternative in Utah is preferred because it is not located within a 

municipal watershed.

• North of I-80, east of Fort Steele is a floodplain; suggests moving the proposed corridor 

alternative south of I-80 (Wyoming). (Map ID: A-130: Map Coordinates: J-1)

Wildlife (also see Special Status Species)

Colorado

• Colorado Department of Wildlife is concerned about impacts to big game species and habitat.

• Concern about the proposed corridor affecting mule deer winter habitat near Maybell, Colorado.

(Map ID: A-131: Map Coordinates: H-4)

• All corridor alternatives impact important winter habitat for pronghorn, mule deer, and elk.

• During construction, direct disturbance or habitat fragmentation impacts to wildlife, particularly 

burrowing species, could occur.

• Colorado Department of Wildlife is concerned about potential overall project impacts to wildlife 

species throughout northwest Colorado, as the project is so large, it would be difficult to avoid 

sensitive habitats.

• All the corridor alternatives cross crucial winter range for mule deer and pronghorn.

• The EIS should describe the current capacity of habitat usage by wildlife affected in the Affected 

Environment.

• Corridor alternatives could impact crucial spring habitat for pronghorn.

• Concerns about impacts to elk winter range in the corridor alternative that crosses Elk Springs.

(Map ID: A-132: Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The alternative corridor south of Rangely could potentially impact sensitive wildlife.

Utah

• Concern about impacts to bighorn sheep in the Mexican Mountain Wilderness Area. (Map ID: 

A-133: Map Coordinates: D-7)

• The proposed project could impact wildlife habitat with the increased human activity.
AECOM Environment A-16

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Recommends using the Utah FO Guidelines for Raptor Protection for compliance with 

environmental laws.

• Potential project impacts to migratory birds should be mitigated as recommended by the 

USFWS.

Wyoming

• Concern about elk, pronghorn, mule deer, bear, turkey, blue grouse, and sage-grouse in the 

Baggs and Laramie Peak areas. (Map ID: A-134: Map Coordinates: I-3)

• The most eastern corridor alternative in Wyoming could impact big game migration routes, as 

well as raptor and bat habitat. (Map ID: A-135: Map Coordinates: H-2)

• The EIS should discuss the potential for electrocution and collision of raptors.

• Construction workers/employees should be dismissed for any poaching or harassing of wildlife.

• The proposed project is within suitable habitat for the northern leopard frog.

• To minimize impacts to migratory birds, the EIS should focus on species and areas from the 

USFWS’ 2008 list and those identified by the Intermountain West Joint Venture.

• The EIS should discuss important habitat loss and include the appropriate mitigation.

• Commenter notes that the alternative corridors should avoid high density prairie rattlesnakes 

near Baggs, Wyoming. (Map ID: A-136: Map Coordinates: I-3)

• Recommends the corridor alternatives avoid impacts to herptiles.

Transportation

• Access roads within the Fishlake National Forest will require changes to the Forest Service 

Travel Management Plan. (Map ID: A-137: Map Coordinates: B-7, A-6)
!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!. !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

! !

!. !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!.

!

! !

! ! ! !

!.

! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!. !

!.

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!.

! !

! !

!

!

!.

!

^_

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!. ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !.

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !.

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

! !. !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!.

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Bl a ck Can yo n

of th e Gu nnis on

N. P.

Gu nn iso n

Na tio na l Fo re st

Co lo r ad o

N.M.

Arch e s

Na tio na l

Pa rk

Manti-La sa l

Na tio na l

Un compah gr e

Na tio na l Fo re st

Fis hl ak e

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Fis hl ak e

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Manti-La sa l

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Uin t a

Na tio na l Fo re st

Uin t a

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Uin t a

Na tio na l

Fo re st

As h l ey

Na tio na l

Fo re st

As h l ey

Na tio na l Fo re st

Dino s aur

Na tio na l Mo n ument

Bro wn s

Park NWR

Fl amin g G org e

Na tio na l Re c Ar e a

Whit e Riv e r

Na tio na l Fo re st

Ro utt

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Ar a pah oe

NWR

Sawto oth

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Ca rib ou

Na tio na l

Fo re st

Uin t ah a nd Ouray

Ind i an Re s e rva tio n

Uin t ah a nd Ouray

Ind i an Re s e rva tio n

Te st an d

g Rang e

Gr and Me s a

Na tio na l Fo re st

Bear

Lake

Great

Salt

Lake

Strawberry

Res

Flaming

Gorge Res

Utah Lake

Intermountain

Power Project

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6 A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-15

A-17

A-18

A-19

A-20

A-20

A-21

A-22

A-23

A-23

A-24

A-25

A-27

A-28

A-31

A-32

A-33

A-34

A-35

A-36

A-37

A-38

A-39

A-40

A-41

A-42

A-43

A-44

A-44

A-44

A-44

A-45

A-46

A-46

A-46

A-47

A-49

A-50

A-51

A-52

A-53

A-54

A-55

A-56

A-56

A-57

A-58

A-59

A-62

A-63

A-64

A-66

A-66

A-67

A-68

A-68

A-68

A-68

A-68

A-69

A-71

A-72

A-73

A-74

A-75

A-76

A-79

A-80

A-82

A-83

A-83

A-84

A-85

A-87

A-88

A-89

A-90

A-91

A-91

A-91

A-91

A-91

A-91

A-92

A-93

A-94

A-94

A-94

A-95

A-96

A-97

A-98

A-99

A-99

A-99

A-99

A-99

A-100

A-102

A-103

A-104

A-104

A-104

A-105

A-106

A-108

A-109

A-110

A-111

A-112

A-113

A-114

A-115

A-116

A-117

A-118 A-119

A-121

A-121

A-121

A-121

A-121

A-121

A-121 A-122

A-123 A-124

A-124

A-124

A-124

A-125

A-125

A-125

A-125 A-125

A-127

A-129

A-129

A-129

A-130

A-131

A-132

A-133

A-134

A-135

A-137

A-137

A-137

A-60

A-107

A-120

A-128

A-78

A-136

A-118

A-101

A-86

A-81

A-77

A-70

A-65

A-61

A-48

A-37

A-33

A-30

A-29

A-26

A-16

A-14

Rawlins

Oxford

Holbrook

Malad Banida City

Mink

Creek

Clifton

Gwenford

Paris

Samaria

Dingle

Bloomington

Border

Dayton

Stone

Preston

La Barge

Woodruff

Saint Pegram

Charles

Whitney

Snowville

Weston

Fairview

Portage Franklin

Cokeville

Fish

Haven

Cornish Lewiston

Clarkston

Blue

Creek

Trenton Richmond

Plymouth

Garden

City

Newton

Farson

Amalga

Howell Fielding

Smithfield

Eden

Fontenelle

Hyde

Park

Garland

Laketown

Bothwell

North

Logan

Tremonton

Deweyville

Seminoe

Dam

Logan

Mendon Elwood

Sage

River

Heights

Providence Penrose

Frontier

Millville Nibley Honeyville

Kemmerer

Wellsville

Diamondville

Bear

River

City Hyrum

Opal

Elkol

Randolph

Nutria

Corinne Paradise

Brigham

City

Mantua

Superior

Perry

Woodruff

Willard

Hanna

Westvaco

Reliance

Thayer

Junction

Granger Verne

Point of

Rocks

North Rock

Springs

Stansbury

Park

Sinclair

Bryan

Riner

Little

America

Lakeside

Creston Latham

Pleasant

View

Walcott

Rock

Springs

Peru

Plain

City

Wamsutter

North

Ogden

Hallville

Farr

West

Frewen

Bear

River

Harrisville

Green

River

Table

Rock

Carter

Promontory

Point

Quealy

Monell

Marriott-Slaterville

Huntsville

Almy

Bitter

Creek

Ogden

Elk

Mountain

West

Haven South

Ogden Hooper

Riverdale Washington

Terrace

Roy

Evanston

Lyman Fort

Bridger

Sunset Clinton Uintah

Ragan

West

Point

South

Weber

Clearfield

Wahsatch

Mountain

View

Syracuse

Aspen Piedmont

Altamont

Layton

Kaysville

Robertson

Fruit

Heights

Devils

Slide

Saratoga

Morgan Emory

Farmington

Henefer

Porterville Echo

West Centerville

Bountiful Bountiful

Lonetree

Woods

Cross

Ryan

Park

Coalville

Val

Verda

North

Salt

Lake

Burntfork

McKinnon

Saltair

Riverside

Manila

Grand

Encampment

Wanship

Magna

South

Salt

Lake

West

Valley

City

Canyon

Rim

East

Millcreek

Millcreek

Charleston

Hiawatha

Mount

Olympus Taylorsville Murray

Kearns

Peoa

Grantsville

Holladay

Baggs

Cottonwood

Oakley

Oquirrh Bennion

Dixon

Erda

Savery

Cottonwood

Heights Union West

Jordan

Powder

Wash

Midvale

Park

City

Little Cottonwood Creek

Valley Sandy

Kamas

Tooele South

Jordan

White

City

Alta

Granite

Francis

Herriman

Riverton Draper

Stockton Bluffdale

Midway

Heber

Alpine

Highland

Rush

Valley

Columbine

Saint

John

Ophir

Cedar

Hills Lehi

American

Fork Cedar

Fort

Saratoga

Springs Pleasant

Grove

Wallsburg

Eagle

Mountain Lindon

Greystone

Hanna

Fairfield

Vineyard

Orem

Whiterocks Maeser

Mountain

Home

Neola

Faust

Tabiona

Vernal

Provo

Altamont

Lapoint

Naples

Talmage Bluebell

Maybell Lay

Vernon

Springville

Craig

Jensen

Upalco Roosevelt

Fruitland

Coalmont

Mapleton

Ballard

Spanish

Fork

Fort

Duchesne

Hayden

Lofgreen

Milner

Steamboat

Springs

Elk

Springs

Salem Payson

Randlett

Duchesne

Myton

Bridgeland

Genola Woodland

Hills

Elk

Ridge

Hamilton

Eureka

Dinosaur

Elberta Santaquin

Blue

Mountain

Goshen

Moffat

Thistle

Massadona

Silver

City

Axial

Birdseye

Ouray

Gilluly

Oak

Creek

Soldier

Summit

Mona

Phippsburg

Rangely

Jericho

Indianola

Colton

Bonanza

Yampa

Nephi

Meeker

Milburn Scofield

Castle

Gate

Toponas

Fountain

Green

Leamington

Fairview

Lynndyl

Helper Clear

Creek

Levan

Sugarville

Spring

Glen

Mount

Pleasant Mills

Abraham

Moroni

Price

McCoy

Wales

Spring

City

Wattis

Burns

Delta Oak City

Bond

Wellington

Hinckley

State

Bridge

Sunnyside East

Carbon

Hiawatha

Oasis Deseret

Rio

Blanco

Columbia

Ephraim

Mounds

Elmo

Scipio

Wolcott

Cedar

Manti

Cleveland

Huntington

Clear

Lake

Fayette

Eagle Gypsum Edwards

New

Castle

Sterling

Avon

Silt Rifle

Gunnison

Holden

Glenwood

Springs

Orangeville

Castle

Dale

Centerfield

Woodside

Mayfield

Cardiff

Parachute

Battlement

Mesa

Axtell

Clawson

Flowell Fillmore

Ferron

Redmond

De Beque

Carbondale

El Jebel

Salina

Meadow

Basalt

Mack

Aurora

Meredith

Hatton

Snowmass

Loma

Moore

Collbran

Kanosh

Emery

Fruita

Sigurd

Woody

Creek

Molina

Green

River

Westwater

Mesa

Richfield

Snowmass

Village

Glenwood

Palisade

Redlands

Redstone

Fruitvale

Thompson

Springs

Clifton

Aspen

Grand

Junction

Annabella

Cisco

Elsinore

Orchard

Mesa

Glade

Park

Grand

Mesa

Whitewater

Marble

Cedaredge

Somerset Bowie

Paonia

Mount

Crested

Butte

Orchard

City

Crested

Butte

Hotchkiss

Lazear

Gateway

Castle

Valley

Delta

Crawford

Olathe

Almont

Pitkin

Ohio

Timpie

Burmester

191

189

6

134

91

50

30

50

287

6

189

40

89

30

6

40

89

191

W Y O M I N G

W Y O M I N G

C O L O R A D O

U T A H

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

U T A H

I D A H O

W Y O

M I N G

U T A H

15

80

84

80

70

15

215

G A R F I E L D

B O X

E L D E R

S W E E T W A T E R

D U C H E S N E

U I N T A

R I C H

L I N C O L N

B E A R

L A K E O N E I D A

G R A N D

F R A N K L I N

C A C H E

M O F F A T

W E B E R

S U M M I T

U I N T A H

U T A H

J U A B

C A R B O N

S A N P E T E

M I L L A R D

S E V I E R

M O R G A N

D A V I S

T O O E L E

S A L T

L A K E

W A S A T C H

D A G G E T T

M E S A

D E L T A

M O N T R O S E

E M E R Y

C A R B O N

G R A N D

E A G L E

G U N N I S O N

L A K E

P I T K I N

R O U T T

J A C K S O N

R I O B L A N C O

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

I

I

J

J

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

WYOMING TO DELTA

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

Scoping Comment Summary

[

TRANSWEST EXPRESS

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Date Last Revised : May 29, 2011

Pre-Scoping Draft

The alternative segments shown on this map are preliminary and may

be revised and/or refined throughout the development of the project.

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

Transportation

Interstate highway

US Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Transportation Features: TeleAtlas, 2008

Administrative and Hydrologic Features: National Atlas, 2002

Jurisdiction Features: Arizona Land and Resource Information System, 2007; California

Department of Forestry FRRAP, 2009; Bureau of Land Management, 2005 and 2007;

National Ecology Research Center, 2007; State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands

Administration (SITLA), 2009

Applicant Proposed Segments: TransWest Express LLC

Alternative Proposed Segments: Joint Lead Agencies

Note:

Some corridors were proposed by BLM during pre-scoping.

Map coordinate system is UTM NAD83 meters Zone 12

Data Sources

X:\0Projects\12907_003_Transwest_Express\Figures\NotSpecified_Figures\Scoping\2010\20100921_PROJECTMAPS_SCOPING\END2END_CORRIDORS.mxd

Project Features

"J Intermountain Power Project

#* Scoping Comment

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Agency Alternative

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Jurisdiction

BIA/Tribal

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Defense

National Park Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

State Land
AECOM Environment A-18

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Region B – Intermountain Power Project to Las Vegas
AECOM Environment A-19

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Agriculture

• Concerns about the effects of direct current to pivot irrigation and cattle.

• Suggests siting transmission lines alongside existing lines to avoid conflicts with agricultural 

activities.

Corridor Alternatives

Utah

• Suggests a corridor alternative north of Delta and west into Nevada. (Map ID: B-1; 

Map Coordinates: H-1)

• Opposed to the proposed corridor crossing the Mountain Meadows Massacre Valley near 

Central, Utah. (Map ID: B-2; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Proposed corridor through Iron County is acceptable and will have the least impacts. (Map ID: 

B-3; Map Coordinates: F-4)

• The corridor alternatives should be routed west of Washington County in Utah into less 

populated areas of Nevada. (Map ID: B-4; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Requests that the project stay east of agricultural area and residents near New Castle. (Map ID: 

B-5; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Concerns regarding separation of several transmission lines between Milford and Central, Utah; 

recommends this alternative be eliminated. (Map ID: B-6; Map Coordinates: G-4)

• Opposes western route in Utah because it would impact cultural resources near Crystal Peak 

the coast-to-coast, non-motorized American Discovery Trail. (Map ID: B-7; Map Coordinates: 

F-2)

• Opposed to the corridor alternative that branches off of the preferred route near the north end of 

Iron County due to sensitive resources and impacts to multiple-use lands. (Map ID: B-8; Map 

Coordinates: F-4)

• The corridor alternative that follows Millard County’s designated Major Utility Corridor and the 

West-Wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) corridor would impact Magnum’s development plans.

(Map ID: B-9; Map Coordinates: G-2)

• Concern about impacts of the proposed corridor on Holt Canyon and Mountain Meadows Valley.

(Map ID: B-10; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Residents of Central, Utah, would prefer the alternative corridor through eastern Nevada to 

avoid neighborhoods in Central, impacts to the Kane Springs Aquifer, and Mountain Meadows 

Massacre site. (Map ID: B-11; Map Coordinates: F-5)

Nevada

• Supports the proposed corridor along I-15. (Map ID: B-12; Map Coordinates: D-7)

• Recommends not routing in overused transmission corridors and prefers the alternative corridor 

through Lincoln County. (Map ID: B-13; Map Coordinates: E-5)

• The northern corridor alternative south of the Great Basin National Park would impact protected 

species and result in visual impacts in sight of the park. (Map ID: B-14; Map Coordinates: E-2)

• The western corridor alternative is located within an already congested corridor and could 

impact the National Wildlife Refuge. (Map ID: B-15; Map Coordinates: D-6)

• Prefers the far western alternative in Nevada because it avoids the Mountain Meadows 

Massacre Valley and the Dixie National Forest. (Map ID: B-16; Map Coordinates: C-6)
AECOM Environment A-20

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Suggests using the western route in the Mormon Mesa-to-Moapa area to avoid impacts to the 

Salt Lake-to-Southern California road routes. (Map ID: B-17; Map Coordinates: D-7)

• Prefers a corridor alternative from Lyndal, Utah, to follow the Intermountain Power Project Line 

to Las Vegas. (Map ID: B-18; Map Coordinates: E-6)

• Prefers an alternative corridor that follows the utility corridor through Dry Lake Valley. (Map ID: 

B-19; Map Coordinates: D-5)

• Project corridors should avoid the Valley of Fire State Park, the Logandale Trails, and the Red 

Rocks area. (Map ID: B-20; Map Coordinates: D-7)

Cultural Resources

Utah

• Mountain Meadows is a National Historic Landmark and all corridor alternatives should avoid the 

site. (Map ID: B-21; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Construction of the transmission line could impact burial sites at the Mountain Meadows 

Massacre site; in the northern area are women and children burial sites, further south are the 

men’s burial site, and to the south is the view area and burial monument. (Map ID: B-22; Map 

Coordinates: F-5)

• The northern, western corridor alternative towards Nevada should be avoided to reduce 

potential impacts to Crystal Peak sacred sites. (Map ID: B-23; Map Coordinates: F-2)

• The National Insulator Association is interested in locating the original transcontinental telegraph 

route and is concerned that transmission line construction could change/destroy important 

historical evidence.

• Corridor alternatives should avoid the Central Utah Relocation Authority/Topaz Internment 

Camp National Historic Landmark north of Delta, Utah. (Map ID: B-24; Map Coordinates: H-1)

• The Western Shoshone has concerns about the corridor alternative in northeastern Millard 

County and Delta County. This area is traditional Western Shoshone Homelands with significant 

ties to the area. The Western Shoshone would like their traditional and culturally knowledgeable 

people from the tribe to be involved in any surveys of this area. (Map ID: B-25; Map 

Coordinates: H-1)

• Concerned about project impacts to the historic Old Spanish Trail in southwestern Utah.

(Map ID: B-26; Map Coordinates: F-5)

Nevada

• Concerned about project development that deviates from the WWEC corridors and the impacts 

to cultural resources around the Old Spanish Trail. (Map ID: B-27; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Suggests using the far western corridor alternative from Mormon Mesa to Moapa to avoid 

impacts to the Salt Lake-to-Southern California road route.

• Concerns about impacts to property owned by Wild Mustang Association with cultural issues 

along waterway.

Cumulative Impacts

• Commenter notes that the westernmost corridor alternative in Nevada would be adjacent to or 

within the same ROW as the proposed Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) Groundwater 

Development Project (Nevada). (Map ID: B-28; Map Coordinates: D-6)

• Question about whether the TWE Project could interconnect with the Amargosa Solar Project 

(Nevada).
AECOM Environment A-21

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Concerns about existing infrastructure within the proposed corridor through Central, Utah; in 

particular an existing gas line and a proposed new gas line (Utah). (Map ID: B-29; Map 

Coordinates: F-5)

Engineering and Design

• Concerns regarding congestion with multiple lines at the Clover Substation in Utah and the 

ability to maintain minimum line separation in the Milford to Central, Utah, area. (Map ID: B-30; 

Map Coordinates: H-1)

• Concern about electromagnetic fields interfering with radio emergency notifications.

• Recommends a different structure type – commenter brought a picture of a cow stuck in the 

same type of structure that the TWE Project is proposing. Also, lattice structure design provides 

perching for raptors.

• Concerns about the new line crossing over so many existing lines in the Red Butte substation 

area. (Map ID: B-31; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Consideration should be given to tower placement and any aviation operations.

Fire Management

• Co-locating the transmission line with gas pipeline could create fire fighting difficulty (Central, 

Utah). (Map ID: B-32; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Prefers corridor alternative west of Delta, Utah, to reduce the risk for fire fighters. (Map ID: B-33; 

Map Coordinates: G-1)

• Northwest Special Service District (Washington County, Utah Fire District) has concerns about 

siting the transmission line in southern Utah because the project would inhibit their ability to 

provide adequate air operations in the event of wildland fires. (Map ID: B-34; Map Coordinates: 

F-5)

• Fire fighter is concerned about electrocution should a fire start near the transmission line.

Lands and Realty

Nevada

• Concerned that routing through the Army National Guard property will render the land unusable 

for troop training.

• Lincoln County, Nevada, recommends the corridor alternative instead of using the existing 

overused transmission line corridors. (Map ID: B-35; Map Coordinates: D-5)

• A master planned residential and commercial community develop has been proposed for the 

area within the corridor near Glendale, Nevada. The development already has partial approvals 

and project development could cause the development to fail. (Map ID: B-36; Map 

Coordinates: D-7)

• Project corridors could impact a landfill site expansion north of Crestline, Nevada. (Map ID: 

B-37; Map Coordinates: E-5)

• Concerns about the proximity of the alternative corridors to a 10,000-foot-long runway located in 

the southwest corner of White Pine County.

Utah

• Corridors that cross State Institutional Lands could impact Magnum and School and Institution 

Trust Lands Administration’s development opportunities. (Map ID: B-38; Map 

Coordinates: H-1)
AECOM Environment A-22

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Concerned about the proposed corridor’s potential impact to a gas storage project and future 

development plans involving 12,000 acres of private, federal, and Utah School and Institution 

Trust Lands. (Map ID: B-39; Map Coordinates: H-1)

• Proposed corridor should avoid area north of Delta, Utah, where a salt dome excavation area is 

planned. (Map ID: B-40; Map Coordinates: H-1)

Livestock Grazing

• Concerns about corridor alternatives through undeveloped WWEC corridors could impact 

grazing (Nevada).

• Prefers the I-15 corridor in Nevada because would not impact grazing.

• The Lincoln County, Nevada Planning Department has resource concerns about project corridor 

alternatives and their effects to grazing.

• Additional power lines north of the Mountain Meadows Massacre site to the Nevada border 

could conflict with cattle operations (Utah). (Map ID: B-41; Map Coordinates: E-6)

• Concerns about potential access roads affecting cattle ponds and revegetation post construction 

(Utah).

NEPA Process

• Magnum Holdings, LLC requests to be included in all future scoping proceedings.

• Need to expedite the EIS process for economic reasons and timely expansion of the western

electric grid.

• Nevada Department of Wildlife wants continued participation in the EIS process, providing input 

on wildlife and habitat issues.

Opinion

• Lincoln County Planning Department supports the proposed corridor alternative.

• Strong opposition to the proposed corridor crossing the Mountain Meadows Massacre site.

(Map ID: B-42; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Supports the direct current transmission system because it has less energy loss, fewer 

substations, and a smaller footprint.

• Lincoln County Commissioners prefer the alternative corridor through their county, versus the 

proposed corridor. (Map ID: B-43; Map Coordinates: D-4)

Permitting

Nevada

• Any power line crossings of Nevada Department of Transportation ROWs will requirement an 

encroachment permit through District I and/or District III.

• No surface or groundwater can be used without having a permit issued or a waiver granted by 

the Nevada Department of Water Resources; artesian water must be controlled as required by 

Nevada code.

• Water wells, monitoring wells, or bore holes are the responsibility of the drilling entity and must 

be plugged and abandoned according to Nevada Administrative Code.

• Lincoln County, Nevada will require a Special Use Permit for project construction within the 

county and request discussion about the Construction, Operation, and Management Plan.
AECOM Environment A-23

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Utah

• Work camps must be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit.

• TWE must coordinate with Iron County Building Inspection Office about any permits.

Proposed Action

• Landowners oppose the proposed corridor through Central, Utah. (Map ID: B-44; Map 

Coordinates: F-5)

Public Health and Safety

Nevada

• Concerned about transmission line tower placement and safety for aviation operations.

Utah

• Residents of Central, Utah are concerned about their personal property and public safety related 

to a new transmission line and potential earthquakes, fire, and terrorists. (Map ID: B-45; Map 

Coordinates: F-5)

• Homes in the area are vulnerable to fire and the new transmission line poses a concern.

• Public safety concerns regarding co-location with existing gas lines in Central, Utah. (Map ID: 

B-46; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Landowner concerns about the dangers of having a transmission line over their house.

• Concerns about fugitive dust and its effects on public health.

Public Involvement

• Requests that all residents of Central, Utah (zip code 84772) be added to the project mailing list.

• Requests a public meeting at Garrison or EskDale, Utah, or Baker, Nevada, if the western 

alternative corridor in the Delta-Milford, Utah, area is carried forward in the EIS.

• Unclear information regarding the public scoping meeting in Central, Utah.

• The City of Enterprise, Utah, represents a number of interests and would like to be involved in all 

steps of the TWE planning process.

• The Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, Inc. is interested in participating in the 

Section 106 process.

• If the far western Nevada corridor alternative is selected, TWE and SNWA will need to 

coordinate on ROW.

Purpose and Need

• There is not a demonstrated need for this project and all of the corridor alternatives in Nevada 

are problematic.

• Support for the TWE Project and the resulting benefits to the western power grid and economy.

Recreation

• Project is too close to Logandale and could affect a large part of the off-road recreation area 

(Nevada). (Map ID: B-47; Map Coordinates: D-7)

• Concerns about the western alternative in Utah and the potential impacts to the non-motorized 

American Discovery Trail near Crystal Peak (Utah). (Map ID: B-48; Map Coordinates: F-2)
AECOM Environment A-24

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Concerns about project impacts to the Valley of Fire and Logandale Trails recreation area 

(Nevada). (Map ID: B-49; Map Coordinates: D-7)

Socioeconomics

• The proposed project will accelerate the already declining property devaluation (Utah).

• The proposed project offers no economic benefit to Enterprise or Washington County, Utah.

(Map ID: B-50; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• An increase in tax revenues will be important for Beaver County, Utah.

• Opposed to tax abatements for this project (Nevada).

Soils

• Concerned that the proposed project could degrade soil resources during construction of access 

roads.

Special Designated Lands

Nevada

• Concerned about corridor alternatives and their effect on the Mormon Mesa ACEC. (Map ID: 

B-51; Map Coordinates: E-6)

• The proposed corridor crossing the Sunrise Mountain Instant WSA and the Rainbow Gardens 

ACEC will be a barrier to approvals and construction.

• The western-most corridor alternative could impact the National Wildlife Refuge. (Map ID: B-52; 

Map Coordinates: D-6)

• Concern about the northern corridor alternative in western Utah into Nevada because of 

potential visual impacts to the Great Basin National Park. (Map ID: B-53; Map 

Coordinates: E-2)

• Corridor alternatives should avoid the Tule Springs area northwest of Las Vegas.

• Concern about corridor alternative impacts to the Bowman Reservoir, the Valley of Fire State 

Park, and several Red Rock areas.

Utah

• The proposed corridor through Utah clips U.S. Forest Service roadless areas and Citizen 

Proposed Wilderness Areas.

• The proposed corridor crosses the Mountain Meadows Massacre Valley, which has been 

granted National Historic Landmark status and is on the National List of Historic Places. (Map 

ID: B-54; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Concern about the northern corridor alternative in western Utah because of potential impacts to 

the Wah Wah WSA. (Map ID: B-55; Map Coordinates: F-2)

Special Status Species

Nevada

• All of the corridor alternatives impact habitats of BLM sensitive species.

• Concerned about impacts to sage-grouse habitat on the corridor alternative south of the Great 

Basin National Park. (Map ID: B-56; Map Coordinates: E-2)
AECOM Environment A-25

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• The north-south alternative corridor parallel to the Utah border will have potential impacts to rare 

wildlife and plant species. (Map ID: B-57; Map Coordinates: E-5)

• The alternative corridors in Nevada will impact the desert tortoise and its habitat.

Utah

• Concerned about impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat in Washington County. (Map ID: 

B-58; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Concerned about project impacts to the Columbia spotted frog, which is a Conservation Species 

and state sensitive species in Utah.

• The USFWS expressed concern about three new candidate plant species, Frisco clover 

(Trfolium friscanum), Ostler’s peppergrass (Lepidium ostleri) and Frisco buckwheat (Eriogonum

soredium) that could potentially be affected by the proposed project in southwestern Utah.

System Alternatives

• Would not support changes from DC to AC, or changes to the energy source.

Transportation and Access

• Concern about the westernmost corridor alternative because of poor and frequently impassable 

roads (Nevada).

• Concerns about increase in construction traffic and additional access roads.

• Commenter notes that the project would not be able to use Frontier Road (Central, Utah area), 

because of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s concern about fugitive dust. (Map ID: B-59; 

Map Coordinates: B-6)

• Concerns about additional traffic and public access on maintenance roads in the Central, Utah,

area. (Map ID: B-60; Map Coordinates: F-5)

Vegetation (also see Special Status Species)

• Concerns about project impacts to water resources and riparian vegetation (Utah).

• Landowner expressed concern about tree removal along the proposed corridor (Utah).

Visual Resources

Nevada

• The northern corridor alternative in Nevada will impact visual landscapes of the Great Basin 

National Park. (Map ID: B-61; Map Coordinates: E-2)

• Concerned about visual impacts to visitors of the Valley of Fire State Park and the Logandale 

Trails. (Map ID: B-62; Map Coordinates: D-7)

• Concerned about light pollution effects to “dark skies” resulting from project construction.

• Concerns about visual impacts to the Red Cliffs area. (Map ID: B-63; Map Coordinates: F-6)

Utah

• Concerned about the proposed project leaving an “ugly scar” on the landscape.

• The proposed alternative will degrade the viewshed of Mountain Meadow Massacre Valley.

(Map ID: B-64; Map Coordinates: F-5)
AECOM Environment A-26

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Landowners in Central, Utah, are concerned about the visual impacts associated with the 

proposed project. (Map ID: B-65; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• The proposed project should not be located within Pine Valley; concerned about degrading the 

town’s beauty and landscape.

Water Resources

• Residents of Central, Utah, are concerned about impacts to water sources (springs, natural 

springs, runoff, and tributaries). (Map ID: B-66; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Concern about erecting transmission line structures and foundation over the Kane Springs 

Aquifer, which is the sole water source for Central, Utah. Suggests proposed corridor be sited to 

the west of Central. (Map ID: B-67; Map Coordinates: F-5)

Wildlife (also see Special Status Species)

• Overall, the proposed project could harm sensitive wildlife habitat.

• Concerned about project corridor impacts to mule deer, elk, and pronghorn populations in winter 

habitat (Utah).

• Residents in Central, Utah, are concerned about long-term impacts to wildlife and habitat 

fragmentation and species displacement. (Map ID: B-68; Map Coordinates: F-5)

• Commenter sees no impacts resulting from transmission line construction to coyotes and rabbits 

in the Milford, Utah, area. (Map ID: B-69; Map Coordinates: G-3)

• Potential project impacts to migratory birds should be mitigated as recommended by the 

USFWS.
!.

!

!

!

!

! !

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

! !.

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Ne llis Air

For c e Ran ge

De s ert

Na tio na l

Wil dlif e

Ra n ge

Nellis AFB

Moa pa Ri v er

In d i an

Res e rva tio n

Humbo ltToiyabe

Nationa l For est

Gr a nd Ca ny on Natio na l P ark

Dixi e

Nationa l For est

Zion

Na tio na l

Park

Dixi e

Nationa l

For est

Gl e n Can yo n

Na tio na l

Re c r ea tio n Ar e a

Ca p itol

Re e f

Na tio na l

Park

Fishl a ke

Nationa l

For est

Fishl a ke

Nationa l

For est

Ma nti-La sal

Nationa l

For est

Humbo ltToiyabe

Nationa l

For est

Gr e at Basin

Na tio na l Pa rk

Ced ar

Br ea ks N.M .

Humbo ltToiyabe

Nationa l

For est

Pa i ut e

In d i an Res.

B-1

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-13

B-12

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-23

B-24

B-25

B-26

B-27

B-28

B-30

B-33

B-35

B-36

B-37

B-40

B-43

B-48

B-49

B-50

B-51

B-52

B-53

B-55

B-56

B-57

B-59

B-61

B-62

B-62

B-64

B-69

B-38

B-39

B-41

B-58

B-63

B-34

B-68

B-67

B-66

B-65

B-60

B-54

B-49

B-47

B-46

B-45

B-44

B-42

B-32

B-29 B-31

B-22 B-21

B-20

B-20

B-11

B-2

Eureka Steptoe

McGill Gandy

Ruth

Lane

Ely

Fountain

Green

Leamington

Fairview

Lynndyl

Clear

Creek Levan

Sugarville

Mount

Pleasant Mills

Abraham

Moroni

Wales Spring

City

Delta

Oak City

Hinckley

Oasis Deseret

Ephraim

Preston

Scipio

Lund

Manti

Clear

Lake

Fayette

Garrison

Sterling

Gunnison

Holden Centerfield

Mayfield

Axtell

Clawson

Flowell Fillmore

Ferron

Redmond

Salina

Meadow

Aurora

Hatton

Moore

Kanosh

Emery

Sigurd

Black

Rock

Sunnyside

Richfield

Warm

Springs

Glenwood

Annabella

Elsinore

Cove

Fort JosephMonroe

Sulphurdale Sevier Burrville

Milford

Koosharem

Marysvale

Manderfield

Greenwich

Fremont

Loa

Adamsville Beaver

Lyman

Greenville

Minersville

Bicknell

Junction

Ursine

Latimer

Angle

Pioche

Torrey

Caselton

Kingston

Teasdale

Prince

Circleville

Fruita

Lund

Grover

Tempiute

Zane

Antimony

Beryl

Panaca

Spry

Modena

Hiko

Paragonah

Uvada

Parowan

Caliente Crestline

Summit

Iron Enoch Springs

Panguitch

Newcastle

Boulder

Town

Islen Acoma

Cedar

City

Brian

Head

Enterprise

Alamo

Hamiltons

Fort

Escalante

Hatch

Rubys

Inn

Kanarraville

Elgin

Bryce

Canyon

New

Harmony

Tropic

Central

Pine Valley

Cannonville

Henrieville

Veyo

Gunlock

Pintura

Alton

Carp

Toquerville Leeds

Shivwits

Glendale

Ivins

La Verkin

Virgin

Orderville

Santa

Clara

Hurricane

Mount

Carmel

Washington

Springdale

Saint

George

Rockville

Amargosa

Valley

Rox

Mercury

Littlefield

Hildale

Kanab

Colorado

City

Indian

Springs

Mesquite

Cane

Beds

Big

Water

Bunkerville

Moapa

Fredonia

Moccasin

Glendale

Kaibab

Logandale

Moapa

Overton Valley

Page

Dry Lake

Marble

Canyon

Jacob

Lake

Mount

Trumbull

Kaibito

N E V

A D A

U T A H A R I Z O N A

N E V

A D A

A R I Z O N A

U T A H

C A L I F O R N I AN E V A D A

70

15

K A N E

W H I T E

P I N E

L A N D E R

M O H A V E

S A N P E T E

W A Y N E

M I L L A R D

S E V I E R

B E A V E R

P I U T E

E M E R Y

I R O N

N Y E

L I N C O L N

S A N

J U A N

C O C O N I N O

E U R E K A

C L A R K

I N Y O

G A R F I E L D

W A S H I N G T O N

J U A B

95

6

93

50

89

50

89

6

6

93

Intermountain

Power Project

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

I

I

J

J

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

DELTA TO LAS VEGAS

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

Scoping Comment Summary

[

TRANSWEST EXPRESS

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Date Last Revised : May 29, 2011

Pre-Scoping Draft

The alternative segments shown on this map are preliminary and may

be revised and/or refined throughout the development of the project.

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles

Transportation

Interstate highway

US Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

") Scoping Meeting Location

State Boundary

County Boundary

Transportation Features: TeleAtlas, 2008

Administrative and Hydrologic Features: National Atlas, 2002

Jurisdiction Features: Arizona Land and Resource Information System, 2007; California

Department of Forestry FRRAP, 2009; Bureau of Land Management, 2005 and 2007;

National Ecology Research Center, 2007; State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands

Administration (SITLA), 2009

Applicant Proposed Segments: TransWest Express LLC

Alternative Proposed Segments: Joint Lead Agencies

Note:

Some corridors were proposed by BLM during pre-scoping.

Map coordinate system is UTM NAD83 meters Zone 12

Data Sources

X:\0Projects\12907_003_Transwest_Express\Figures\NotSpecified_Figures\Scoping\2010\20100921_PROJECTMAPS_SCOPING\END2END_CORRIDORS.mxd

Project Features

"J Intermountain Power Project

#* Scoping Comment

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Agency Alternative

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Jurisdiction

BIA/Tribal

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Defense

National Park Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

State Land
AECOM Environment A-28

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Region C – Las Vegas to Marketplace
AECOM Environment A-29

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Air Quality

• Proposed project will be subject to Clark County Air Quality Regulations and enforced by Clark 

County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management Program.

• Fugitive dust resulting from project construction is subject o Sections 90-94 (Air Quality 

Regulations). A Dust Control Permit will be required.

• The EIS should discuss and disclose any use of sulfur hexaflouride (SF6) and ensure that 

mitigation measures are in place to manage any impacts from SF6.

Aquatic Resources

• The proposed project must develop a Fish Protection Plan to ensure no harm is done to rare fish

as a result of project development.

Corridor Alternatives

• Corridor alternatives should avoid the Sunrise Wilderness Instant Study Area because routing a 

transmission line through an area with this designation will require an Act of Congress. (Map ID: 

C-1; Map Coordinates: G-3)

• Numerous landowner opposition comments to the corridor alternative crossing Lake Las Vegas, 

Calico Ridge Subdivision, and east of Henderson, Nevada. (Map ID: C-2; Map Coordinates: 

G-4)

• Strong recommendation from landowners in Henderson, Nevada, to route the line east of the 

existing line in the River Mountains Range. (Map ID: C-3; Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Corridor alternatives should follow existing transmission line corridors.

• Supports the proposed corridor that follows the existing transmission lines through the Hoover 

Dam area. (Map ID: C-4; Map Coordinates: H-5)

• Opposes the corridor alternative on the west that crosses the Red Rocks Natural Area 

Conservation (NCA). (Map ID: C-5; Map Coordinates: C-3)

• The BLM Las Vegas FO requests that the Southern Nevada District Office RMP utility corridor 

west of I-15 be considered as an alternative corridor for the EIS. (Map ID: C-6; 

Map Coordinates: G-1)

• Concerns about the proposed corridor that parallels existing transmission lines on the east side 

because of potential impacts to the Clark County Wetlands Park. (Map ID: C-7; 

Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The National Park Service opposes any corridor alternative that crosses the Lake Mead 

Recreation Area. (Map ID: C-8; Map Coordinates: G-3)

• Concerns about the east-west corridor alternative that could potentially impact the sensitive 

species and the Nellis Air Force Base Small Arms Range. (Map ID: C-9; Map 

Coordinates: F-2)

• Concerns about impacts to military operations in the Low Altitude Tactical Navigation airspace, 

Nellis Air Force Base, and the Nevada Test and Training Range. (Map ID: C-10; Map 

Coordinates: F-2)

• The proposed corridor intersects the industrial area of Apex, Park Highlands Master Planned 

Community, the planned University of Nevada Las Vegas campus, the Upper Las Vegas Wash 

Conservation Transfer Area, and an area that is under consideration for National Park Unit 

designation. The EIS needs to address potential impacts to these land uses. (Map ID: C-11; 

Map Coordinates: E-2, G-2, D-1)
AECOM Environment A-30

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Cultural Resources

• Concerns about project development affecting Tule Springs, which has the potential of 

becoming a National Monument. (Map ID: C-12; Map Coordinates: D-1)

• An additional corridor through the Lake Mead Recreation Area is contrary to the legislation that 

the park operates under and contrary to natural and cultural resources the park is protecting.

(Map ID: C-13; Map Coordinates: G-3)

Cumulative Impacts

• Commenter is concerned about the cumulative visual impacts, especially to dark sky attributes.

• The proposed project will need to be compatible with the SNWA proposals in the area.

• Portions of the proposed and alternative corridors overlap with the Eastern Nevada 

Transmission Project; TWE needs to coordinate with this project. (Map ID: C-14; 

Map Coordinates: G-2)

• All cumulative impacts on existing, planned, and foreseeable developments should be evaluated

in the EIS.

• Concerned about the cumulative effects of multiple transmission lines, dust from construction 

causing visual distractions, the use of helicopters during line construction, and degradation to 

aircraft radar and flight control instruments. Structures should be lighted, marked, and charted 

on Federal Aviation Administration flight sections, maps, and other appropriate navigation 

references.

Engineering and Design

• Concern about arcing or sparking from the transmission lines that could cause a fire.

• Concern about lines breaking and falling on homes.

• Questions about the effects of stray voltage to satellite dishes, cell phones, landlines, and TV 

reception.

• Requests that transmission lines be buried or that a route is selected closer to the existing 

transmission lines along the hilltops.

• Question about the review process for issue of restricted width of the Henderson Corridor.

• Tubular structures should be used to prevent raptor and corvid perching because they prey on 

some special status species.

• Commenter questions the ability to maintain a 1,500-foot separation from other high voltage 

lines, yet still remain within the corridor.

• Transmission infrastructure near the Nevada Test and Training Range may impact military 

operations, but could be mitigated by using steel pole structures. (Map ID: C-15; 

Map Coordinates: F-2)

Geology

• Concerns about potential impacts to significant geological resources in Tule Springs.

(Map ID: C-16; Map Coordinates: D-1)

Lands and Realty

• Corridor alternatives should not be placed on the west side of the Las Vegas Valley because of 

potential future development near Kyle Canyon Road and Highway 95. (Map ID: C-17; 

Map Coordinates: D-1)
AECOM Environment A-31

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Project development should occur on BLM land on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley 

because of transmission line congestion on the west side of valley. (Map ID: C-18; 

Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The proposed TWE Project will decrease property values.

• The proposed project is incompatible with rural zoning and incompatible with wildlife, canyons, 

and trails.

− Industrial area of Apex

− Park Highlands Master Planned Community

− Planned University of Nevada Las Vegas campus

− Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area

− An area that is under consideration for National Park designation

• The EIS needs to address impacts to these future land uses.

• The corridor alternative on the west side of the Las Vegas Valley would impact Lone Mountain, 

Summerlin South, and the South County Planning Areas. (Map ID: C-19; Map 

Coordinates: C-3)

• Alternative corridors could impact multiple operations associated with the Nellis Air Force Base 

including Low Altitude Tactical Navigation airspace and emergency aircraft evacuation/ejection 

areas. (Map ID: C-20; Map Coordinates: F-2)

• Transmission infrastructure near the Nevada Test and Training Range may impact military 

operations.

• Concerns about impacts to a new equestrian park, a dog park, and hiking and biking trails within 

corridor alternatives on the west side of the valley. (Map ID: C-21; Map Coordinates: G-4)

• Residents in eastern Henderson are concerned about the impacts (e.g., property values, health 

and safety) associated with an additional line in their area. (Map ID: C-22; Map 

Coordinates: G-4)

Livestock Grazing

• All corridor alternatives within the Las Vegas Valley could potentially impact ranches.

Mitigation/Reclamation (also see Air Quality, Special Status Species, and Wildlife)

• The proposed project must use consistent lighting mitigation including mitigation measures such 

as screening and landscape paint colors.

NEPA Process

• The proposed corridor crossing the Sunrise Wilderness Instant Study Area would require an Act 

of Congress; therefore, it is recommended the proposed corridor be routed around this area.

(Map ID: C-23; Map Coordinates: G-3)

• Because of the alternative corridor’s proximity to the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National 

Monument, impacts to this area should be evaluated in the EIS. (Map ID: C-24; 

Map Coordinates: D-1)

• The proposed project will require a comprehensive monitoring and cultural resources discovery 

plan; the plan needs to be available for public review and attached to project NEPA documents.
AECOM Environment A-32

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Noise

• Concerned about the “humming” noise from the transmission line and impacts to riders who use 

the equestrian trail.

Opinion

• Numerous landowners oppose the proposed corridor near Henderson, Nevada, including the 

River Mountain area. (Map ID: C-25; Map Coordinates: G-4)

• The proposed project will impact North Las Vegas. (Map ID: C-26; Map Coordinates: E-2)

• It is not acceptable to build a transmission line project so close to homes when there are other 

alternatives.

• Opposed to any corridor alternative that crosses through the Lake Las Vegas/Calico Ridge area.

(Map ID: C-27; Map Coordinates: G-4)

• Supports the project and would like to see the project permitted as soon as possible.

Paleontological Resources

• Concern about impacts to fossil resources in the upper Las Vegas Wash.

• Project development could impact fossils in the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument.

(Map ID: C-28; Map Coordinates: D-1)

Permitting

• No use of surface water or groundwater will occur until a permit is issued or a waiver is granted 

by the Nevada Department of Water Resources.

• Any crossings of the Nevada Department of Transportation will require an encroachment permit 

through District I and/or District III.

• Water wells, monitoring wells, or bore holes must be plugged and abandoned according to 

Nevada Administrative Code.

• Project will be subject to Clark County Air Quality Regulations and enforced by Clark County 

Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management Air Program.

• A Dust Control Permit will be required for construction activities.

Public Health and Safety

• Landowner concerns about the potential for sabotage.

• Arcing and sparking from the transmission lines could cause fire risk.

• Concern about electromagnetic fields and their effects on human health.

• Additional transmission line towers in the area will result in health and safety concerns when 

conducting low-level aerial operations.

• Falling towers and snapped lines could impact homes and residents using horse and bike trails.

• Dust, wind, and rain could cause sparking and arcing with the potential to deliver shock or 

serious injury.

• Risk of danger for those who trespass.

Public Involvement

• Future notices about the proposed project should be provided to the entire River Mountain 

neighborhood and the River Mountains Trail Partnership Advisory Council.
AECOM Environment A-33

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

• Many residents were not notified about the public meetings.

• Some scoping meeting attendees were given conflicting information.

• Scoping attendees commented that they benefited from the scoping meeting held in Henderson, 

Nevada.

Recreation

• The proposed corridor crosses the River Mountains Trail Loop and will impact users of the trail 

(Nevada). (Map ID: C-29; Map Coordinates: G-5)

Socioeconomics

• Numerous landowner concerns about devalued property in the Henderson and Kyle Canyon 

area. (Map ID: C-30; Map Coordinates: G-4, D-1)

Special Designation Areas

• Concerns about impacts to special designation areas in the Las Vegas Valley include:

(Map ID: C-31; Map Coordinates: G-5, G-3, F-2, D-1, E-1)

− Sunrise Instant Study Area

− River Mountain Loop Trails

− Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument

− Desert Wildlife Refuge (north and northwest of Las Vegas)

− Lake Mead National Recreation Area

− Nellis Air Force Base

− Red Rock NCA

• The National Park Service will not authorize any project corridor through the Lake Mead 

Recreation Area; the project does not conform to the General Management Plan for the Lake 

Mead Recreation Area (Nevada). (Map ID: C-32; Map Coordinates: G-3)

Special Status Species

• Concern about impacts to special status wildlife species and unique and rare vegetation in the 

potential National Monument at Tule Springs. (Map ID: C-33; Map Coordinates: D-1)

• Concerned about impacts to important rare wildlife and plant habitat on the east-west alternative 

corridor north of Las Vegas. (Map ID: C-34; Map Coordinates: E-2)

• Potential impacts to rare vegetation and wildlife in the corridor alternative that crosses the Lake 

Mead Recreation Area. (Map ID: C-35; Map Coordinates: G-3)

• Concerns about project corridor impacts to the Las Vegas buckwheat, sticky wild buckwheat, 

sticky ringstem, Las Vegas bearpoppy, and the three-cornered milkvetch.

• Concerns about impacts to the desert tortoise and tortoise habitat; transmission lines should be 

placed as close as possible to existing lines and designed to discourage perching.

Transportation and Access

• Project corridor alternatives should consider and maintain access for SNWA groundwater 

monitoring.

Vegetation (also see Special Status Species)

• The proposed project should parallel existing transmission lines and not harm virgin habitat.
AECOM Environment A-34

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Visual Resources

• The proposed project will impact views of the River Mountains Range. (Map ID: C-36; 

Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Concerned about visual impacts in the corridor alternative that crosses the Red Rocks NCA.

(Map ID: C-37; Map Coordinates: C-3)

• Multiple landowner concerns about transmission line construction and the resulting impacts to 

visual resources.

Water Resources

• Concerns about the potential impacts to the National Monument at Tule Springs as the springs 

are important to the southern Nevada watershed. (Map ID: C-38; Map Coordinates: D-1)

Wildlife (also see Special Status Species)

• Concerns about bird mortality caused by power line collisions.

• The proposed corridor that crosses the River Mountains Range could impact desert bighorn 

sheep habitat and breeding areas. (Map ID: C-39; Map Coordinates: G-5)

• Pre-construction surveys should be required for rare invertebrates.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Lake Mead

Lake

Las Vegas

Las Vegas Wash

Fl oy d La m b

St at e Pa rk

Las Vegas Piute

Indian Res erva tion

Nellis A FB

Nellis Air

Force Base

L a k e M e a d

N a t i o n a l

R e c r e a t i o n A r e a

Valley of Fire

State Park

H u m b o l t -

To i y a b e

N a t i o n a l F o r e s t

Boulder City

Conservation

Easement

Boulder City

Conservation

Easement

Clark County

Wetlands Park C-2

C-3 C-4

C-5

C-6

C-9

C-9

C-13

C-14

C-17

C-18

C-19

C-20

C-21

C-23

C-25

C-26

C-27

C-28

C-29

C-30

C-30

C-34

C-35

C-36

C-37

C-39

C-7

C-11

C-11

C-11

C-22

C-31

C-31

C-31

C-31

C-31

C-31

C-31

C-32

C-31

C-11

C-38 C-33

C-24

C-16

C-15

C-12

C-10

C-1

North Las Sunrise Mountain ISA

Vegas

Las

Vegas

Sunrise

Manor

Winchester

Spring

Valley

Paradise

Blue

Diamond

East Las

Vegas

Enterprise

Arden

Henderson

Sloan

Boulder

City

Goodsprings

Jean

Nelson

93

95

93

95

M O H A V E

S A N

B E R N A R D I N O

C L A R K

I N Y O

215

15

Red Rock

CanyonNational

Conservation Area

Sloan CanyonNational

Conservation Area

Mt.

Charleston

Wilderness

Muddy

Mountain

Wilderness Jimbilnan

Wilderness

LaMadre

Mountain

Wilderness

Pinto

Valley

Wilderness

Rainbow

Mountain

Wilderness

North McCullough

Wilderness

LaMadre

Mountain

Wilderness

El Dorado

Wilderness

South McCullough

Wilderness

Black

Mountain

Wilderness

A R I Z O N A

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I AN E V A D A

A

A

B

B

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

I

I

J

J

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

LAS VEGAS

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

Scoping Comment Summary

[

TRANSWEST EXPRESS 

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Date Last Revised : May 29, 2011

Pre-Scoping Draft

The alternative segments shown on this map are preliminary and may

be revised and/or refined throughout the development of the project.

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

Transportation

Interstate highway

US Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Transportation Features: TeleAtlas, 2008

Administrative and Hydrologic Features: National Atlas, 2002

Jurisdiction Features: Arizona Land and Resource Information System, 2007; California

Department of Forestry FRRAP, 2009; Bureau of Land Management, 2005 and 2007;

National Ecology Research Center, 2007; State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands

Administration (SITLA), 2009

Applicant Proposed Segments: TransWest Express LLC

Alternative Proposed Segments: Joint Lead Agencies

Note:

Some corridors were proposed by BLM during pre-scoping.

Map coordinate system is UTM NAD83 meters Zone 12

Data Sources

X:\0Projects\12907_003_Transwest_Express\Figures\NotSpecified_Figures\Scoping\2010\20100921_PROJECTMAPS_SCOPING\END2END_CORRIDORS.mxd

Project Features

#* Scoping Comment

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Agency Alternative

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Jurisdiction

BIA/Tribal

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Defense

National Park Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

State Land

Local

Special Management Areas

Wilderness Area

Instant Study Area

National Conservation Area
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Appendix B

Notification
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Notices 379 

quarter of the Northeast quarter of said 

Section 8; thence South 191.0 feet; 

thence East 228.0 feet; thence North 

191.0 feet; thence West 228.0 feet to the 

Point of Beginning. 

Except that portion of said premises, 

described as follows: 

Beginning at a point 390.0 feet East of 

the Northwest corner of said Northeast 

quarter of the Northeast quarter of said 

Section 8; thence East 206.00 feet; 

thence South 206.0 feet: thence West 

206.0 feet; thence North 206.0 feet to the 

Point of Beginning. 

Except that portion of said premises 

lying within Pekin Ferry County Road, 

and 

Except that portion of said premises 

lying within County Road No. 25; 

Except that portion conveyed to the 

State of Washington by deed recorded 

under Auditor’s File Nos. G 143551 and 

G 499101. 

Except that portion conveyed to the 

State of Washington for Interstate 5. 

Except that portion conveyed to James 

Fisher and wife, by instrument recorded 

under Auditor’s File No. G 699690, 

described as follows: 

Beginning at the Southeast corner of 

the Northeast quarter of the Northeast 

quarter of Section 8, Township 4 North, 

Range 1 East of the Willamette 

Meridian, Clark County, Washington; 

thence North 200 feet; thence West 435 

feet; thence South 200 feet to a point on 

the South line of the Northeast quarter 

of the Northeast quarter of said Section; 

thence East 435 feet to the Point of 

Beginning. 

Parcel IX 

That portion of the Northeast quarter 

of the Northeast quarter of Section 8, 

Township 4 North, Range 1 East of the 

Willamette Meridian, Clark County, 

Washington; described as follows: 

Beginning at a point 612 feet East of 

the Northwest corner of the Northeast 

quarter of the Northeast quarter of 

Section 8, Township 4 North, Range 1 

East of the Willamette Meridian, Clark 

County, Washington; thence South 191 

feet; thence East 228 feet; thence North 

191 feet; thence West 228 feet to the 

Point of Beginning. 

Except County Roads. 

Also except that portion thereof 

conveyed to the State of Washington by 

deed recorded under Auditor’s File Nos. 

G 500929 and G 143551. 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Larry Echo Hawk, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33145 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Western Area Power Administration 

[LLWY920000.51010000.ER0000– 

LVRWK09K1160; WYW177893; COC72929; 

UTU87238; NVN86732] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the TransWest Express 600 kV Direct 

Current Transmission Project in 

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada 

(DOE/EIS–0450), and Notice of 

Potential for Land Use Plan 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior; Western Area Power 

Administration, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Wyoming State 

Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, intends to 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) analyzing the impacts of 

a right-of-way (ROW) application for the 

TransWest Express 600-kilovolt (kV) 

Direct Current Transmission Project 

(Project) and potential land use plan 

amendments. The Western Area Power 

Administration (Western) is a joint lead 

agency with the BLM for the EIS 

preparation. Western is a powermarketing agency within the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and is 

proposing to jointly own the Project 

with TransWest Express, LLC. 

TransWest Express, LLC is a whollyowned subsidiary of the Anschutz 

Corporation. The EIS will be prepared 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA). 

DATES: This notice initiates a 90-day 

public scoping period that will assist in 

the preparation of a Draft EIS. The 

scoping period will end on April 4, 

2011, or 15 days after the date of the last 

public scoping meeting, whichever is 

later. 

To provide the public an opportunity 

to review the proposal and project 

information, the BLM and Western 

expect to hold 22 open-house meetings 

at various locations in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and Nevada during the 

public scoping period. The exact dates, 

times, and locations for these meetings 

will be announced at least 15 days prior 

to the event through local media, 

newspapers, newsletters, and posting on 

the BLM Web site at http:// 

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/ 

HighDesert/transwest.html. To be 

considered in the Draft EIS, comments 

must be received prior to the close of 

the scoping period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the Project by any of the 

following methods: 

Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, TransWest 

Express Transmission Project, P.O. Box 

20678, 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003, Attention: 

Sharon Knowlton. 

E-mail: TransWest_WYMail@blm.gov. 

Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/ 

en/info/NEPA/HighDesert/ 

transwest.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Knowlton, BLM Project 

Manager; telephone (307) 775–6124; email: TransWest_WYMail@blm.gov; 

mailing address: BLM, Wyoming State 

Office, P.O. Box 20678, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 82003. 

For information about Western’s 

involvement, contact Liana Reilly, 

Western NEPA Document Manager; 

telephone (720) 962–7253; e-mail: 

reilly@wapa.gov; address: Western Area 

Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228–8213. 

For general information on the DOE’s 

NEPA review procedures or on the 

status of a NEPA review, contact Carol 

M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy 

and Compliance, GC–54, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 

586–4600 or toll free at (800) 472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Federal law, the BLM, the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), and the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) are each 

responsible for responding to right-ofway (ROW) applications for lands 

within their respective jurisdictions. 

Some of the land that may be 

considered for this right-of-way is 

within the jurisdictions of the USFS and 

Reclamation. The USFS and 

Reclamation are cooperating agencies in 

the preparation of this EIS. This notice 

announces the beginning of a 90-day 

public scoping process for the EIS. 

TransWest Express, LLC has filed a 

ROW application with the BLM, the 

USFS, and Reclamation proposing to 

construct, operate, maintain, and 

decommission the Project. The Project 

consists of an overhead transmission 

line extending approximately 725 miles 

from south-central Wyoming crossing 

Colorado and Utah, with a potential 

interconnection at the Intermountain 

Power Project near Delta, Utah, and 

terminating at the Marketplace Hub in 

southern Nevada. This Project would 

include two AC/DC converter stations, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Notices 

about 200 acres in size at each 

terminating point, a fiber optic network 

communications system, and two 

ground electrode facilities, each about 

600 acres in size. When completed, this 

Project would transmit about 3,000 

megawatts of electricity per year 

generated primarily from renewable 

resources at planned facilities in 

Wyoming. 

The requested right-of-way width on 

Federal lands is 250 feet. The proposal 

would predominantly use steel lattice 

towers 100 to 180 feet in height with 

average spans between towers of 900 to 

1,500 feet. Temporary access roads up to 

24-feet wide would be required. 

Temporary workspace would be needed 

during construction for batch plant 

sites, structure work areas and materials 

storage, conductor tensioning sites, and 

vehicles and equipment. Proposed 

routes cross Federal, State and private 

lands and include portions of 

designated utility corridors on Federal 

land and parallel portions of existing 

overhead and underground utilities and 

roadways, as well as portions of 

undisturbed areas. 

Under Section 402 of the American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

(Recovery Act), 42 U.S.C. 16421a, Public 

Law 111–5, 123 Stat. 141, Div A, Title 

IV, 402 (2009) (adding Section 301 to 

the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, 

Pub. L. 98–381, Title III, 301), Western 

may borrow funds from the United 

States Treasury to construct, finance, 

facilitate, plan, operate, maintain, and/ 

or study construction of new or 

upgraded electric power transmission 

lines and related facilities with at least 

one terminus in Western’s marketing 

area, that deliver or facilitate the 

delivery of power from renewable 

resources constructed or reasonably 

expected to be constructed after the date 

of enactment of the Recovery Act. 

Western is proposing to participate as a 

joint owner in the Project and as part of 

that proposal, Western is evaluating 

obtaining the ROWs necessary for those 

portions of the Project on private and 

State lands. Western may also apply for 

ROW grants over part of the Federal 

land and if this occurs, TransWest 

Express would concurrently modify its 

application to describe the remaining 

portions of the Federal land. 

Actions that result in a change in the 

scope of resource uses, terms and 

conditions, and decisions of Federal 

agency land use plans may require 

amendment of those plans. Approval of 

this proposal may result in the 

amendment(s) of USFS Land 

Management Plans (LMPs) and BLM 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs). 

Because of the congestion in the Las 

Vegas, Nevada area an alternative may 

be considered that would require a 

National Park Service (NPS) 

Management Plan amendment to 

implement. As required by 43 CFR 

1610.2(c), the BLM notifies the public of 

potential amendments to RMPs and, 

pursuant to 36 CFR 219.9, the USFS 

notifies the public of potential 

amendments to LMPs. Any 

authorizations and actions proposed for 

approval in the EIS will be evaluated to 

determine if they conform to the 

decisions in the referenced land use 

plans. If amendments are needed, the 

BLM and the USFS would integrate the 

land-use planning process as described 

in 43 CFR part 1610 and 36 CFR 219.8, 

respectively, with this EIS process as 

they proceed with NEPA compliance for 

the proposed Project. If the BLM or the 

USFS determine that plan amendments 

are necessary, compliance with NEPA 

for any land use plan amendments 

would occur simultaneously with the 

consideration of the Project. 

The BLM plans that may be amended 

include the Colorado Canyons National 

Conservation Area RMP, the Rawlins 

RMP, the Rock Springs RMP, the 

Kemmerer RMP, the Grand Junction 

RMP, the Glenwood Springs RMP, the 

Little Snake RMP, the White River RMP, 

the Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antimony 

RMP, the House Range RMP, the Warm 

Springs RMP, the Kanab RMP, the Moab 

RMP, the Price RMP, the Richfield RMP, 

the St. George RMP, the Vernal RMP, 

Beaver Dam Wash Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern RMP, the Ely 

RMP, the Caliente RMP, and the Las 

Vegas RMP. The USFS Plans that may 

be amended include the Ashley 

National Forest Plan, the White River 

National Forest Revised Plan, the Dixie 

National Forest Plan, the Fishlake 

National Forest Plan, the Manti-La Sal 

National Forest Plan, the Uinta National 

Forest Plan, the Humboldt National 

Forest Plan, and the Toiyabe National 

Forest Plan. The NPS Plan that may be 

considered for amendment is the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area Lake 

Management Plan. Only the BLM may 

amend a BLM RMP; only the USFS may 

amend a Forest Plan; and only the NPS 

may amend a National Park Service 

Plan. The NPS is not a formal 

cooperator in this EIS so any plan 

amendment process it may undertake 

would be considered separately. 

A Programmatic EIS was prepared by 

the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Energy for energy 

corridors in 11 western States and 

completed in January 2009. The Records 

of Decision for this EIS designated 

energy transmission corridors and 

provided guidance, best management 

practices, and mitigation measures to be 

used for any power lines proposed to be 

constructed within the corridors. The 

Project proposes to use the corridors 

identified in the ROD to the maximum 

extent possible. No BLM plan 

amendments will be needed if the rightof-way remains within designated 

corridors. 

The BLM and Western are joint lead 

agencies for this EIS as defined at 40 

CFR 1501.5. Agencies with jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise have been 

invited to participate as cooperating 

agencies in preparation of the EIS. The 

following agencies have agreed to 

participate as cooperating agencies: The 

USFS, Intermountain Region; the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific 

Division; Reclamation, Lower Colorado 

Region; the U.S. Navy Region 

Southwest; the States of Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and Nevada; Garfield, 

Mesa, Moffat, and Rio-Blanco counties 

in Colorado; Beaver, Duchesne, Emery, 

Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Uintah, 

Wasatch, and Washington counties in 

Utah; Lincoln and Clark counties in 

Nevada and the Little Snake River 

Conservation District, Medicine Bow 

Conservation District, SaratogaEncampment-Rawlins Conservation 

District, and Sweetwater County 

Conservation District, Wyoming. The 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, the Moapa 

Band of Paiute, and the Las Vegas Paiute 

Tribe are also cooperating agencies. 

During the public scoping period, the 

BLM and Western will solicit public 

comments on behalf of all cooperating 

agencies regarding issues, concerns, and 

opportunities that should be considered 

in the analysis of the proposed action. 

Comments on issues and potential 

impacts, or suggestions for additional or 

different alternatives may be submitted 

to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES

section. Documents pertinent to the 

ROW application for the project may be 

examined at: 

• BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

82009. 

• BLM, Rawlins Field Office, 1300 N. 

Third Street, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301. 

• BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, 

280 Highway. 191 N., Rock Springs, 

Wyoming 82901. 

• BLM, Little Snake Field Office, 455 

Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625. 

• BLM, White River Field Office, 220 

East Market Street, Meeker, Colorado 

81641. 

• BLM, Grand Junction Field Office, 

2815 H Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 

81506. 

• BLM, Cedar City Field Office, 176 

D.L. Sargent Drive, Cedar City, Utah 

84721. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Notices 381 

• BLM, Fillmore Field Office, 35 East, 

500 North, Fillmore, Utah 84631. 

• BLM, Kanab Field Office, 318 

North, 100 East, Kanab, Utah 84741. 

• BLM, Moab Field Office, 82 E. 

Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532. 

• BLM, Price Field Office, 125 South, 

600 West, Price, Utah 84501. 

• BLM, Richfield Field Office, 150 

East, 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701. 

• BLM, St. George Field Office, 345 

East Riverside Drive, Saint. George, 

Utah 84790. 

• BLM, Salt Lake Field Office, 2370 

South, 2300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 

84119. 

• BLM, Vernal Field Office, 170 

South, 500 East, Vernal, Utah 84078. 

• BLM, Egan Field Office, 702 North 

Industrial Way, HC33, Ely, Nevada 

89301. 

• BLM, Caliente Field Office, U.S. 

Highway. 93, Building. #1, Caliente, 

Nevada 89008. 

• BLM, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 

N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, 

Nevada 89130. 

• USFS (Lead Forest Office), Dixie 

National Forest Office, 1789 North 

Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 

84721. 

Your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

The public scoping will help 

determine relevant issues that can 

influence the scope of the 

environmental analysis, alternatives, 

and the process for developing the EIS. 

The BLM and the USFS, other agencies, 

cooperators, and individuals have 

preliminarily identified the following 

issues that will be addressed in the EIS: 

Socioeconomic impacts; public health 

and safety; plant and animal species 

(including special and sensitive status 

species, desert tortoise and sage-grouse); 

cultural resources and historic sites; 

visual intrusions; lands with wilderness 

characteristics; national scenic and 

historic trails; wild and scenic rivers; 

and inventoried roadless areas on 

National Forests. 

Public meetings will also be held 

during the scoping period. The BLM 

staff, Western staff, and Project 

proponents will be available at the 

public meetings to explain Project 

details and gather information from 

interested individuals or groups. The 

USFS and other cooperating agencies 

are expected to participate in the public 

meetings. The BLM, Western, and 

cooperating agencies will also provide 

additional opportunities for public 

participation upon publication of the 

Draft EIS. 

Because the proposed Project may 

involve activities and construction in 

floodplains or wetlands, this NOI also 

serves as a notice of proposed 

floodplain or wetland action, in 

accordance with DOE regulations for 

Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetlands Environmental Review 

Requirements, 10 CFR 1022.12(a). The 

EIS will include a floodplain/wetland 

assessment and, if required, a floodplain 

statement of findings will be issued 

with the Final EIS or in the RODs issued 

by Western, the BLM, and the USFS, if 

any. 

The BLM and Western will use and 

coordinate the NEPA commenting 

process to satisfy the public 

involvement process for Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

16 U.S.C. 470f, as provided for in 36 

CFR 800.2(d)(3). Consultation with 

Native American Tribes will be 

conducted in accordance with 

applicable policies, and Tribal concerns, 

including impacts on Indian trust assets, 

will be given due consideration. 

Federal, State, and local agencies, along 

with other stakeholders that may be 

interested or affected by the BLM, 

USFS, or Western’s decisions on the 

project are invited to participate in the 

scoping process and, if eligible, may 

request or be requested by the BLM and 

Western to participate as a cooperating 

agency. 

Timothy J. Meeks, 

Administrator, Western Area Power 

Administration. 

Donald A. Simpson, 

Wyoming State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33180 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[CACA 49698, CACA 51204, LLCAD07000, 

L51010000.FX0000, LVRWB10B3810, 

LVRWB10B3800] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Draft 

Environmental Impact Report for the 

Iberdrola Renewable/Pacific Wind 

Development Tule Wind Project and 

San Diego Gas and Electric’s East 

County Substation Project, San Diego 

County, CA 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC) have prepared a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), and Draft Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR) as a joint environmental 

analysis document for the Iberdrola 

Renewable/Pacific Wind Development 

Tule Wind Project (Tule Project) and the 

San Diego Gas and Electric’s (SDG&E) 

East County Substation Project (ECO 

Project) and by this notice are 

announcing the opening of the comment 

period on the Draft EIS/EIR. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

will be considered, the BLM must 

receive written comments on the Draft 

EIS/EIR by close of business on 

February 16, 2011. The comment period 

began on December 23, 2010, with 

publication of the Notice of Availability 

in the Federal Register by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Recognizing that the public review 

period began during the holidays, the 

BLM has decided to extend the 45-day 

comment period cited in the EPA notice 

until close of business on February 16, 

2011 (55 days total). The BLM and 

CPUC will hold two joint public 

informational workshop meetings on the 

projects; the first in Jacumba, at 7 p.m., 

on January 26, 2011, at the Jacumba 

Highland Center on 44681 Old Highway 

80, Jacumba, California 91934, and the 

second in Boulevard, at 7 p.m., on 

February 2, 2011, at the Boulevard 

Volunteer Fire Department at 39223 

Highway 94, Boulevard, California 

91905. The public will be notified in 

advance of any updates or changes to 

these public meetings through local 

media, newspapers and the BLM Web 

site at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/ 

elcentro.html. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the Tule Wind Project and 

East County Substation Project by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/ 

en/fo/cdd.html. 

• E-mail: catulewind@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (951) 697–5299. 

• Mail: ATTN: Greg Thomsen, BLM 

California Desert District Office (CDDO), 

22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, 

Moreno Valley, California 92553–9046. 

Copies of the EIS/EIR are available on 

the BLM Web site at: http:// 

www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro and also from 

the CPUC and the CDDO at the above 

addresses and in the BLM El Centro 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES


Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Uintah High School

1880 West 500 North

Vernal, Utah

SLT-A (revised)

Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Helen M. Knight Elementary

505 N. Mi Vida

Moab, Utah

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Castle Dale Elementary

195 East, 600 North

Castle Dale, Utah

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

SLT-B

Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Helen M. Knight Elementary

505 N. Mi Vida

Moab, Utah

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Castle Dale Elementary

195 East, 600 North

Castle Dale, Utah

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

SLT-C

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Monday, February 7, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Duchesne High School

155 West Main Street

Duchesne, Utah

Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Juab County Courthouse

Cultural Hall

160 North Main

Nephi, Utah

Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Millard School District Office

285 East 450 North

Delta, Utah

SLT-E

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Pine Valley Fire Station

860 East Main

Pine Valley, Utah

Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Central Fire Station

155 East Center Street

Central, Utah

Thursday, February 24, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Enterprise High School 

565 South 200 East

Enterprise, Utah

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Uintah High School

1880 West 500 North

Vernal, Utah

Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Moffat County School District

Administrative Building

775 Yampa Avenue

Craig, CO

Thursday, January 27, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Northwestern Community College 

Weiss Activity Center

500 Kennedy Drive

Rangely, CO

Week 1

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Monday, January 31, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Central High School Library

550 Warrior Way

Grand Junction, CO

Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Helen M. Knight Elementary

505 N. Mi Vida

Moab, Utah

Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Castle Dale Elementary

195 East, 600 North

Castle Dale, Utah

Week 2

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

SLT-A

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Monday, February 14, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Richfield High School

510 West 100 South

Richfield, Utah

Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Milford Elementary School

450 South 700 West

Milford, Utah 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Cedar City High School

703 West 600 South

Cedar City, Utah

Thursday, February 17, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

St. George Branch

Washington County Library

88 West 100 South

St. George, Utah

SLT-B

SLT-C

SLT-D

SLT-E

Week 1

Week 2

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

Monday, February 7, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Duchesne High School

155 West Main Street

Duchesne, Utah

Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Juab County Courthouse

Cultural Hall

160 North Main

Nephi, Utah

Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Millard School District Office

285 East 450 North

Delta, Utah

Wk 3

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Week 3
The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

Monday, February 14, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Richfield High School

510 West 100 South

Richfield, Utah

Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Milford Elementary School

450 South 700 West

Milford, Utah 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Cedar City High School

703 West 600 South

Cedar City, Utah

Thursday, February 17, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

St. George Branch

Washington County Library

88 West 100 South

St. George, Utah

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Pine Valley Fire Station

860 East Main

Pine Valley, Utah

Thursday, February 24, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Enterprise High School 

565 South 200 East

Enterprise, Utah

Week 5

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Dixie Deer Special Service

District Office Building

316 North Lodge Road

Central, Utah 

Monday, February 28, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Caliente Elementary School

300 Lincoln Street

Caliente, NV

Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Clark County Community Center

320 N. Moapa Valley Blvd.

Overton, NV (Moapa Valley)

Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Heritage Park Senior Facility

300 S. Racetrack Road

Henderson, NV

Thursday, March 3, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Desert Breeze Community Center

8275 Spring Mountain

Las Vegas, NV (Spring Valley)

Week 6

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration

are hosting an open house, so the public can review the proposed

TransWest Express Transmission Project. 

Federal agencies and the project proponent, TransWest Express LLC, will share project information at the 

open house as part of the public scoping process. The public scoping process allows BLM and Western 

to gather input on resources, issues and information that may be used and addressed

in the project’s environmental analysis. 

Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Jeffrey Center

315 West Pine

Rawlins, WY

Wednesday, March 9, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

Rock Springs High School

1375 James Drive

Rock Springs, WY

Thursday, March 10, 2011, 4-7 p.m.

LSRV Higher Education Center

360 Whippoorwill

Baggs, WY

Week 7

The TransWest Express Transmission Project is a high-voltage direct current transmission system designed

to deliver renewable energy from central Wyoming to western power users. The proposed route crosses multiple

counties in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. For more information about other scoping meetings visit:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011 

UINTAH HIGH SCHOOL 

1880 WEST 500 NORTH 

VERNAL, UTAH 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011 

MOFFATT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 

775 YAMPA AVENUE 

CRAIG, COLORADO 

AND 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2011 

NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 

WEISS ACTIVITY CENTER 

500 KENNEDY DRIVE 

RANGELY, CO 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011 

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY 

550 WARRIOR WAY 

GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 
ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 

HELEN M. KNIGHT ELEMENTARY 

505 N. MI VIDA 

MOAB, UTAH 

AND 
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

CASTLE DALE ELEMENTARY 

195 EAST, 600 NORTH 

CASTLE DALE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011 

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY 

550 WARRIOR WAY 

GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 

HELEN M. KNIGHT ELEMENTARY 
505 N. MI VIDA 

MOAB, UTAH 

AND 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

CASTLE DALE ELEMENTARY 

195 EAST, 600 NORTH 

CASTLE DALE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011 

DUCHESNE HIGH SCHOOL 

155 WEST MAIN STREET 

DUCHESNE, UTAH 
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 

JUAB COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

CULTURAL HALL 

160 NORTH MAIN 

NEPHI, UTAH 

AND 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

MILLARD SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE 

285 EAST 450 NORTH 

 DELTA, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011 

DUCHESNE HIGH SCHOOL 

155 WEST MAIN STREET 

DUCHESNE, UTAH 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 

JUAB COUNTY COURTHOUSE 
CULTURAL HALL 

160 NORTH MAIN 

NEPHI, UTAH 

AND 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

MILLER SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE 

285 EAST 450 NORTH 

DELTA, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 

RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 

510 WEST 100 SOUTH 

RICHFIELD, UTAH 
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

MILFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

450 SOUTH 700 WEST 

MILFORD, UTAH 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

CEDAR CITY HIGH SCHOOL 

703 WEST 600 SOUTH 

CEDAR CITY, UTAH 

AND 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

ST. GEORGE BRANCH WASHINGTON COUNTY LIBRARY 

88 WEST 100 SOUTH 

ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 

RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 

510 WEST 100 SOUTH 

RICHFIELD, UTAH 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

MILFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 
450 SOUTH 700 WEST 

MILFORD, UTAH 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

CEDAR CITY HIGH SCHOOL 

703 WEST 600 SOUTH 

CEDAR CITY, UTAH 

AND 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

ST. GEORGE BRANCH 

WASHINGTON COUNTY LIBRARY 

88 WEST 100 SOUTH 

ST. GEORGE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011 

PINE VALLEY FIRE STATION 

860 EAST MAIN 

PINE VALLEY, UTAH 
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

CENTRAL FIRE STATION 

155 EAST CENTER STREET 

CENTRAL, UTAH 

AND 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 

ENTERPRISE HIGH SCHOOL 

565 SOUTH 200 EAST 

ENTERPRISE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011 

PINE VALLEY FIRE STATION 

860 EAST MAIN 

PINE VALLEY, UTAH 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

DIXIE DEER SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING 
316 NORTH LODGE ROAD 

CENTRAL, UTAH 

AND 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 

ENTERPRISE HIGH SCHOOL 

565 SOUTH 200 EAST 

ENTERPRISE, UTAH 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 

CALIENTE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

300 LINCOLN STREET 

CALIENTE, NEVADA 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

CLARK COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER 

320 NORTH MOAPA VALLEY BLVD. 
OVERTON, NEVADA (MOAPA VALLEY) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

HERITAGE PARK SENIOR FACILITY 

300 SOUTH RACETRACK ROAD 

HENDERSON, NEVADA 

AND 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 

DESERT BREEZE COMMUNITY CENTER 

8275 SPRING MOUNTAIN 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
Bureau of Land Management 

5353 Yellowstone Road 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Colorado 80228-0213 

Public Scoping Meetings – As Recorded

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ARE HOSTING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS IN YOUR AREA. 

TRANSWEST EXPRESS, LLC IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 600-KV DC 

TRANSMISSION LINE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL WYOMING TO SOUTHERN NEVADA 

SOUTH OF LAS VEGAS. THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND WESTERN AREA 

POWER ADMINISTRATION WILL BE PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT. 

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS TO LEARN MORE 

ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS. 

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN YOUR AREA: 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 

JEFFREY CENTER 

315 WEST PINE 

RAWLINS, WYOMING 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011 

ROCK SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL 
1375 JAMES DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WYOMING 

AND 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 

LSRV HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER 

360 WHIPPOORWILL 

BAGGS, WYOMING 

ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD FROM 4 P.M. TO 7 P.M. 

YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT. WE HOPE YOU WILL ATTEND TO PROVIDE YOUR INPUT 

ON THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. 

#### 
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Appendix C

Libraries with Scoping 

Materials
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Location/Town(s) Library/Address

Rawlins, Wyoming Carbon County Library

215 W. Buffalo Street

Rawlins, WY 82301

Rock Springs, Wyoming Rock Springs Library

400 C Street

Rock Springs, WY 82901-6208

Baggs, Wyoming Carbon County Libraries

Little Snake River Valley

105 2nd Street

Baggs, WY 82321

Craig, Colorado Moffat County Library

570 Green Street

Craig, CO 81625-3028

Rangely, Colorado Rangely Regional Library District

109 East Main Street

Rangely, CO 81648-2737

Grand Junction, Colorado Mesa County Library

530 Grand Ave

Grand Junction, CO 81501

Moab, Utah Grand County Public Library

257 E. Center

Moab, UT 84532

Vernal, Utah Uintah County Library

155 East Main

Vernal, UT 84078

Duchesne, Utah Duchesne County Library

Duchesne Branch

130 S. Center St., Suite A

Duchesne, UT 84021

Castle Dale, Utah Emery County Library

145 North 1st East

Castle Dale, UT 84513

Nephi, Utah Nephi Public Library

21 East 100 North Street

Nephi, UT 84648

Delta, Utah Delta City Library

76 North 200 West

Delta, UT 84624

Richfield, Utah Richfield Public Library

83 East Center Street

Richfield, UT 84701

Milford, Utah Milford Public Library

400 S. 100 West

Milford, UT 84751-0009
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Location/Town(s) Library/Address

Cedar City, Utah Cedar City Public Library

303 N. 100 E.

Cedar City, UT 84720

Enterprise, Central, Pine Valley, Utah Washington County Library

Enterprise Branch

393 S. 200 East

Enterprise, UT 84725

St. George, Utah Washington County Library

St. George Branch

50 S. Main

St. George, UT 84770

Caliente, Nevada Lincoln County Library

Caliente Branch

100 Deport Ave

Caliente, NV 89008

Moapa, Nevada Moapa Town Library

1340 East Highway 168

Moapa, NV 89025

Henderson, Nevada Green Valley Library

2797 Green Valley Pkwy

Henderson, NV 89014-0244

Las Vegas, Nevada Summerlin Library

1771 Inner Circle Dr.

Las Vegas, NV 89134-6119
AECOM Environment

Scoping Summary Report July 2011

Appendix D

Scoping Materials
W

E

L

C

O

M

E

W

E

L

C

O

M

E

TransWest Express

Public Scoping Meeting

Environmental Impact Statement

Transmission Project
Issue ROW Grant

Environmental Impact 

Statement Process

(NEPA Process)

90-Day Scoping Period

Prepare Draft EIS

12-24 Months

90-Day Public Review

of Draft EIS

Prepare Final EIS

12-24 Months

30-Day Availability Period

Record of Decision

30-Day Wait Period

Publish Notice of Intent

Publish Draft EIS

Publish Final EIS

Public Involvement

Opportunities
! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

N

E

V

A

D

A

A

R I Z

O

N

A

N

E

W 

M

E

X I C

O

A

R I Z

O

N

A

U

T

A

H

N

E

V

A

D

A

U T A H

I D A H O N E V A D A

I D A H O

W

Y

O

M I N

G

W Y O M I N G

C O L O R A D O

U

T

A

H

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

N E W M E X I C O

U

T

A

H

C O L O R A D O

N

E

V A

D

A

C

A

L

I

F

O

R

N

I

A

U T A H

A R I Z O N A

S A N J U A N

S A N M I G U E L

L A R I M E R

N Y E

L I N C O L N

BANNOCK

N A V A J O

C O C O N I N O A P A C H E

YA VA P A I

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

C L A R K

I N Y O

S A N J U A N

M C K I N L E Y

G A R F I E L D

I R O N

W A S H I N G T O N K A N E

D O L O R E S SAN JUAN

L A P L A T A

M O N T E Z U M A

R I O B L A N C O

G A R F I E L D

E L K O

W H I T E P I N E

B O X E L D E R

S W E E T W A T E R

U I N T A

E U R E K A

O W Y H E E

POWER

T W I N F A L L S

R I C H

S U B L E T T E F R E M O N T

L I N C O L N

C A S S I A O N E I D A B E A R L A K E FRANKLIN

C A C H E

M O F F A T

M O H A V E

W E B E R

S U M M I T

U T A H U I N T A H

J U A B

C A R B O N

SANPETE

W A Y N E

M I L L A R D

S E V I E R

B E A V E R P I U T E

M O R G A N

D A V I S

T O O E L E

SALT LAKE

W A S A T C H

D A G G E T T

D U C H E S N E

M E S A

D E L T A

M O N T R O S E

O U R A Y

E M E R Y

G R A N D

C A R B O N A L B A N Y

E A G L E

S U M M I T

S A G U A C H E

P A R K

G U N N I S O N

C H A F F E E

P I T K I N L A K E

R O U T T

J A C K S O N

G R A N D

CLEAR

CREEK

H I N S D A L E

R I O A R R I B A

SANTA

FE

LOS

ALAMOS

S A N D O V A L

M I N E R A L

R I O G R A N D E ALAMOSA

A R C H U L E T A C O N E J O S

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦515

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦40

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦84

£¤134

£¤491

£¤89

£¤40

£¤285

£¤50

£¤95

£¤285

£¤50

£¤84

£¤285

£¤550

£¤95

£¤34

£¤191

£¤ £¤287 91

£¤30

£¤93

£¤191

£¤6

£¤163

£¤84

£¤285

£¤491

£¤89

£¤191

£¤550

£¤189

£¤40

£¤50

£¤180

£¤6

£¤30

£¤160

£¤50

£¤550

£¤191

£¤64

£¤93

£¤160

£¤89

£¤6

£¤24

£¤189

£¤89

£¤6

£¤93

£¤40

£¤191

SALT

LAKE

CITY

Overton

(Moapa Valley)

Intermountain

Power Plant

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

Baggs

Rock

Springs

Rawlins

Grand

Junction

Duchesne

Craig

Richfield

Enterprise

Castle

Dale

Delta

Cedar

City Caliente

Pine Valley

Moab

Central

Nephi

Rangely

Milford

Las Vegas

Saint

George

Henderson

Vernal

0 10 20 40

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

"S Scoping Meeting Location

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

[ No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir

Major Rivers
! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!.

!

!.

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!.

! !

! !

!

!.

^_

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!.

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !.

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

"S

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

"S

!

!

!

!

"S !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

"S

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S !

! 

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!. !

"S

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

South Pine 

Wash

Bitter 

Cre

ek

Diamond Fork

Range 

Cree

k

Chalk Creek

Lo

w

ry 

Wate

r

San Arroyo Wash

East Do

uglas 

Creek

Pack Creek

Beaver Creek

Cliff Cree

k

Thistle Creek

R

ed 

Creek

Big Cottonwood Creek

Lost 

Creek

Sweetwater Canyon

Little Brush Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Duchesne River

Willow Springs Wash

Tanner 

Creek

West Creek

Muddy Creek

Green River

Sand Wash

White

ro

cks 

River

Dry Fork

Grassy Trail Creek

Currant Creek

Otter 

Creek

Last Chance 

Wash

South Fork Avintaquin Creek

Yellowstone 

Creek

Diamond Gulch

Tabyago 

Canyon

East 

Salt 

Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Bitte

r 

Creek

G

re

en 

River

North East Creek

Hobble Creek

San 

Arroyo 

Canyon

Indian Canyon

Spring Creek

Riley Canyon

Round 

Valley 

Creek

Mosby Creek

Red Creek

West 

Fo

rk 

Spring 

Creek

Mill Cree

k

Barrier Creek

Middle Fork Sheep Creek

Sevier River

Sevenmile 

Creek

Pleasant Valley Wash

East Fork 

Smiths 

Fork

West Salt Creek

Sowers Creek

Colorado River

Dolores River

Weber River

Sa

n 

Pitch 

River

West Fo

rk 

Smiths 

Fo

rk

Big 

Salt 

Wash

C

olora

do 

Riv

er

Price River

Granite Creek

Antelope 

Creek

Do

u

gla

s 

Creek

Vermillion Creek

Dry Gulch Creek

American 

Fork

Uinta River

Currant Creek

Mill Creek

West Fork Carter Creek

Provo River

Salina Creek

Ferron Creek

G

re

e

n 

Riv

e

r

North Fork Muddy Creek

Sagers Wash

West Muddy 

Creek

San Miguel River

Sulp

h

u

r 

C

re

ek

Roan 

Creek

Little Dolores River

Asphalt Wash

White River

Beaver Creek

East Branch West Salt Creek

Dirty Devil River

Rock Creek

Silv

e

r 

Cre

e

k

Parker 

Hollow

North Fork North Creek

Yampa River

Shell Creek

Fremont River

Strawberry River

Washboard Wash

Fish Creek

Chalk Creek

San Rafael River

Carr Creek

Huntington 

Creek

Serviceberry Hollow

Lost Creek

Muddy Creek

Pariette Draw

West Fork Beaver Creek

Middle 

Fork Beaver 

Creek

Willow Creek

Bla

cks 

Fo

rk

Brine Creek

Salt Creek

Hatch Wash

Ivie Creek

Alkali Creek

Lake Creek

Jordan 

River

Mesa Creek

Bear River

San Pitch River

Avintaquin 

Creek

Willow Creek

Westwater Creek

North Fork Gordon River

Coates Creek

Willow 

Creek

Price River

South Fork Ashley Creek

South Fork Mesa Creek

Timber Canyon

Salt 

Wash

Monroe Creek

Indian 

Creek

Wildcat Creek

Gooseberry Creek

Talamantes Creek

Henrys Fork

Right Fork Hobble Creek

Lake Fork 

River

Brush Creek

East Fork Bear River

Pigeon Water Creek

Lost Spring Wash

North Salt Wash

Kane Springs Creek

Kimball Creek

Stra

wberry River

Hayden 

Fo

rk

Pate

rs

o

n 

C

reek

West Fo

rk 

Bear River

Cente

r 

Fork

Carter Creek

East 

Fork Blacks 

Fork

Joe Hole Wash

East 

Cany

on 

C

re

ek

Deep 

Creek

American Fork Canyon

Sevier 

River

Sheep Creek

Dry Creek

Saleratus Wash

Cottonwood Canyon

Lake Fork River

Castle Creek

Right Fork Indian Canyon

Blue Creek

We

st Fo

rk 

Bla

cks 

Fo

rk

Sowers Canyon

Nine Mile Creek

Mill Creek

Green 

River

Cherry Creek

Eagle Canyon

Old 

Channel 

Sevier River

Lake Canyon

Duchesne River

Wells Draw

West D

o

u

gla

s 

C

re

e

k

Spanish Fork

Fremont River

West Fork Duchesne River

Petes Wash

Ashley Creek

Soldier Creek

Sevier 

Riv

er

Corn Creek

Courthouse Wash

Big Brush Creek

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

U

T

A

H

C O L O R A D O

W Y O M I N G

C A R B O N

U I N T A S W E E T W A T E R

M O F F A T

S U M M I T

U I N T A H

U T A H

J U A B

G R A N D

B O X E L D E R

W A Y N E

M I L L A R D

S E V I E R

B E A V E R P I U T E

M O R G A N

D A V I S

T O O E L E

S A L T L A K E

W A S A T C H

D U C H E S N E

M E S A

D A G G E T T

M O N T R O S E

E M E R Y

S A N J U A N

R I O B L A N C O

G A R F I E L D

S A N P E T E

£¤6

£¤189

£¤6

£¤6

£¤40

£¤89

£¤191

£¤50

£¤191

£¤89

£¤191

£¤89

£¤40

£¤6

£¤89

£¤6

Oasis

Deseret

Columbia

Ephraim

Mounds

Elmo

Scipio

Cedar

Manti

Cleveland

Huntington

Fayette

Sterling

Gunnison

Holden

Orangeville

Centerfield

Woodside

Mayfield

Axtell

Clawson

Flowell

Fillmore

Ferron

Redmond

Salina

Meadow

Mack

Aurora

Hatton

Loma

Moore

Kanosh

Emery

Fruita

Sigurd

Green River

Westwater

Glenwood

Redlands

Thompson

Springs

Annabella

Cisco

Elsinore

Glade

Park

Cove

Fort

Joseph Monroe

Sulphurdale

Sevier

Burrville

Koosharem

Marysvale

Greenwich

Fremont

Gateway

Loa Lyman Uravan

Timpie

Burmester

Charleston

Castle

Valley

Salem

Syracuse

Layton

Kaysville

Fruit

Heights

Devils Slide

Morgan

Emory

Farmington

Henefer

Porterville

Echo

West Centerville

Bountiful Bountiful

Lonetree

Woods

Cross

Coalville

Val

Verda

North Salt Lake

Burntfork McKinnon

Saltair

Manila

Wanship

Magna

South Salt Lake

West

Valley

City Canyon Rim Millcreek

Stansbury

Park

Hiawatha

Taylorsville Mount Olympus

KearnsMurray

Peoa

Grantsville

Cottonwood

Oakley

Oquirrh

Bennion

Erda

Union West

Jordan Midvale

Park

City

Sandy

Kamas

Tooele White

City

Alta

Granite

Francis

Herriman

Riverton

Draper

Stockton

Bluffdale

Midway

Heber

Alpine

Highland

Rush

Valley

Saint

John

Ophir Lehi American

Cedar Fork

Fort Saratoga

Springs

Pleasant

Grove

Wallsburg

Eagle

Mountain Lindon

Greystone

Hanna

Fairfield Vineyard

Orem

Whiterocks

Maeser

Mountain

Home

Neola

Faust

Tabiona

Provo

Altamont

Lapoint

Naples

Talmage Bluebell

Vernon

Springville

Jensen

Upalco

Roosevelt

Fruitland

Mapleton

Ballard Fort Duchesne

Lofgreen Payson

Randlett

Myton

Bridgeland

Genola

Woodland

Hills

Elk

Ridge Eureka

Dinosaur

Santaquin

Elberta

Blue

Mountain

Goshen

Thistle

Massadona

Silver

City Birdseye

Ouray

Gilluly

Soldier

Summit

Mona

Jericho

Indianola

Colton

Bonanza

Milburn

Scofield Castle

Gate

Fountain

Green

Leamington

Fairview

Lynndyl

Helper

Clear

Creek

Levan

Sugarville

Spring

Glen

Mount

Pleasant

Mills

Abraham

Moroni

Price

Wales Spring

City

Wattis

Oak City

Wellington

Hinckley

Sunnyside

East

Carbon

Hiawatha

Uinta National Forest

Wasatch-Cache

National

Forest

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre

and Gunnison

National Forests

Fishlake National Forest

Ashley

National

Forest

Manti-Lasal

National

Forest

C A P I T O L R E E F

N A T I O N A L

P A R K

C A N Y O N L A N D S

N A T I O N A L

P A R K

D I N O S A U R

N A T I O N A L

M O N U M E N T

G L E N C A N Y O N

N A T I O N A L R E C R E A T I O N

A R E A

A R C H E S

N A T I O N A L

P A R K

Moab

Duchesne

Vernal

Delta

Rangely

Nephi

Richfield

Castle

Dale

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦70

Uintah and

Ouray Indian

Reservation

Skull

Valley Indian

Reservation

Paiute Indian

Reservation

Paiute

Indian

Reservation

Uintah and

Ouray Indian

Reservation

Uintah and

Ouray Indian

Reservation

Intermountain

Power Plant

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

SALT

LAKE

CITY

UV269

UV224

UV232

UV75

UV265

UV161

UV302

UV151

UV140

UV375

UV173

UV190

UV120

UV24A

UV197

UV152

UV198

UV124

UV67

UV66

UV70

UV113

UV264

UV249

UV48

UV220

UV156

UV35

UV181

UV62

UV257

UV111

UV230

UV210

UV52

UV91

UV100

UV88

UV74

UV174

UV106

UV99

UV41

UV248

UV86

UV96

UV133

UV68

UV138

UV122

UV109

UV530

UV146

UV414

UV199

UV313

UV117

UV201

UV209 UV154

UV256

UV430

UV32

UV268

UV92

UV31

UV57

UV65

UV71

UV44

UV115

UV149

UV141

UV222

UV25

UV171

UV64

UV112

UV72

UV123

UV196

UV127

UV87

UV121

UV73

UV24

UV132

UV128

UV68

UV119

UV172

UV24

UV78

UV118

UV29

UV340

UV132

UV147 UV45

UV141

UV208

UV150

UV UV114

36

UV10

UV139

UV77

UV186

UV43

UV155

UV137

UV125

UV116

UV202

UV28

A R I Z O N A

C A L I F O R N I A

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

N E V A D A

N E W M E X I C O

O R E G O N

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

0 5 10 20

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

"S Scoping Meeting Location

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

[ No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

National Inventoried 

Roadless Area

Existing Transmission

500kV +/- DC

500kV

345kV 

230 to 287kV 

138 to 161kV 

115kV 

Below 100kV 

Unknown Voltage 

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir

Major Rivers
!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

Silver Creek

Old 

Cha

n

n

el S

e

vie

r 

Riv

e

r

Cherry 

Creek

San Pitch River

Sevier River

South Pine Wash

Sevier River

Tanner 

Creek

San Pitch River

Round 

Valley 

Cre

ek

K

mi ball 

Creek

Sevier River

Cu

rrant 

Creek

S erviceberry Hollow

Old 

River Bed

S A N P E T E

M I L L A R D

J U A B

U T A H

Fishlake

National

Forest

Manti-Lasal

National

Forest

Uinta

National Forest

§ ̈¦15

Mona

Jericho

Fountain

Green

Leamington

Lynndyl

Levan

Sugarville

Mills

Clear

Lake

Gunnison

Mayfield

Sterling

Centerfield

Fayette

Manti

Scipio

Deseret

Oasis

Hinckley

Oak City

Wales

Abraham

£¤50

£¤50

£¤89

£¤6

Delta

Nephi

UV78

UV125

UV137

UV54

UV100

UV174

UV91

UV117

UV257

UV28

UV132

UV41

UV64

UV100

Intermountain

Power Plant

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

A R I Z O N A

C A L I F O R N I A

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

N E V A D A

N E W M E X I C O

O R E G O N

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

0 1 2 4

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

"S Scoping Meeting Location

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

National Inventoried 

Roadless Area

[

Existing Transmission

500kV +/- DC

500kV

345kV 

230 to 287kV 

138 to 161kV 

115kV 

Below 100kV 

Unknown Voltage 

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir

Major Rivers

No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.
!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

C

L

A

R

K

SAN

BERNARDINO

M O H A V E

N

E

V

A

D

A

A

R

I

Z

O

N

A

Humboldt-Toiyabe

National

Forest

Las

Vegas

Henderson

L A K E M E A D

N A T I O N A L R E C R E A T I O N A R E A

Red Rock CanyonNational

Conservation Area

Sloan CanyonNational

Conservation

Area

Moapa River

Indian Reservation

Las Vegas Colony

Indian

Reservation

£¤95

£¤95

£¤93

£¤93

£¤95

£¤93

Muddy

Mountain

Wilderness

LaMadre

Mountain

Wilderness

Pinto

Valley

Wilderness

LaMadre

Mountain

Wilderness

North

McCullough

Wilderness

El Dorado

Wilderness

South

McCullough

Wilderness

Black

Mountain

Wilderness

Rainbow

Mountain

Wilderness

Sunrise

Mountain

ISA

UV160

UV167

UV604

UV582

UV146

UV5

UV53

UV147

UV601

UV151

UV156

UV593

UV146

UV161

UV592

UV152

UV166

UV593

UV595

UV604

UV159

UV592

UV157

UV147

UV40

UV159

UV165

UV604

North Las

Vegas

Sunrise

Manor

Winchester

Spring

Valley

Goodsprings

Nelson

Dry Lake

Boulder

City

Sloan

Jean

Arden

Enterprise

East Las

Vegas

Blue

Diamond

Paradise

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦515

§ ̈¦15

A R I Z O N A

C A L I F O R N I A

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

N E V A D A

N E W M E X I C O

O R E G O N

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

0 1 2 4

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

"S Scoping Meeting Location

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

[ No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

Wilderness Area

Instant Study Area

National Conservation Area

Existing Transmission

500kV +/- DC

500kV

345kV 

230 to 287kV 

138 to 161kV 

115kV 

Below 100kV 

Unknown Voltage 

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir Major Rivers
!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!.

!

!

! !.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

"S

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

"S !

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"J

A R I Z O N A

N

E

V

A

D

A

A

R I Z

O

N

A

U

T

A

H

N

E

V

A

D

A

U T A H

G A R F I E L D

B E A V E R P I U T E

N Y E

L I N C O L N

C O C O N I N O

M O H A V E

C L A R K

I R O N

W A S H I N G T O N

K A N E

W H I T E P I N E

J U A B

M I L L A R D

S E V I E R

Wildcat Creek

Old River Bed

Muddy River

Corn Creek

Moody Wash

S

e

vier 

River

Kan

a

b 

Creek

Bull C

re

ek

Indian 

Creek

Mammoth Creek

Ha

mlin 

Valley 

Wash

Panguitch Creek

Sevier 

Rive

r

Santa Clara River

Fremont 

Wash

La 

Verkin Creek

Steptoe 

Cre

ek

Old Channel Sevier River

Little Pinto Creek

Sevier River

East Fork Virgin River

D

u

ck 

Creek

Beav

er 

Riv

e

r

Virgin River

Willis Creek

Pahranagat 

Wash

Pahranagat Creek

South Fo rk Chalk Cree k

Pace Canyon

Bunker Creek

North Fork Virgin 

River

West Fork Beaver River

Blue 

Creek

North Ash Creek

White River

Left Fork North Creek

North Creek

North Fork North Creek

Me

a

dow 

Valley 

Wash

Lake 

Creek

Asay Creek

Fort Pearce Wash

Swains 

Creek

Chalk Creek

North Creek

Virgin River

East Fork Sevier River

East Fork Creek

Duckwater 

Cre

e

k

Pinto 

Creek

Bear Creek

South Creek

Ash Creek

Deep 

Creek

Ellison Creek

Beaver River

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦70

Duckwater

Indian

Reservation

Paiute Indian

Reservation

Paiute

Indian

Reservation

Paiute

Indian

Reservation

Paiute

Indian

Reservation

Moapa River Indian

Reservation

Las Vegas Colony Indian

Reservation

Kaibab Indian

Reservation

G R A N D

C A N Y O N

N A T I O N A L P A R K

L A K E M E A D

N A T I O N A L

R E C R E A T I O N A R E A

C E D A R

B R E A K S

N A T I O N A L M O N U M E N T

P I P E S P R I N G

N A T I O N A L

M O N U M E N T

Z I O N

N A T I O N A L

P A R K

B R Y C E C A N Y O N

N A T I O N A L P A R K

G R E A T B A S I N

N A T I O N A L

P A R K

Humboldt-Toiyabe

National

Forest

Fishlake

National

Forest

Dixie

National

Forest

Kaibab

National

Forest

Cedar

City

Enterprise

Central

Pine

Valley

Saint

George

Caliente

Delta

Milford

Orderville

Santa

Clara

Hurricane

Mount

Carmel

Washington

Springdale

Rockville

Rox

Littlefield

Hildale

Kanab

Colorado

City

Mesquite

Cane

Beds

Bunkerville

Moapa

Fredonia

Moccasin

Glendale

Kaibab

Logandale

Moapa

Valley

Dry Lake

Jacob

Lake

Mount

Trumbull

Pioche

Steptoe

McGill

Gandy

Ruth Lane

Ely

Leamington

Lynndyl

Sugarville

Abraham

Oak City

Hinckley

Oasis

Deseret

Preston

Lund

Clear

Lake

Garrison

Holden

Flowell

Fillmore

Meadow

Hatton

Kanosh

Black

Rock

Sunnyside

Cove

Fort

Sulphurdale

Sevier

Marysvale

Manderfield

Adamsville

Beaver

Greenville

Minersville

Junction

Ursine

Latimer

Caselton

Prince

Circleville

Lund

Zane

Beryl

Panaca

Spry

Modena

Hiko

Paragonah

Uvada

Parowan

Crestline

Summit

Enoch Iron

Springs

Panguitch

Newcastle

Islen Acoma

Brian

Head

Alamo

Hamiltons

Fort Hatch

Kanarraville

Elgin

New

Harmony

Veyo

Gunlock

Pintura

Alton

Carp

Toquerville Leeds

Shivwits

Glendale

Ivins

La Verkin Virgin

Overton

(Moapa

Valley)

Intermountain

Power Plant

(Future Potential

Terminal Site)

£¤95

£¤93

£¤50

£¤93

£¤50

£¤89

£¤6

UV271

UV99

UV289

UV62

UV321

UV17

UV167

UV100

UV156

UV274

UV161

UV379

UV133

UV120

UV85

UV44

UV160

UV64

UV319

UV148

UV12

UV125

UV59

UV159

UV20

UV34

UV168

UV132

UV UV12 56

UV38

UV18

UV375

UV174

UV9

UV143

UV144

UV486

UV894

UV893

UV118

UV14

UV317

UV170

UV78

UV322

UV9

UV130

UV318

UV257

UV21

UV153

UV63

UV389

UV320

UV487

UV318

UV40

A R I Z O N A

C A L I F O R N I A

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

N E V A D A

N E W M E X I C O

O R E G O N

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

0 5 10 20

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

"S Scoping Meeting Location

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

National Inventoried 

Roadless Area

[

Existing Transmission

500kV +/- DC

500kV

345kV 

230 to 287kV 

138 to 161kV 

115kV 

Below 100kV 

Unknown Voltage 

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir

Major Rivers

No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

"S !

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!.

! !

!

"S !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

"S

!

!

! "S

!

!

! ! !.

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

"S

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

! !

!

! !

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!

!

!

!

!

!.

"S

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

P I T K I N

L A K E

R O U T T

J A C K S O N

LARIMER

G R A N D

R I O B L A N C O

G A R F I E L D

S W E E T W A T E R

M O F F A T

U I N T A H

D A G G E T T

M E S A

D E L T A

G R A N D

C A R B O N

A L B A N Y

E A G L E

S U M M I T

G U N N I S O N

C H A F F E E

W Y O M I N G W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

U T A H

C O L O R A D O

U

T

A

H

San Arroyo Wash

Savery 

Creek

Little 

Savery 

Creek

Little Snake River

North Brush Creek

Brush Creek

Anthracite Creek

Corral Gulch

Taylor River

South French Creek

Westwater Creek

No

rth 

Fork Elk River

North Thompson Creek

Parachute Creek

Willow 

Creek

Arkansas River

Encampme

nt Riv

e

r

Hubbard Creek

Middle Rifle 

Creek

Talamantes Creek

Brush Creek

Big 

Creek

Rattlesnake Creek

East La

ke 

C

re

ek

Roaring Fork

Williams Fork

Capitol Creek

B

eaver Creek

Wagonh

o

und Creek

East Fork Parachute Creek

Wilson 

Creek

Canyon 

Creek

Big Sandstone Creek

Big Creek

Blue 

Rive

r

Cross Creek

Go

o

d 

Sp

ring 

Creek

Woody Creek

East Muddy Creek

Morrison Creek

North 

Platte River

Roan Creek

North Dry Fork

Carr Creek

East Salt Wells 

Creek

Tro

ublesome 

Creek

E

ast Rifle 

Creek

Gore Creek

Middle Fork Little Snake River

Doug

al s 

Creek

Little Dolores River

Bear River

Willow 

Creek

Brush Creek

Castle 

Creek

East 

Divide 

Creek

Eagle River

So

uth 

Fo

rk 

Willia

ms 

Fo

rk

Colorado River

Big Creek

Deep Creek

Black Sulphur Creek

Sweetwater Creek

Ryan Gulch

North Spring Creek

Rock Creek

Plateau Creek

East Fork Troublesome 

Creek

South Spring 

Creek

Lake 

Cre

e

k

Little Grizzly Creek

Big Ditch

Michigan River

Cow 

Creek

Kimball Creek

Fryingpan River

Dry Fork Piceance Creek

North Fork North 

Platte 

River

Morapos Creek

We

st D

o

uglas 

Cre

ek

Gypsum Creek

Snowmass 

Creek

Ashley Creek

Illinois River

Elk River

East Fork Arkansas River

Spring Creek

Roaring Fork Reservoir

Big Brush Creek

Alkali Creek

Yellow 

C

re

ek

Currant Creek

Flag 

Cre

e

B

k

itter 

Cre

e

k

Green River

Little Laramie River

East Douglas 

Creek

Colorado River

Cliff Cree

k

Clear Creek

Cattle Creek

Deadman Wash

West Divide Creek

Main 

Elk Creek

Sweetwater Canyon

Little Brush Creek

Egeria Creek

Milk Creek

Canadian River

Medicine Bow River

Fish 

Creek

Jack Creek

Sand Wash

Sage Creek

Piney River

Slater Creek

North Fork White River

Jack Morrow Creek

Crystal 

Rive

r

Salt 

Wells Creek

Piceance Creek

Sugar Creek

Fortification 

Cre

e

k

Battle Creek

Fourmile Creek

Oak Creek

Pass Creek

Diamond 

Gulch

Killpecker 

Creek

East Fork 

Williams 

Fork

East 

Salt 

Creek

Muddy Creek

Grizzly Creek

Trout Creek

Buzzard 

Cre

ek

Saint Marys Creek

Black 

B

utte 

Cre

ek

Big 

Salt 

Wash

Rock Creek

Yampa River

Little 

Bitter 

Cre

ek

Sim pso n Gu lch

Foote Creek

Lake Creek

Carter Creek

Colorado River

Dry Fork

South Fork White 

Riv

e

r

Willow Creek

South Fork Big Creek

Sage Creek

Cement Creek

D ry San dy C re ek

Elkhead Creek

Salt Creek

Bitter Creek

Spring 

Creek

Yampa River

West Muddy Creek

Little 

Snake 

River

Thompson Creek

Bone Draw

Green River

Colorado 

River

Currant Creek

Fraser Creek

Slate 

Rive

r

L

Pacific Creek

ittle 

Sandy 

River

Lake Fork

East Leroux 

Creek

Little 

Me

dicine 

Bow 

River

Divide 

Creek

East Branch West Salt Creek

White River

Asphalt Wash

Clear 

Fork

Cente

r 

Fork

Dry Fork Roan Creek

Middle Fork Derby Creek

South Fork Fortification Creek

East Willo

w 

Cre

e

k

East River

White River

Williams Fork

Canyon Creek

Sevenmile Creek

West Fawn Creek

East Ma

roon 

Creek

Fawn 

Creek

Vermillion Creek

Do

u

gla

s 

Creek

West Hunter Creek

North Fork Crystal River

Roaring Fork Reservoir

Lake Creek

West Salt Creek

Pelton Creek

Shell Creek

Willow 

Cre

e

k

Big 

Sandy 

River

Hunter 

Creek

West 

Fork 

Spring 

Creek

Maroon 

Creek

Red Creek

Big 

Beaver Creek

East Fork Eagle 

Riv

er

Brush Creek

Muddy 

Cre

e

k

Spring Creek

Leon 

Cre

e

k

North Platte 

Rive

r

Kannah Creek

San 

Arroyo 

Canyon

Derby Creek

Bitter Creek

Gunnison River

G

re

en 

River

Red Dirt Creek

Austin 

Creek

Bitte

r 

Creek

East Brush Creek

Rifle 

Cre

e

k

White

River National

Forest

Pike-San Isabel

National Forest

Medicine

Bow-Routt

National Forest

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre

and Gunnison National

Forests

Arapaho and

Roosevelt

National Forests

Ashley

National

Forest

D I N O S A U R

N A T I O N A L

M O N U M E N T

C O L O R A D O

N A T I O N A L M O N U M E N T

Uintah and Ouray

Indian Reservation

UV70

UV131

UV64

UV789

UV128

UV133

UV430

UV45

UV300

UV372

UV394

UV376

UV13

UV130

UV64

UV139

UV82

UV71

UV789

UV14

UV330

UV82

UV65

UV13

UV230

UV149

UV76 UV72

UV125

UV9

UV230

UV340

UV325

UV487

UV121

UV91

UV370

UV374

UV127

UV44

UV371

UV28

UV13

UV141

UV317

UV530

Naval

Oil Shale

Reserve

Vernal

Craig

Rangely

Grand Junction

Rawlins

Rock

Springs

Baggs

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦80

Eden

Superior

Medicine

Bow

Hanna

Reliance

Thayer

Junction

Point of

Rocks

North Rock

Springs

Sinclair

Riner

Creston Latham

Walcott

Peru

Wamsutter

Hallville

Wilcox

Frewen

Green

River

Table

Rock

Quealy

Monell

Bitter

Creek

Elk

Mountain

McFadden

Saratoga

Ryan

Park Centennial

Riverside Albany

Hiawatha

Dixon

Granite

Twin

Lakes

Marble

Whitewater

Grand

Mesa

Glade Park

Orchard Mesa

Aspen

Clifton

Fruitvale

Redstone

Redlands

Glenwood

Springs

Leadville

Palisade

Snowmass

Village

Mesa

Westwater

Powder

Wash

Savery

Molina

Woody

Creek

Fruita

Battlement Mesa

Mack

Collbran

Climax

Loma

Snowmass

Basalt Meredith

Kokomo

El Jebel

Carbondale

De Beque

Red

Cliff

Gilman

Wolcott

Parachute

Cardiff

Minturn

Rifle

Silt

Vail

Avon

New

Castle

Edwards

Gypsum

Eagle

Rio

Blanco

State

Bridge

Bond Burns

McCoy

Farson

Parshall

Hot Sulphur

Springs Kremmling

Toponas

Meeker

Yampa

Bonanza

Phippsburg

Oak

Creek

Axial

Massadona

Moffat

Blue

Mountain

Grand

Encampment

Dinosaur

Rand

Hamilton

Elk

Springs

Steamboat

Springs

Milner

Hayden

Coalmont

Jensen

Lay

Maybell

Naples

Maeser

Walden

Greystone

Cowdrey

Columbine

Kings

Canyon

Foxpark

£¤191

£¤6

£¤191

£¤30

£¤40

£¤191

£¤287

£¤40

£¤6

£¤24

£¤6

£¤50

£¤6

£¤134

A R I Z O N A

C A L I F O R N I A

C O L O R A D O

I D A H O

N E V A D A

N E W M E X I C O

O R E G O N

U T A H

W Y O M I N G

0 5 10 20

Miles

TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Transportation

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Administrative Features

^_ State Capital

!. County Seat

"S Scoping Meeting Location

! City/Town

State Boundary

County Boundary

Project Features

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Terminus Siting Area

Project Corridor

Applicant Proposed

Alternative

[ No warranty is made by the Agencies for use of the

data herein for purposes not intended by the Agencies.

The Project Corridor is the area where the Project

transmission line right-of-way could be routed. This

area varies in width due to topography and

administrative boundaries, but generally is based

on a 2-mile width.

Jurisdiction

Bureau of Indian

Affairs/Tribal

Bureau of Land

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

DOD/USACE

Department of Energy

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

US Forest Service

National Park Service

State

National Inventoried 

Roadless Area

Existing Transmission

500kV +/- DC

500kV

345kV 

230 to 287kV 

138 to 161kV 

115kV 

Below 100kV 

Unknown Voltage 

Hydrography

Lake/Reservoir

Major Rivers
Joint-Lead Agencies

•Public land management 

agency under the U.S. Department of the Interior.

•Manages resources on over 

245 million surface acres of public lands.

•Manages 700 million acres 

of subsurface mineral estate.

•BLM public lands are 

managed for a variety of uses while ensuring protection of the environmental, historic, cultural, and scenic values.

•Federal power marke

administration under U.S. Department of En

•Markets and transmit

Federal power. 

•Owns and operates ov

17,000 miles of electritransmission across 15 western states. 

•Granted authority un

American Recovery anReinvestment Act to construct, finance, facplan, operate, and/or maintain transmission that deliver power frorenewable resources. 
Property Right Acquisition 

• Easements would be needed 

to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission line.

• Typical transmission line easeme

250 feet wide.

• Typical access road easement –

30 feet wide.

• Every effort would be made to a

easements through negotiation landowners. If a negotiated agrecould not be reached, the easements would be acquired through condemnation.

Land Acquisition Process

Site Selection• Access to your property would be 

requested to conduct surveys and site the transmission line. 

• Landowners would be compensated for 

any damages.

Construction• Landowners would be notified of 

the construction schedule.

• Construction crews would be 

restricted to the area within the acquired easements.

• Construction would occur in phases.• All work areas and access roads not 

needed for maintenance would be restored.

• Landowners would be compensated 

for any crop or property damages.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY

TransWest Express Project EIS 

Please sign in 

Name Representing Address Email Ph
Written Comment Sheet TransWest Express Transmission Project 

Environmental Impact Statement

We want your comments! If you have any issues, concerns, or questions that you would like addressed in the TransWest 

Express Transmission Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), please complete and submit this comment sheet at 

the scoping meeting to ensure your input is considered. You can also drop the comment sheet in the mail to the address 

on the reverse side of this sheet. Fold the comment sheet on the lines with the return address showing, tape it closed, 

affix a stamp, and mail. You may attach additional pages. Please submit your comments by April 4, 2011. For your 

comments to be the most effective, the BLM and Western suggest the following guidelines:

• Keep your comments focused on the proposed project;

• Submit your comments on potential impacts and ideas for project alternatives; and 

• Submit your comments within the timeframes announced. This helps the agencies include all concerns in the 

Draft EIS document.

If you have no comments or questions, but would like to be on our mailing list and receive a copy of the Draft EIS, please 

complete the contact information below. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Please provide your contact information. If you would like to receive copies of the Draft EIS, please fill in the box 

on the reverse side and submit this form.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or any other personally identifying information in your comment, 

you should be aware that your entire comment – including personal identifying information - may be made publicly available at 

any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Name:___________________________________________________ Title:_____________________

Organization: _______________________________________________________________________

Mailing address:_____________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zipcode:__________________________________________________________________

E-mail:_____________________________ Phone: _________________________________________

Thank you for your interest and participation!
Fold 2

Fold 1

TransWest Express Transmission Project mailing list

To have your name added or removed from our mailing list for this project, please check the appropriate 

box. Be sure to fill out the contact information on the reverse side. If you do not ask us to remove your 

name from our mailing list, we will send you future EIS-related announcements.

□ Yes, add my name to the mailing list to 

receive future information

□ No, please remove my name from your 

mailing list

Sign up to receive the Draft EIS 

To receive the Draft EIS check the appropriate box. 

□ Send me the Draft EIS in the following format:

□ CD-rom □ Executive Summary only (about 50 pages)

Printed copies of the Draft EIS (about 500 pages) will be available at your local library or on BLM’s Web 

site at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html.

NEPA Document Man

TransWest Express Transmission Project

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 20678

Cheyenne, WY 82003

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

Affix 

Stamp
National Environmental Policy Act 

Environmental Impact

Statement Process

90-Day Scoping Period

Prepare Draft EIS

12-24 Months

90-Day Public Comment

Period

Prepare Final EIS

12-24 Months

30-Day Public 

Availability Period

Respond to Public

Comments and

Prepare Records of Decision

Publish Notice of Intent

Publish Draft EIS

Publish Final EIS

Public

Involvement

Forest Service

Plan Amendment

Process

Issue ROW Grant

Issue Records

of Decision 105- Day Appeal and

Appeal Resolution Period

Issue Special

Use Permit

BLM Plan

Amendment Process

Adopt Plan Amendment

60-Day Protest Period

Governor’s

Consistency Review

Resolve Protest

Adopt Plan Amendment
Western

BLM

Land Acquisition Process Fact Sheet

Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes 

to acquire most property rights required for the 

TransWest Express Transmission Project (TWE) under 

Federal property acquisition guidelines (the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition

Policies Act of 1970). 

If you own land that would be crossed by the project, a

realty agent would contact you to explain the steps

involved in site selection, property rights acquisition, 

and construction.

Site Selection

A realty agent would request permission (for workers or 

contractors) to enter your property to conduct surveys 

and studies.

A combination of aerial and land surveys, 

environmental and engineering field studies, and 

geologic investigations would be used to select 

structure sites.

Structures would be located at sites to satisfy design 

criteria, maintain adequate line-to-ground clearance, 

and minimize effects to the properties being crossed.

Damage to crops, fences, or other property caused by 

surveys and studies would be repaired, or landowners 

would be compensated for damage.

Property Rights Acquisition

Property rights, called easements or rights-of-way,

would be needed to construct, operate, and maintain 

the transmission line. Transmission line easements

250 feet wide are typical for a project of this size.

Access road easements are typically 30 feet wide. Access 

roads would be narrower than, and would fit within the 

boundaries of the easement.

Easements would be purchased through negotiations 

with landowners based on an independent appraisal.

Landowners can be present during the appraisal and 

identify property features and uses of importance to 

assist in determining the fair market value of the 

easement. The landowner would retain title to the land 

and may continue to use the property in ways that are

compatible with the transmission line.

Every effort would be made to acquire easements 

through negotiations with landowners to obtain an

agreement that is fair and reasonable to both parties.

Federal and state laws enable public agencies to acquire

property rights for facilities to be built in the public

interest.

If a negotiated agreement cannot be reached, 

easements can be acquired through eminent domain 

(condemnation) proceedings. Through the eminent 

domain process, a court determines the compensation 

to be paid to the property owner.

Construction

A realty agent would advise landowners of the

construction schedule. Construction crews would be 

restricted to the area within the acquired easements.

Preparing the right-of-way for construction may require 

installing gates and culverts, clearing vegetation, 

trimming or removing trees, removing structures, and 

constructing access roads and crane pads.

Construction would occur in several phases as 

transmission structures are assembled and structures 

and conductors are installed.

All work areas and access roads not required for 

maintenance would be restored as nearly as practical to 

their previous condition. Construction refuse and scrap 

material would be removed.

Maintenance crews would periodically inspect, repair, 

and maintain the line. Ground inspections are usually 

performed one time each year.

Landowners would be compensated for any crop and 

property damage caused by construction or 

maintenance of the transmission line.

Living and Working Around 

Electrical Facilities

Transmission lines are designed and constructed to meet 

or exceed the requirements of the National Electrical 

Safety Code. These standards provide for the safety and 

protection of landowners and their property, the public, 

and utility employees.

Ranching and farming activities, gardening, recreational 

activities, and other uses are permitted in the easement 

as long as care is taken to prevent damage and maintain 

access to transmission line structures.

No buildings or structures may be erected in the 

easement because they could impede the safe operation 

of the line or interfere with maintenance access.

For safety reasons, pumps, wells, swimming pools, and 

flammables must not be placed in the easement area. 

Properly grounded and permitted irrigation systems are 

acceptable.
Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Wyoming 

received an application for right-of-way across federal 

land from TransWest Express, LLC (the company). The 

company proposes to construct and operate a 

600-kilovolt (kV) direct current transmission line from 

south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada (the project). 

The BLM has determined that this is a major federal 

action that requires an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508).

The company and Western Area Power Administration 

(Western) have entered into a non-binding term sheet 

through which they are evaluating each holding a 50% 

joint ownership in the project. The company and Western 

are developing the terms of their joint ownership, such as 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Western was granted authority to borrow funds from 

the U.S. Treasury to (among other things) plan, finance, and construct new or upgraded transmission facilities that 

deliver renewable energy. Western would use this authority for its participation in the project. 

The BLM and Western are serving as joint-lead agencies in preparing the EIS.

Working with other government entities

BLM in Wyoming is designated the lead agency for EIS preparation for the BLM. Fifty federal, state, and county 

governments were invited to participate as cooperating agencies. To date, 33 agencies have accepted the 

invitation. BLM and Western also notified 45 tribes and pueblos. A list of cooperating agencies is shown below.

Western

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 20678

Cheyenne, WY 82003

 January 2011

TRANSWEST EXPRESS

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

TRANSWEST EXPRESS

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

Cooperating Agencies

1

Federal

Intermountain Forest Service Region, 

Ogden, Utah 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representing:

- Mountain Prairie Region, Lakewood

- Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 - South Pacific Division 

 - Northwestern Division

Navy Region Southwest, San Diego

Bureau of Reclamation Lower

Colorado Region

U.S. Army Environmental Center,

Western Region

BIA Western Region, Phoenix, representing:

- Rocky Mountain Region, Billings

- Southwest Region, Albuquerque

Other

Little Snake River Conservation District

Medicine Bow Conservation District

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

Sweetwater County Conservation District 

•

•

State

State of Wyoming

State of Colorado

•

•

State of Utah

State of Nevada

•

•

County

Carbon County, WY 

Garfield County, CO 

Mesa County, CO

Moffat County, CO

Rio Blanco County, CO

Beaver County, UT

Duchesne County, UT

Emery County, UT

Iron County, UT

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Juab County, UT

Millard County, UT

Piute County, UT

Sevier County, UT

Uintah County, UT

Wasatch County, UT

Washington County, UT

Clark County, NV

Lincoln County, NV

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Please join us at any of TransWest Express Scoping Meetings. 

Date Location Address Date Location Address

January 25, 2011 Uintah High School 1880 West 500 North,

Vernal, UT February 17, 2011

St. George Branch 

Washington County 

Library

88 West 100 South, St. George, UT

January 26, 2011

Moffat County School 

District Administrative 

Building

775 Yampa Avenue,

Craig, CO February 22, 2011 Pine Valley Fire Station 860 East Main, Pine Valley, UT

January 27, 2011

Northwestern 

Community College 

Weiss Activity Center

500 Kennedy Drive, Rangely, CO February 23, 2011 Central Fire

Station 155 East Center Street, Central, UT

January 31, 2011 Central High School 

Library 550 Warrior Way, Grand Junction, CO February 24, 2011 Enterprise High School 565 South 200 East, Enterprise, UT

February 1, 2011 Helen M. Knight 

Elementary 505 N. Mi Vida, Moab, UT February 28, 2011 CalienteElementary School 300 Lincoln Street, Caliente, NV

February 2, 2011 Castle Dale Elementary 195 East 600 North, Castle Dale, UT March 1, 20111 Clark County 

Community Center

320 N. Moapa Valley Blvd., Overton NV 

(Moapa Valley)

February 7, 2011 Duchesne High School 155 West Main Street,

Duchesne, UT March 2, 2011 Heritage Park Senior Facility 300 S. Racetrack Road, Henderson, NV

February 8, 2011 Juab County Courthouse Cultural Hall

160 North Main,

Nephi UT March 3, 2011 Desert BreezeCommunity Center

8275 Spring Mountain, Las Vegas, NV 

(Spring Valley)

February 9, 2011 Millard School District 

Office

285 East 450 North,

Delta, UT March 8, 2011 Jeffrey Center 315 West Pine, Rawlins, WY

February 14, 2011 Richfield High School 510 West 100 South, Richfield, UT March 9, 2011 Rock Springs High School 1375 James Drive, Rock Springs, WY

February 15, 2o11 Milford 

Elementary School 450 South 700 West, Milford, UT March 10, 2011 LSRV Higher Education Center 360 Whippoorwill, Baggs, WY

February 16, 2011 Cedar City High School 703 West 600 South, Cedar City, UT All Scoping meetings will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.

BLM
An email address and post office box to receive your 

comments and concerns:

TransWest_WYMail@blm.gov 

TransWest Express Project

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 20678

Cheyenne, WY 82003

BLM and Western also will keep you informed through 

regional and local newspapers, radio and television 

stations, and conduct open house meetings at key 

milestones during the EIS process.

•

–

–

January 2011 January 2011

The joint-lead agencies also will lead consultations with:

American Indian tribes (Government-to-Government)

State Historic Preservation Officers in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and Nevada in compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966; and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in compliance with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

AECOM is the third-party environmental consultant 

helping the BLM and Western with their responsibilities.

Where would the project be located?

The transmission line would be approximately

725 miles long and may cross 4 states and 24 counties, 

depending on the alternative route selected (see map, 

page 1). The line would originate in south-central 

Wyoming, cross northwestern Colorado, traverse Utah 

with the potential to connect to the Intermountain 

Power Plant near Delta, Utah, and terminate in southern 

Nevada near the existing Marketplace substation. 

As part of the project, substation/converter stations, 

a fiber optic network communications system, two 

ground electrode facilities, and access roads would be 

constructed. When complete, the project would provide 

capacity of up to 3,000 megawatts of electricity. 

What would the transmission line look like?

The type of transmission line structure to be used 

depends on the engineering design and on constraints 

posed by land uses. Typical structures are illustrated in 

the diagrams below. The transmission line may range 

in height from 120 to 180 feet, transmission line spans 

average between 900 and 1,500 feet; a right-of-way 

width of 250 feet; and construction and maintenance 

access roads approximately 30 feet wide.

How were the alternative corridors 

developed?

The company identified potential alternative corridors 

for the transmission line. Corridors were submitted to 

the BLM in a right-of-way application. BLM, Western 

and U.S. Forest Service reviewed the corridors, which 

were identified based on:

Following existing linear features such as lowervoltage transmission lines, roads, railroads, and 

pipelines;

•

•

•

•

Using utility corridors designated by federal land 

management agencies and identified in local 

planning documents;

Using approved corridors identified in the West-wide 

Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS; and

Avoiding specially designated areas such as 

Wilderness Management/Study Areas, critical habitat, 

urban areas, irrigated farm land, and others.

Public comments gathered from scoping meetings will 

further refine the alternative routes prior to BLM and 

Western selecting a preferred alternative.

What is the purpose for preparing an EIS?

An EIS is prepared for major federal actions that may 

have a significant effect on the environment. The 

effects of a proposed project are analyzed in an EIS 

to determine potential environmental impacts and 

methods needed for mitigation. Along with the EIS, 

existing agency land use plans may need to be amended. 

Plan amendments will be completed in compliance with 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

and regulations, policies, and guidelines of the land 

management agencies requiring the plan amendments.

What is the process for preparing an 

EIS and plan amendments?

Preparing an EIS has a number of steps, as shown in the 

diagram to the right. The EIS begins with publishing 

a Federal Register Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, 

which commences a 90-day public scoping period. BLM 

and Western will complete data collection for each 

of the resources and their uses potentially affected in 

the project area. In coordination with the cooperating 

agencies, BLM and Western will assess the impacts 

that the project may have on each of the resources 

and their uses and apply measures to mitigate the 

impacts. Alternatives will be compared and a preferred 

alternative(s) will be selected. The process will be 

documented and the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIS 

and plan amendments when a 90-day public review 

and comment period will be held. Comments will 

be analyzed and responses to the comments will be 

included in a Final EIS and proposed plan amendments.

How can you participate in the EIS 

process?

BLM and Western encourage you to attend a scoping 

meeting to learn about the project and submit your 

comments, questions, and concerns. In addition to 

scoping, you are encouraged to stay informed by using 

the following information tools:

BLM’s project website (http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/

info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html); and

Western’s project website (www.wapa.gov/

transmission/TranWestExpress.htm). 

An extensive mailing list to send newsletters and 

updated information.

•

•

•

•

•

Tips for Providing Effective Comments 

Your participation is an important part of the 

decision-making process!

Submit your comments on potential impacts and 

ideas for project alternatives.

Review the BLM and Western websites, monitor 

local newspapers, attend public meetings, and 

become familiar with the proposed project 

development.

Provide substantive and concise written 

comments.

Learn about the NEPA process and when in the 

process agencies will receive comments.

Keep your comments focused on the proposed 

project being analyzed.

Submit your comments within the timeframes 

announced. This helps the agencies include all 

concerns in the NEPA document.

Make sure that you are on the EIS mailing list to 

receive notification of public meetings or project 

information, or both.

How to Submit Comments

Written comments may be submitted at the 

public scoping meetings, or

You may mail your comments to:

Bureau of Land Management 

TransWest Express Project

P.O. Box 20678

Cheyenne, WY 82003, or

You may email your comments to: 

TransWest_WYMail@blm.gov

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2 3

Issue ROW Grant

Environmental Impact 

Statement Process

(NEPA Process)

90-Day Scoping Period

Prepare Draft EIS

12-24 Months

90-Day Public Review

of Draft EIS

Prepare Final EIS

12-24 Months

30-Day Availability Period

Record of Decision

30-Day Wait Period

Publish Notice of Intent

Publish Draft EIS

Publish Final EIS

Public Involvement

Opportunities
Proposed Intermountain Transmission Projects

Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Projec

TransWest Express Transmission Proj

• 600-kV Direct Current (DC) Transmission Line.• Approximately 725 miles long, originating in Rawl

terminating south of Las Vegas, Nevada.

• Traversing four states – Wyoming, Colorado, Utah

• BLM is preparing an Environmental Impact Statem• Public scoping begins Winter 2011.

Energy Gateway West Transmission 

Sigurd to Red Butte Transmission ProSouthern Nevada Intertie Project (SN

ON TRANSMISSION Project /SWIP

Energy Gateway South Transmission 
TRANSWEST EXPRESS

TRANSMISSION PROJECT

BLM’s Purpose and Need 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

responding to a request from TransWest

Express, LLC, to obtain a right-of-way for 

the use of public lands to construct and 

operate an extra-high voltage transmission

line. The BLM will prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 

conformance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

purpose of the EIS is for the BLM to 

evaluate and disclose potential impacts of 

the proposed project and alternatives; to 

determine whether to issue a right of way 

(ROW) grant; and to amend BLM Resource

Management Plans (RMPs) as needed. 

The BLM is required to evaluate and make

decisions regarding the granting of rightsof-way in response to proponent 

applications. Under Section 28 of the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended 

(30 U.S.C. 185), the BLM is authorized to 

issue ROW grants. It is the policy of the 

BLM to authorize all ROW applications that 

are in conformance with approved land use 

plans at the discretion of the authorized 

officer. 

Western

BLM

The Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration 

are serving as joint-lead agencies in preparing the Environmental Impact 

Statement for the TransWest Express Transmission Project.

Western's Purpose and Need

Under Section 402 of the Recovery Act, 

Western may borrow funds from the United 

States Treasury to construct, finance, 

facilitate, plan, operate, maintain, and/or 

study construction of new or upgraded 

electric power transmission lines and 

related facilities. Prior to committing 

funds, Western must certify that the project 

is in the public interest; will not adversely

impact system reliability or operations, or 

other statutory obligations; and it is 

reasonable to expect that the proceeds 

from the project shall be adequate to make

repayment of the loan. 

On March 4, 2009 Western solicited interest 

in proposed transmission projects that

resulted in the submission of Statements of 

Interest including one for the TWE Project.

Western needs to decide whether to 

participate in the TWE Project as a joint 

owner with TransWest Express, LLC as part 

of Western’s Transmission Infrastructure 

Program (TIP) and consistent with its 

Recovery Act authority. For Western to 

participate, Western needs the TWE Project 

to satisfy the requirements of Western’s TIP 

and its Recovery Act authority.