Silver Rock Transmission Line would cross Utah and Nevada public lands
Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Silver Rock Transmission Line Project in Millard, Beaver, and Iron Counties, UT and Lincoln and Clark Counties, NV
Bureau of Land Management· BLM-managed lands in Millard County, Utah, BLM-managed lands in Beaver County, Utah, BLM-managed lands in Iron County, UtahFederal Register 2026-18056 ↗
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Nevada and Utah
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Nevada and Utah, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Utah: the five-Tribe coalition that petitioned for the monument and shared in managing it until the July 2026 proclamation disbanded the Bears Ears Commission.
- Center for Biological Diversity
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: sued the Bureau of Land Management in March 2024 over its failure to complete the overdue management plan for Basin and Range National Monument.
- Friends of Nevada Wilderness
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Nevada: campaigned for the 2015 designation and petitioned Nevada's governor and senators to remove Basin and Range from the federal monument review.
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Utah: sued BLM in August 2024 to void 51 reaffirmed oil and gas leases in the San Rafael Desert, including one in the heart of the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness carved by the Green River.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
BLM is reviewing a power line right-of-way across public lands in five counties in Utah and Nevada.
What’s at risk
Wildlife habitat and undeveloped public land in Millard, Beaver, and Iron Counties in Utah and Lincoln and Clark Counties in Nevada could be disrupted by the construction and operation of a transmission line corridor. The project would authorize permanent infrastructure on federally managed land.
If this goes through
If BLM grants the right-of-way, a transmission line would be built across public lands in two states, with lasting changes to the landscape and wildlife corridors in those counties.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Length of proposed transmission corridor
- approximately 330 miles
- Maximum proposed voltage
- up to 600 kilovolts
- Proposed right-of-way width range
- 450 to 650 feet
- Full siting corridor width
- up to 2,500 feet
- Anticipated Record of Decision date
- summer of 2028
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Open the document ↗“extending approximately 330 miles from Millard County, Utah, to Clark County, Nevada”
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
Open the document ↗“up to two new high-voltage interstate transmission lines and associated Project facilities with a nominal voltage of up to 600 kilovolts would be constructed”
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
Open the document ↗“The Project would use a variation of structures within a combined ROW width of 450 to 650 feet and a siting corridor of up to 2,500 feet”
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
Open the document ↗“a siting corridor of up to 2,500 feet (various configurations proposed)”
Schedule for the Decision-Making Process
Open the document ↗“The BLM anticipates signing a Record of Decision in the summer of 2028.”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The strongest findings read from the agency’s own document, each quoted word for word. The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The agency says
“The BLM's and the BOR's purpose is to respond to the ROW application submitted by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC, to site, permit, and develop the Project”
The agency defines its own purpose entirely as processing a private application.
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
The agency says
“any other alternative routes identified in scoping, that meet the purpose and need and are technically and economically feasible, as part of the NEPA process”
BLM will only evaluate alternatives that clear an economic feasibility screen set from the applicant's perspective.
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
The agency says
“three alternative routes were assessed by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC, as contingency options.”
The applicant, not BLM, generated the alternatives pool.
Interdisciplinary Team
The agency says
“Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the EIS: biology, cultural resources, geology and minerals, lands and realty, paleontology, recreation, visual resources, and wildlife.”
The interdisciplinary team assembled for a 330-mile construction corridor omits entire resource disciplines.
Summary of Expected Impacts
The agency says
“Preliminary issues for the Project have been identified by the BLM and in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.”
The preliminary issues list in the scoping notice omits water resources, air quality, wildfire, transportation, noise, and socioeconomic effects.
9 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The agency defines its own purpose entirely as processing a private application. The Purpose and Need section states the BLM's purpose is to respond to the ROW application submitted by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC. A purpose statement that reduces the agency to a permit-processing office for a private applicant creates no independent public-interest baseline, frames the alternatives analysis around routes rather than around whether the project serves the public, and makes it legally difficult to analyze whether public lands are better protected by a different design or no project at all. The BLM should revise the Purpose and Need statement to articulate an independent federal interest against which alternatives, including a no-build option, can be evaluated.
- BLM will only evaluate alternatives that clear an economic feasibility screen set from the applicant's perspective. The notice says BLM will assess only route alternatives that 'meet the purpose and need and are technically and economically feasible.' Economic feasibility is defined by the applicant's financing model and profit margins, not by the value of public lands, ecosystem services, or Tribal cultural resources. This filter could eliminate route alternatives that cost more but would avoid critical habitat, municipal watersheds, or sacred sites, before the public has any opportunity to weigh in. The BLM should explain how 'economically feasible' will be defined, identify who sets that threshold, and confirm the no-action alternative will not be eliminated by this criterion.
- The applicant, not BLM, generated the alternatives pool. The notice states that three alternative routes 'were assessed by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC, as contingency options.' These are the applicant's own fallback plans, developed to serve its interests, not the public's. BLM now plans to evaluate them as its starting set of EIS alternatives. An independent analysis requires the agency to develop or commission alternatives that explore different footprints, co-location within existing corridors, and route options selected to minimize impacts to wildlife, water, and cultural resources. The BLM should conduct or commission an independent alternatives analysis before the draft EIS is prepared.
- The interdisciplinary team assembled for a 330-mile construction corridor omits entire resource disciplines. The notice lists the team's expertise as biology, cultural resources, geology and minerals, lands and realty, paleontology, recreation, visual resources, and wildlife. Missing are hydrology and water resources, air quality, noise, wildfire risk, transportation, and socioeconomics. A 330-mile project crossing five counties in two states will generate significant construction traffic, ground disturbance affecting water tables and stock water, increased wildfire ignition risk from equipment and transmission infrastructure, and regional economic effects on ranching and tourism. Omitting these disciplines at scoping signals they may be dropped from the EIS scope entirely. The BLM should add the missing disciplines to the team before the scoping period closes.
Show every point from the document
- The preliminary issues list in the scoping notice omits water resources, air quality, wildfire, transportation, noise, and socioeconomic effects. The document states that 'preliminary issues for the Project have been identified by the BLM and in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies' and then lists six issue areas: biological and wildlife resources, cultural resources, geological and mineral resources, paleontological resources, recreation, and visual resources. None of these covers hydrology, drinking water, stock water, wildfire ignition, construction-phase air quality, truck traffic, or effects on ranching and rural tourism communities. If agency consultations with federal, state, and local agencies did not surface these concerns for a 330-mile project in rural Utah and Nevada, the consultation record should be disclosed. The BLM should revise the…
- The ROW width and siting corridor ranges are so broad that the public cannot meaningfully assess impacts or propose alternatives. The notice describes a combined ROW width of 450 to 650 feet within a siting corridor of up to 2,500 feet. A 200-foot range in ROW width and a corridor nearly four times as wide as the maximum ROW gives the applicant significant discretion to shift the actual footprint after the EIS is complete. The public cannot evaluate impacts to water, wildlife, cultural resources, or grazing operations without knowing where within a 2,500-foot band the structures will actually be placed. The BLM should require the applicant to define the ROW width and corridor centerline with sufficient precision before the EIS alternatives analysis begins.
- All scoping meetings will be virtual even though the project crosses 330 miles of rural Utah and Nevada where broadband access is limited. The notice confirms the BLM will hold up to three virtual scoping meetings. Rural residents in Millard, Beaver, Iron, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, including ranchers, Tribal members, and neighboring landowners, often lack the broadband connection needed to participate reliably in online meetings. Virtual-only meetings systematically disadvantage the populations most directly affected by a 330-mile corridor through their land. The BLM should hold at least one in-person scoping meeting in each affected state and explain how it will ensure participation from communities without reliable internet access.
- The scoping meeting dates are not disclosed in the notice, creating an uncertain and potentially unworkable public deadline. The notice states that meeting dates 'will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, social media announcements, and the Project website.' The notice also states that the scoping period runs through 'October 5, 2026' or '15 days after the last scoping meeting, whichever is later.' Because the meeting schedule is unknown at the time of publication, the public cannot determine the actual deadline. People who rely only on the Federal Register to track this project may miss meetings entirely. The BLM should publish a supplemental Federal Register notice disclosing all scoping meeting dates and confirming the actual comment deadline.
- BOR will issue a separate decision from BLM, but the notice describes no mechanism for handling a split outcome on a single continuous 330-mile line. The notice states that BOR 'would issue a separate decision for lands under their jurisdiction based on the analysis contained in the EIS.' The notice does not explain what happens if BLM approves and BOR denies, whether the project can be constructed in segments, or how a segmented approval would affect the EIS's cumulative impact analysis and the applicant's other permit obligations. The EIS must directly address what a split decision means for project viability and cumulative impacts, and the public should have an opportunity to comment on that scenario before the analysis is locked in.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of a right-of-way (ROW) application for the proposed Silver Rock Transmission Line Project (Project). By this notice, BLM is initiating the scoping period to solicit public comments and identify issues to be analyzed in the EIS.
Did the agency answer?
9 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe preliminary issues list in the scoping notice omits water resources, air quality, wildfire, transportation, noise, and socioeconomic effects.
The preliminary issues list in the scoping notice omits water resources, air quality, wildfire, transportation, noise, and socioeconomic effects. The document states that 'preliminary issues for the Project have been identified by the BLM and in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies' and then lists six issue areas: biological and wildlife resources, cultural resources, geological and mineral resources, paleontological resources, recreation, and visual resources. None of these covers hydrology, drinking water, stock water, wildfire ignition, construction-phase air quality, truck traffic, or effects on ranching and rural tourism communities. If agency consultations with federal, state, and local agencies did not surface these concerns for a 330-mile project in rural Utah and Nevada, the consultation record should be disclosed. The BLM should revise the preliminary issues list to include these topics before scoping closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingAll scoping meetings will be virtual even though the project crosses 330 miles of rural Utah and Nevada where broadband access is limited.
All scoping meetings will be virtual even though the project crosses 330 miles of rural Utah and Nevada where broadband access is limited. The notice confirms the BLM will hold up to three virtual scoping meetings. Rural residents in Millard, Beaver, Iron, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, including ranchers, Tribal members, and neighboring landowners, often lack the broadband connection needed to participate reliably in online meetings. Virtual-only meetings systematically disadvantage the populations most directly affected by a 330-mile corridor through their land. The BLM should hold at least one in-person scoping meeting in each affected state and explain how it will ensure participation from communities without reliable internet access.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe ROW width and siting corridor ranges are so broad that the public cannot meaningfully assess impacts or propose alternatives.
The ROW width and siting corridor ranges are so broad that the public cannot meaningfully assess impacts or propose alternatives. The notice describes a combined ROW width of 450 to 650 feet within a siting corridor of up to 2,500 feet. A 200-foot range in ROW width and a corridor nearly four times as wide as the maximum ROW gives the applicant significant discretion to shift the actual footprint after the EIS is complete. The public cannot evaluate impacts to water, wildlife, cultural resources, or grazing operations without knowing where within a 2,500-foot band the structures will actually be placed. The BLM should require the applicant to define the ROW width and corridor centerline with sufficient precision before the EIS alternatives analysis begins.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe interdisciplinary team assembled for a 330-mile construction corridor omits entire resource disciplines.
The interdisciplinary team assembled for a 330-mile construction corridor omits entire resource disciplines. The notice lists the team's expertise as biology, cultural resources, geology and minerals, lands and realty, paleontology, recreation, visual resources, and wildlife. Missing are hydrology and water resources, air quality, noise, wildfire risk, transportation, and socioeconomics. A 330-mile project crossing five counties in two states will generate significant construction traffic, ground disturbance affecting water tables and stock water, increased wildfire ignition risk from equipment and transmission infrastructure, and regional economic effects on ranching and tourism. Omitting these disciplines at scoping signals they may be dropped from the EIS scope entirely. The BLM should add the missing disciplines to the team before the scoping period closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingBOR will issue a separate decision from BLM, but the notice describes no mechanism for handling a split outcome on a single continuous 330-mile line.
BOR will issue a separate decision from BLM, but the notice describes no mechanism for handling a split outcome on a single continuous 330-mile line. The notice states that BOR 'would issue a separate decision for lands under their jurisdiction based on the analysis contained in the EIS.' The notice does not explain what happens if BLM approves and BOR denies, whether the project can be constructed in segments, or how a segmented approval would affect the EIS's cumulative impact analysis and the applicant's other permit obligations. The EIS must directly address what a split decision means for project viability and cumulative impacts, and the public should have an opportunity to comment on that scenario before the analysis is locked in.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe agency defines its own purpose entirely as processing a private application.
The agency defines its own purpose entirely as processing a private application. The Purpose and Need section states the BLM's purpose is to respond to the ROW application submitted by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC. A purpose statement that reduces the agency to a permit-processing office for a private applicant creates no independent public-interest baseline, frames the alternatives analysis around routes rather than around whether the project serves the public, and makes it legally difficult to analyze whether public lands are better protected by a different design or no project at all. The BLM should revise the Purpose and Need statement to articulate an independent federal interest against which alternatives, including a no-build option, can be evaluated.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe applicant, not BLM, generated the alternatives pool.
The applicant, not BLM, generated the alternatives pool. The notice states that three alternative routes 'were assessed by Silver Rock Transmission, LLC, as contingency options.' These are the applicant's own fallback plans, developed to serve its interests, not the public's. BLM now plans to evaluate them as its starting set of EIS alternatives. An independent analysis requires the agency to develop or commission alternatives that explore different footprints, co-location within existing corridors, and route options selected to minimize impacts to wildlife, water, and cultural resources. The BLM should conduct or commission an independent alternatives analysis before the draft EIS is prepared.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingBLM will only evaluate alternatives that clear an economic feasibility screen set from the applicant's perspective.
BLM will only evaluate alternatives that clear an economic feasibility screen set from the applicant's perspective. The notice says BLM will assess only route alternatives that 'meet the purpose and need and are technically and economically feasible.' Economic feasibility is defined by the applicant's financing model and profit margins, not by the value of public lands, ecosystem services, or Tribal cultural resources. This filter could eliminate route alternatives that cost more but would avoid critical habitat, municipal watersheds, or sacred sites, before the public has any opportunity to weigh in. The BLM should explain how 'economically feasible' will be defined, identify who sets that threshold, and confirm the no-action alternative will not be eliminated by this criterion.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe scoping meeting dates are not disclosed in the notice, creating an uncertain and potentially unworkable public deadline.
The scoping meeting dates are not disclosed in the notice, creating an uncertain and potentially unworkable public deadline. The notice states that meeting dates 'will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, social media announcements, and the Project website.' The notice also states that the scoping period runs through 'October 5, 2026' or '15 days after the last scoping meeting, whichever is later.' Because the meeting schedule is unknown at the time of publication, the public cannot determine the actual deadline. People who rely only on the Federal Register to track this project may miss meetings entirely. The BLM should publish a supplemental Federal Register notice disclosing all scoping meeting dates and confirming the actual comment deadline.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksThe proposal calls for 456 small nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel production and nuclear waste storage. On the same day it surfaced, Sen. Ron Wyden introduced legislation that would ban new data centers
After more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
More logging. Fewer protections for big trees, roadless country and wildlife. Another sweeping change to America’s public lands is moving fast.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .