Comments closed October 5
Silver Rock Transmission Line would cross Utah and Nevada public lands
Bureau of Land Management · NV, UT
- What
- BLM is reviewing a power line right-of-way across public lands in five counties in Utah and Nevada.
- Where
- NV, UT
- How much
- approximately 330 miles length of proposed transmission corridor; up to 600 kilovolts maximum proposed voltage; 450 to 650 feet proposed right-of-way width range
- Decided
- Comments closed October 5, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from Federal Register ↗, read September 5, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Federal Register 2026-18056 ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
- approximately 330 miles“extending approximately 330 miles from Millard County, Utah, to Clark County, Nevada” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Open the document ↗
- up to 600 kilovolts“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 ↗
- 450 to 650 feet“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 ↗
- DecidedOctober 5, 2026, from Federal Register, the document’s comment close date (federalregister.gov) ↗. Read September 5, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
Affects public lands
BLM is reviewing a power line right-of-way across public lands in five counties in Utah and Nevada.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Open the document ↗“extending approximately 330 miles from Millard County, Utah, to Clark County, Nevada”
- Maximum proposed voltage
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”
- Proposed right-of-way width range
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”
- Full siting corridor width
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives
Open the document ↗“a siting corridor of up to 2,500 feet (various configurations proposed)”
- Anticipated Record of Decision date
Schedule for the Decision-Making Process
Open the document ↗“The BLM anticipates signing a Record of Decision in the summer of 2028.”
Source: the agency’s document ↗
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
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.
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.
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.
Preliminary Proposed Action and Alternatives ↗
The agency says
“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”
The ROW width and siting corridor ranges are so broad that the public cannot meaningfully assess impacts or propose alternatives.
The agency says
“The BLM will hold up to three virtual scoping meetings.”
All scoping meetings will be virtual even though the project crosses 330 miles of rural Utah and Nevada where broadband access is limited.
The agency says
“The specific dates and instructions for accessing the scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, social media announcements, and the Project website on the National NEPA Register”
The scoping meeting dates are not disclosed in the notice, creating an uncertain and potentially unworkable public deadline.
The agency says
“The BOR would issue a separate decision for lands under their jurisdiction based on the analysis contained in the EIS.”
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.
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.
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Nevada and Utah
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Nevada and Utah, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Center for Biological Diversity
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Gold Butte National Monument, Nevada: Sued the Bureau of Land Management in March 2024 for failing to produce the legally required management plan for Gold Butte National Monument.
- Friends of Nevada Wilderness
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Gold Butte National Monument, Nevada: Ran the petition campaign pressing Nevada officials to pull Gold Butte from the Interior Department's monument review and has defended the monument since the designation fight, which drew over 90,000 supportive comments.
- Grand Staircase Escalante Partners
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Grand Staircase-Escalante, Utah: The monument’s friends group: Science, stewardship, and the legal fight over its boundaries.
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Green River (Flaming Gorge to Colorado), 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.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Desert bighorn sheep in red-rock canyon country. It’s the country this decision sits in, not the site itself. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
This fight isn’t bound to a land unit in PLAN’s record yet, so there are no court cases to show for its ground.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights 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.