Page i

c

FINAL

Merced to Fresno Section: 

Federal General Conformity

Determination

September 2012

Project Environmental Impact Report /

Environmental Impact Statement

Sacramento

Stockton

Modesto

Merced

Transbay Transit Center

Fresno

Kings/Tulare

(Potential Station)

Gilroy

San Jose Redwood City or Palo Alto 

(Potential Station)

Millbrae-SFO

Bakersfield

Palmdale 

San Fernando/Burbank

Ontario Airport

Norwalk Riverside/Corona

Murrieta

Escondido

San Diego

East

San Gabriel

Valley

Los Angeles

Anaheim

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page i

Executive Summary

The California High-Speed Train (HST) System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 

800 miles of guideway throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the 

San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San 

Diego. The Merced to Fresno HST Section (“Project” or “Federal Action”), which is the focus of this 

general conformity determination, is a critical link connecting the Bay Area HST sections to the Fresno to 

Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. 

The General Conformity rule, as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93, Subpart B, 

establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of proposed projects that are 

federally funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality standards. This determination must 

demonstrate that a Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality 

standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely attainment or required interim 

emissions reductions towards attainment. The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), as the 

Project proponent, is receiving federal grant funds through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, and the Project may also receive safety approvals. Because 

of the federal funding and potential safety approvals, and because construction-phase emissions (without 

mitigation) would exceed General Conformity emission thresholds, the Project is subject to the General 

Conformity rule.

This final General Conformity Determination documents FRA’s finding that the Project complies with the 

General Conformity rule and that it conforms to the purposes of the area’s approved State 

Implementation Plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements. A draft General Conformity 

Determination was issued for public review and comment on April 20, 2012, and electronic copies were 

made available on FRA’s website. This final General Conformity Determination was made based on the 

project design feature and mitigation measures that were described in Section 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 of the 

Merced to Fresno Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Authority 

and FRA 2012a) and that will be implemented for the Project. This compliance is demonstrated herein as 

follows:

• The operation of the Project would result in a reduction of regional emissions of all applicable air 

pollutants and would not cause a localized exceedance of an air quality standard; and

• While emissions generated during the construction of the Project would exceed General Conformity 

thresholds for two pollutants, these emission increases would be off-set through a Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page iii

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Regulatory Status of Study Area ........................................................................1-1

1.2 General Conformity Requirements .....................................................................1-3

2.0 Description of the Federal Action ....................................................................2-1

3.0 California High Speed Train Project ................................................................3-1

4.0 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area .........................................................4-1

4.1 Meteorology and Climate ..................................................................................4-1

4.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Study Area ................................................................4-1

4.3 Study Area Emissions........................................................................................4-4

4.4 Project Study Area Designations ........................................................................4-5

5.0 Relationship to NEPA.......................................................................................5-1

6.0 Emission Reduction Measures to Be Incorporated in the Project ...................6-1

7.0 Regulatory Procedures ....................................................................................7-1

7.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions...................................................................7-1

7.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques....................................................7-1

7.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities ...................................................................7-2

7.4 Emission Scenarios ...........................................................................................7-2

8.0 Applicability Analysis.......................................................................................8-1

8.1 Attainment Status of Project Area......................................................................8-1

8.2 Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements ...........................................8-1

8.3 Applicability for Federal Action...........................................................................8-2

8.4 De minimis Emission Rates................................................................................8-2

9.0 Construction Activities Considered..................................................................9-1

9.1 Mobilization......................................................................................................9-2

9.2 Site Preparation................................................................................................9-2

9.2.1 Demolition.......................................................................................9-2

9.2.2 Land Grubbing.................................................................................9-2

9.3 Earth Moving....................................................................................................9-2

9.4 HST Alignment Construction..............................................................................9-3

9.4.1 Track Type and Alignment Alternatives..............................................9-3

9.4.2 Concrete Batch Plants ......................................................................9-3

9.4.3 Material Hauling...............................................................................9-3

9.5 Train Station Construction.................................................................................9-4

9.6 Heavy Maintenance Facility Construction............................................................9-4

9.7 Power Distribution Station Construction .............................................................9-4

9.8 Roadway Construction ......................................................................................9-5

9.9 Demobilization .................................................................................................9-5

10.0 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds .........10-1

11.0 Regional Effects.............................................................................................11-1

12.0 General Conformity Evaluation......................................................................12-1

12.1 Conformity Requirements of Proposed Project .............................................12-1

12.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements ..................................................12-1

13.0 Reporting and Public Comments ...................................................................13-1

13.1 Reevaluation of General Conformity ............................................................13-1

14.0 Findings and Conclusions ..............................................................................14-1

15.0 References .....................................................................................................15-1

Appendices

A Emissions Offset Commitment

B Draft General Conformity Determination Comment 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page iv

List of Figures

Figure 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

List of Tables

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to Project’s Study Area

Table 2 Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring Stations Closest 

to the Project

Table 3 2010 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for SJVAB (tons per day)

Table 4 Federal Attainment Status

Table 5 De Minimis Rates for Determining Applicability of General Conformity Requirements to 

Federal Actions

Table 6 Total Annual Construction-phase Emissions
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction

This document is the final General Conformity Determination for the Merced to Fresno Section of the 

California High-Speed Train (HST) System (“Project” or “Federal Action”) and is required by the 

implementing regulations of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA 

prohibits federal agencies from engaging in, supporting, or providing financial assistance for licensing, 

permitting or approving any activities that do not conform to an approved CAA implementation plan. That 

approved plan may be a federal, state or tribal implementation plan. 

The CAA defines nonattainment areas as geographic regions that have been designated as not meeting 

one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state 

prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each nonattainment area, and a maintenance plan be 

prepared for each former non-attainment area that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the 

standards. The SIP is a state’s plan for how it will meet the NAAQS by the deadlines established by 

the CAA. 

The General Conformity rule is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93, Subpart B, 

“Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.” 

Conformity is defined as “upholding an implementation plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the 

severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards.”

40 CFR Part 93 also establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of 

proposed projects that are federally funded or require federal approval. This determination must 

demonstrate that the Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality 

standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely attainment or required interim 

emissions reductions towards attainment. Since the Project is receiving federal funds through grants with 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and may also receive safety approvals from FRA, it is an action 

that may be subject to the general conformity rule. 

1.1 Regulatory Status of Study Area

By way of background, in addition to the regulations covering the General Conformity rule, on 

November 24, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated final conformity 

regulations to address transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under 

title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S.C 1601 et seq (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A). These 

regulations have been revised several times since they were first issued. While the transportation 

conformity regulations do not apply to this Project (see Section 1.2), many of the transportation 

planning documents developed under those regulations are helpful in understanding the regional air 

quality and planning status of the study area. 

Planning documents for pollutants for which the study area is classified as a federal nonattainment or 

maintenance area are developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and 

the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and approved by EPA. Figure 1 shows the project alignment 

as it is situated in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 1 lists the planning documents relevant to the 

proposed Project’s study area. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-2

Figure 1

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Source: CARB (2004a)
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-3

Table 1

Planning Documents Relevant to Project’s Study Area

Type of Plan Status

1-Hour O3 Attainment 

Plan

On March 8, 2010, EPA approved San Joaquin Valley's 2004 Extreme Ozone Plan for 

the 1-hour O3 standard. However, effective June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the federal 

1-hour O3 standard for areas including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).

a

8-Hour O3 Attainment 

Plan

On May 5, 2010, EPA reclassified the 8-hour O3 nonattainment status of San Joaquin 

Valley from "serious" to "extreme." The reclassification requires the state to 

incorporate more-stringent requirements, such as lower permitting thresholds and 

implementing reasonably available control technologies at more sources.b

The 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan contained a comprehensive and exhaustive list of 

regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce emissions of O3 and particulate 

matter precursors throughout the San Joaquin Valley. On December 18, 2007, the 

SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted the plan with an amendment to extend the rule 

adoption schedule for organic waste operations. On January 8, 2009, EPA found that 

the motor vehicle budgets for 2008, 2020, and 2030 from the 2007 8-hour Ozone 

Plan were not adequate for transportation conformity purposes.a

PM10 Maintenance Plan On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS and approved the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan.c

PM2.5 Attainment Plan The SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008, 

following a public hearing. This plan includes measures to attain the 1997 and 2006 

federal standards as well as the state standard.d EPA designated the SJVAB under the 

new PM2.5 national standard on October 8, 2009, and state implementation plans for 

the 2006 PM2.5 standards will be due to EPA within 3 years of final designation.

CO Maintenance Plan On July 22, 2004, CARB approved an update to the SIP that shows how 10 areas, 

including the SJVAB, will maintain the CO standard through 2018. On November 30, 

2005, EPA approved and promulgated the implementation plans and designation of 

areas for air quality purposes.e

a SJVAPCD (2010).

b SJVAPCD (2007a).

c SJVAPCD (2007b).

d SJVAPCD (2008).

e CARB (2004b); EPA (2005).

1.2 General Conformity Requirements 

On November 30, 1993, EPA promulgated final general conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart 

B for all federal activities except highways and transit programs covered by Transportation Conformity. 

The regulations in Subpart B were subsequently amended in March of 2010. The HST Project requires 

approval by FRA, and because the Project will not be funded or require approval(s) under Title 23 U.S.C. 

or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S.C 1601 et seq., the General Conformity requirements are applicable, 

rather than transportation conformity. In general terms, unless a project is exempt under 40 CFR §

93.153(c) or is not on the agency’s presumed–to-conform list pursuant to 40 CFR § 93.153(f), a General 

Conformity Determination is required where a Federal Action in a nonattainment or maintenance area 

causes an increase in the total of direct and indirect emissions of the relevant criteria pollutants and 

precursor pollutants that are equal to or exceed certain de minimis rates.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-4

The general conformity regulations incorporate a stepwise process, beginning with an applicability 

analysis. According to EPA’s General Conformity Guidance: Questions and Answers (EPA 1994)

(EPA Guidance), before any approval is given for a Federal Action to go forward, the federal agency must 

apply the applicability requirements found at 40 CFR § 93.153 to the Federal Action and/or determine on 

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, whether a determination of general conformity is required. During the 

applicability analysis, the federal agency determines the following:

• Whether the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area;

• Whether one or more of the specific exemptions apply to the action;

• Whether the federal agency has included the action on its list of presumed-to-conform actions;

• Whether the total direct and indirect emissions are below or above the de minimis levels; and/or

• Where a facility has an emissions budget approved by the State or Tribe as part of the SIP or TIP, 

the federal agency determines that the emissions from the proposed action are within the budget

(EPA 2010a).

The EPA Guidance states that the applicability analysis can be (but is not required to be) completed 

concurrently with any analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The

applicability analysis for this Project is described in Section 8.0.

If through the applicability analysis process the responsible federal agency determines that the general 

conformity regulations do not apply to the Federal Action, no further analysis or documentation is 

required. If, however, the general conformity regulations do apply to the Federal Action, the responsible 

federal agency must conduct a conformity evaluation in accordance with the criteria and procedures in 

the implementing regulations; publish a draft determination of general conformity for public review; and 

then publish the final determination of general conformity. 

To make a conformity determination, the federal agency must demonstrate conformity by one or more of 

several prescribed methods. These methods include:

• Demonstrating that the direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified in the relevant 

implementation plan, 

• Obtaining a written statement from the entity responsible for the implementation plan that the total 

indirect and direct emissions from the action, along with other emissions in the area, will not exceed 

the total implementation plan emission budget, or

• Fully offsetting the total direct and indirect emissions by reducing emissions of the same pollutant in 

the same nonattainment or maintenance area.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 2-1

2.0 Description of the Federal Action 

In accordance with applicable general conformity regulations and guidance, when a General Conformity 

Determination is necessary, the FRA is only required to conduct a general conformity evaluation for the 

specific federal action associated with the selected alternative for a project or program (EPA 1994), and 

FRA must issue a positive conformity determination before the federal action is approved. Each federal 

agency is responsible for determining conformity of those proposed actions over which it has jurisdiction. 

This final General Conformity Determination is related only to those activities included in the FRA’s 

Federal Action pertaining to the HST Project, which is the Project’s potential approval through a NEPA

Record of Decision (ROD). The Project is described further in Section 3.0 below. 

General conformity requirements only apply to federal actions proposed in nonattainment areas (i.e., 

areas where one or more NAAQS are not being achieved at the time of the proposed action and requiring 

SIP provisions to demonstrate how attainment will be achieved) and in maintenance areas (i.e., areas 

recently reclassified from nonattainment to attainment and requiring SIP provisions to demonstrate how 

attainment will be maintained). 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 3-1

3.0 California High Speed Train Project 

The Authority, a state governing board formed in 1996, is responsible for planning, designing, 

constructing, and operating the HST Project. Its mandate is to develop a high-speed rail system 

connecting the state’s major population centers and coordinating with the state’s existing transportation 

network, which includes intercity rail and bus lines, regional commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus 

transit lines, highways, and airports.

FRA is responsible for oversight and regulation of railroad safety and is also charged with the 

implementation of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) financial assistance program. As part 

of the HSIPR Program, FRA is providing partial funding for the environmental analysis and documentation 

required under both the NEPA and the CEQA and other related environmental laws. In this effort, FRA is 

the federal lead agency on the EIR/EIS for the HST System including the EIR/EIS for the Project. In 

addition, to its involvement in the environmental analysis and documentation, FRA is also providing 

partial funding for the final design and construction of the initial construction section of the HST System 

which includes activities analyzed as part of this Project. 

The HST System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 800 miles of railroad throughout 

California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the 

Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. It will use state-of-theart, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, 

signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour 

(mph) over a fully grade-separated, dedicated guideway alignment. 

The purpose of the Merced to Fresno Section of the HST Project is to implement the California HST 

System between Merced and Fresno, providing the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service 

that provides predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to 

airports, mass transit systems, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and to connect 

the northern and southern portions of the HST System. The approximately 65-mile-long corridor between 

Merced and Fresno is an essential part of the statewide HST System. The Merced to Fresno Section is the 

location where the HST would intersect and connect with the Bay Area and Sacramento branches of the 

HST System; it would provide a potential location for the heavy maintenance facility (HMF) where the 

HSTs would be assembled and maintained, it would also provide people in Merced and Fresno access to a 

new transportation mode and would contribute to increased mobility throughout California.

The Merced to Fresno Section includes HST stations in the cities of Merced and Fresno. These stations 

are this section’s beginning and ending points, or project termini. If the Castle Commerce Center, located 

north of Merced, were selected from the five alternative sites for the project’s HMF, the project’s northern 

boundary would be north of Merced, at that HMF. Both the east-west connection to San Jose and into 

San Francisco and the HMFs are studied in the Merced to Fresno Section EIR/EIS, but the decisions on 

these portions of the project have been postponed until after the Fresno to Bakersfield and the San Jose 

to Merced Sections complete their environmental reviews.

There were three HST alignment alternatives proposed for the Merced to Fresno Section of the HST 

System: the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative, which would primarily parallel the UPRR railway; the BNSF 

Alternative, which would parallel the BNSF railway for a portion of the distance between Merced and 

Fresno; and the Hybrid Alternative, which combines features of the UPRR/SR 99 and BNSF alternatives. 

Each of these three alternatives included two different east-west design options, the Ave 24 Wye and the 

Ave 21 Wye, resulting in a total of six different alternative design options (UPRR/SR 99 Alternative with 

Ave 24 Wye, UPRR/SR 99 Alternative with Ave 21 Wye, BNSF Alternative with Ave 24 Wye, BNSF 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 3-2

Alternative with Ave 21 Wye, Hybrid Alternative with Ave 24 Wye, Hybrid Alternative with Ave 21 Wye).1

The Hybrid Alternative is the Preferred Alternative.

It is estimated that construction of the Merced Fresno Section of the Project would take approximately 

eight years, with initiation of construction in 2013 and completion in 2022.

 

1 A selection by the FRA and Authority of a wye will not occur as part of the initial Merced to Fresno Section rail alignment decision. 

A wye will be selected as part of a subsequent HST section, San Jose to Merced. A third wye option along State Route (SR) 152 

likely will be added in the San Jose to Merced Section EIR/EIS, and associated General Conformity determination (should one be 

necessary). Because the scope of construction and the construction methods would be similar to the Ave 21 and Ave 24 wye 

options analyzed in this document, it is not expected that the SR152 wye would increase construction emissions over those covered 

by this General Conformity determination. If it is determined that emissions would differ, however, the SR 152 Wye will be covered 

in a General Conformity determination for the San Jose to Merced Section.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-1

4.0 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

4.1 Meteorology and Climate

Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions, and by meteorological 

conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants in the atmosphere. Atmospheric 

conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local 

topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and local air quality levels.

Elevation and topography can affect localized air quality. The project is located in the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basin (SJVAB), which encompasses the southern two-thirds of California’s Central Valley. The SJVAB is 

approximately 250 miles long and is shaped like a narrow bowl. The sides and southern boundary of the 

bowl are bordered by mountain ranges. The valley’s weather conditions include frequent temperature 

inversions; long, hot summers; and stagnant, foggy winters, all of which are conducive to the formation 

and retention of air pollutants (SJVAPCD 2009).

The SJVAB is typically arid in the summer months with cool temperatures and prevalent tule fog (i.e., a 

dense ground fog) in the winter and fall. The average high temperature in the summer months is in the 

mid-90s and the average low in the winter is in the high 40s. January is typically the wettest month of 

the year with an average of about 2 inches of rain. Wind direction is typically from the northwest with 

average monthly wind speeds ranging from 4.7 mph to 8.3 mph (Western Regional Climate Center 2009).

4.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Study Area

CARB maintains ambient air monitoring stations for criteria pollutants throughout California. The stations 

closest to the HST alignment are the Merced Coffee, Madera Pump Yard, Fresno-Drummond, and Merced 

M Street monitoring stations. These stations monitor nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate 

matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate 

matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) but do not monitor sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

The land uses in the region range from urban and residential to rural and agricultural and these stations 

represent these land use types. Air quality standards, primarily for O3 and PM, have been exceeded in the 

SJVAB primarily because of existing industrial and agricultural sources. Table 2 summarizes the results of 

ambient monitoring at the three stations from 2007 through 2009. 

A brief summary of the monitoring data includes the following:

• Monitored data from 2007 through 2009 do not exceed either the state or federal standards for CO or 

NO2.

• O3 values for the region exceed the state and the national 8-hour O3 standards for all O3 stations for 

years 2007 through 2009. O3 values for the region also exceed the state 1-hour O3 standard for all 

stations for every year in the past 3 years (EPA 2009a). 

• The PM10 monitor is located in Fresno. The annual and the 24-hour state standards were exceeded 

multiple times for years 2007 through 2009. There were no exceedances of the federal 24-hour 

standard.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-2

Table 2

Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring Stations Closest to the Project

Air

Pollutant Standard/Exceedance

Merced Coffee 

Station

Madera Pump Yard 

Station

Fresno-Drummond 

Station

Merced M Street 

Station

200720082009200720082009200720082009200720082009

Carbon 

Monoxide

(CO)

Year coverage

Max. 1-hour concentration (ppm)

Max. 8-hour concentration (ppm)

# Days>federal 1-hour std. of >35 ppm

# Days>federal 8-hour std. of >9 ppm

# Days>California 8-hour std. of >9 ppm

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

97

4.4

2.37

0

0

0

94

2.6

2.14

0

0

0

95

N/A

1.95

N/A

0

0

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

Ozone

(O3)

Year coveragea

Max. 1-hour concentration (ppm)

Max. 8-hour concentration (ppm)

# Days>federal 8-hour std. of >0.075 ppm

# Days>California 1-hour std. of >0.09 ppm

# Days>California 8-hour std. of >0.07 ppm

99

0.105

0.096

18

5

25

97

0.131

0.120

33

14

54

100

0.094

0.083

15

0

35

98

0.091

0.083

5

0

12

88

0.120

0.107

24

9

46

92

0.111

0.096

13

6

27

95

0.110

0.092

9

2

18

100

0.124

0.112

20

19

36

98

0.118

0.101

39

25

55

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

(NO2)

Year coverage

Max. 1-hour concentration (ppm)

Annual average (ppm)

# Days>California 1-hour std. of >0.18 ppm

98

0.050

0.009

0

96

0.060

0.009

0

95

0.056

0.008

0

99

0.047

0.010

0

97

0.053

0.010

0

97

0.046

0.009

0

95

0.067

0.016

0

98

0.076

0.015

0

98

0.076

0.014

0

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

Respirable 

Particulate 

Matter

(PM10)

Year coverage

Max. 24-hour concentration (μg/m3)

#Days>Fed. 24-hour std. of >150 μg/m3

#Days>California 24-hour std. of >50 μg/m3

Annual average (μg/m3)

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

97

93.0

0

10

38.1

100

99.5

0

21

40.5

100

84.0

0

12

35.3

95

69.0

0

6

29.7

92

76.8

0

14

34.5

94

65.1

0

5

26.9
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-3

Air

Pollutant Standard/Exceedance

Merced Coffee 

Station

Madera Pump Yard 

Station

Fresno-Drummond 

Station

Merced M Street 

Station

200720082009200720082009200720082009200720082009

Fine 

Particulate 

Matter

(PM2.5)

Year coverage

Max. 24-hour concentration (μg/m3)

State annual average (μg/m3)

#Days>fed. 24-hour std. of >35 μg/m3

Annual average (μg/m3)

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

95

81.6

15.2

17

15.2

97

54.0

N/A

9

N/A

95

53.3

13.6

8

13.5

a

Coverage is for an 8-hour standard.

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

NM = not monitored

N/A = not available

> = greater than

Sources: CARB (2010a); EPA (2010b). 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-4

4.3 Study Area Emissions

CARB maintains an annual emission inventory for each county and air basin in the state. The inventory 

for the SJVAB consists of data submitted to CARB by SJVAPCD plus estimates for certain source 

categories, which are provided by CARB staff. The most recent published inventory data for the SJVAB is 

summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

2010 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for SJVAB (tons per day)

Source Category VOCs CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 6.0 35.6 45.0 6.7 5.9 5.7 5.7

Waste Disposal 9.2 1.1 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 39.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Petroleum Production and Marketing 33.1 8.9 4.3 6.2 4.0 2.6 2.2

Industrial Processes 19.5 2.4 4.6 2.7 24.0 14.4 6.7

Total Stationary Sources 107.0 48.1 56.0 16.1 35.6 24.0 15.4

Stationary Sources Percentage of Total 15.3 1.4 6.8 40.8 6.8 8.0 13.3

Area-wide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 127.1 - - - - - -

Miscellaneous Processes 15.5 111.3 25.8 0.9 424.4 214.9 52.1

Total Area-wide Sources 142.6 111.3 25.8 0.9 424.5 214.9 52.1

Area-wide Sources Percentage of Total 20.4 3.3 3.1 2.3 81.4 71.9 44.9

Mobile Sources

On-road Motor Vehicles 210.8 2,115.8 450.3 2.1 25.2 24.9 17.9

Other Mobile Sources 150.8 974.2 287.8 18.9 19.1 18.5 16.4

Total Mobile Sources 361.6 3,090.0 738.2 21.0 44.3 43.4 34.4

Mobile Sources Percentage of Total 51.8 90.5 89.5 53.2 8.5 14.5 29.7

Natural (Nonanthropogenic) Sources

Natural Sources 86.5 164.2 5.0 1.5 17.3 16.6 14.1

Total Natural (Nonanthropogenic 

Sources)

86.5 164.2 5.0 1.5 17.3 16.6 14.1

Natural Sources Percentage of Total 12.4 4.8 0.6 3.8 3.3 5.5 12.2

Grand Total 697.7 3,413.5 825.0 39.5 521.7 298.9 115.9

Source: CARB (2009).
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-5

In the SJVAPCD, mobile source emissions account for over 60% of the basin's CO and NOx emission 

inventory. Area sources account for over 80% and over 50% of the basin’s particulate and total VOC 

emissions, respectively, and stationary sources account for over 70% of the basin’s sulfur oxides (SOX) 

emissions.

4.4 Project Study Area Designations 

The study area defined in the EIR/EIS for the HST Project and for this final General Conformity 

Determination is currently designated as severe nonattainment for ozone, nonattainment for particulate 

matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and maintenance for CO. It is designated as attainment for all the 

other pollutants. Therefore, conformity regulations would apply to these three pollutants if the annual 

emissions of these pollutants generated by the proposed Project were to exceed the general conformity

de minimis thresholds. As such, annual emissions of these pollutants generated by the proposed Project

in the entire SJVAB were compared to these thresholds.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 5-1

5.0 Relationship to NEPA

A Draft EIR/EIS was published for public review and comment in August 2011 providing an analysis of 

three Build alternatives and a No-Build alternative. The Final EIR/EIS was published in April 2012. The 

Final EIR/EIS identifies potential environmental impacts of the Project, both adverse and beneficial, 

identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, and identifies the agencies’ preferred 

alternative. The EIR/EIS was prepared to be sufficient for purposes of CEQA also.

The general conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be followed when 

preparing a general conformity evaluation and are similar but not identical to those for conducting an air 

quality impact analysis under NEPA regulations.

NEPA requires that the air quality impacts of the proposed Project’s implementation be analyzed and 

disclosed. For purposes of NEPA, the air quality impacts of the project were determined by identifying the 

Project’s associated incremental emissions and air pollutant concentrations and comparing them, 

respectively, to emissions thresholds and state and national ambient air quality standards. The air quality 

impacts of the HST Project under future Build conditions were also compared in the Final EIR/EIS to the 

future No-Build conditions for NEPA purposes (they were also compared to existing conditions). The 

General Conformity Determination process and general findings are discussed in the Final EIR/EIS. 

FRA and the Authority recently published a Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS for the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section of the HST System. Subject to the final agency decision, the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section will begin at the terminus of the Merced to Fresno Section at the Downtown Fresno HST Station 

and continue south, ending at a Bakersfield HST Station. This Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS 

was published in July 2012. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is also within the SJVAB and if necessary a 

General Conformity Determination will be prepared as part of the environmental process to comply with 

the CAA. However, the Fresno to Bakersfield Section will not be approved or implemented until FRA and 

the Authority have issued a Final EIR/EIS and the subsequent decision documents. Once approved, 

certain construction activities within the Fresno to Bakersfield Section may occur concurrently with 

Merced to Fresno Section construction activities. As such, and in order to appropriately identify and 

offset, where necessary, the emissions occurring in the SJVAB, FRA will issue a draft General Conformity 

Determination covering the potential emissions from both sections of the HST System from Merced to 

Bakersfield as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIR/EIS process. As noted above, in the interim, 

no construction work on the Fresno to Bakersfield Section may occur until the associated Authority and 

FRA decision documents are issued; therefore, there will be no increase in emissions as a result of 

construction activities. The Authority has entered into discussions with the SJVAPCD to offset any 

emissions, as necessary, resulting from the Fresno to Bakersfield Section through the same Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) agreement as described in Section 12.2. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 6-1

6.0 Emission Reduction Measures to Be 

Incorporated in the Project

In order to reduce impacts on the environment and as required by NEPA and CEQA, the construction of 

the Project will include project design features and mitigation measures (Section 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 of the 

EIR/EIS) that will be implemented as part of the Project to minimize air quality impacts. These mitigation 

measures will be required components of the Project. They are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and 

Enforcement Program included with FRA’s ROD and will therefore be enforceable commitments 

undertaken by the Authority. Construction of the Project is anticipated to occur through a design/build 

contract. The selected contractor will be bound under the terms of the construction contract to 

implement these mitigation measures. The Authority will be responsible for implementing and overseeing 

a mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the contractor meets all air quality mitigation measures 

for ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), and particulate 

matter.

Project design features include the following:

• Trucks would be covered to reduce significant fugitive dust emissions while hauling soil and other 

similar material.

• All trucks and equipment will be washed before exiting the construction site. 

• Exposed surfaces and unpaved roads would be watered three times daily. 

• Vehicle travel speed on unpaved roads would be reduced to 15 miles per hour (mph).

• Any dust generation activities will be suspended when wind speed exceed 25 mph.

• All disturbed areas, including storage piles that are not being actively utilized for construction 

purposes, will be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or a chemical 

stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

• All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved access roads will be effectively stabilized of dust 

emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

• All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition 

activities will be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions by utilizing an application of water or 

by presoaking. With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the 

building will be wetted during demolition.

• When materials are transported offsite, all material will be covered or effectively wetted to limit 

visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container will be 

maintained.

• All operations will limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public 

streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except 

where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of 

blower devices is expressly forbidden.

• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor 

storage piles, piles will be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or a 

chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

• Within urban areas, trackout will be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the 

site and at the end of each workday.

• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will prevent carryout and trackout. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 6-2

• Use of low-VOC paint that contains less than 10% of VOC contents. A Super-compliant or Clean Air 

paint that has a lower a VOC content than those required by South Coast AQMD Rule 1113, will also 

be used when available.

The following are two additional mitigation measures that may be included but were not assumed for the 

estimation of emission rates at this time because their implementation is uncertain. Prior to the initiation 

of construction (i.e., after a contractor has been selected), the use of these measures will be revisited, 

and if feasible, implemented. The implementation of these measures may result in the need for fewer 

emission offsets (see Section 12) to comply with general conformity requirements.

• AQ-MM#1: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment – This 

mitigation measure will apply to heavy-duty construction equipment used during the construction 

phase. All off-road construction diesel equipment will use the cleanest reasonably available 

equipment (including newer equipment and/or tailpipe retrofits), but in no case less clean than the 

average fleet mix as set forth in CARB’s Non-Road 2007 database. The contractor will document 

efforts it undertook to locate newer equipment (such as, in order of priority, Tier 4, Tier 3 or Tier 2 

equipment) and/or tailpipe retrofit equivalents. Contractor shall provide documentation of such 

efforts, including correspondence with at least two construction equipment rental companies. A copy 

of each unit’s certified tier specification and any required CARB or SJVAPCD operating permit will be 

made available at the time of mobilization of each piece of equipment. Contractor shall keep a written 

record (supported by equipment hours meters where available) of equipment usage during project 

construction for each piece of equipment. 

• AQ-MM#2: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road Construction Vehicles – This 

mitigation measure would apply to on-road trucks used to haul construction materials, including fill, 

ballast, rail ties, and steel. Material hauling trucks would consist of an average fleet mix of equipment 

model year 2010 or newer, to the extent reasonably practicable. Contractor shall provide 

documentation of efforts to secure such fleet mix. Contractor shall keep a written record of 

equipment usage during project construction for each piece of equipment. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-1

7.0 Regulatory Procedures 

The general conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be followed when 

preparing a general conformity evaluation. This section addresses the major applicable procedural issues 

and specifies how these requirements are met for the evaluation of the Federal Action. The procedures 

required for the general conformity evaluation are similar but not identical to those for conducting an air 

quality impact analysis pursuant to NEPA regulations. It is anticipated, however, that the Final General 

Conformity Determination will be published concurrent with the FRA ROD for the Federal Action. This 

General Conformity Determination is being released for public and agency review pursuant to 

40 CFR § 93.156.

7.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions 

The general conformity regulations require the use of the latest planning assumptions for the area 

encompassing the federal action, derived from the estimates of population, employment, travel, and 

congestion most recently approved by the area’s MPOs (40 CFR § 93.159(a)). 

The emission estimation techniques, which were slightly different from those used in establishing the 

applicable SIP emissions budgets, have been approved by the SJVAPCD. The traffic data used in the air 

quality analysis (see Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.2) are consistent with the most recent estimates made by 

the MPOs for traffic volume growth rates, including forecast changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 

vehicle hours traveled (VHT). The MPO developed these estimates from their traffic assignment models 

based on current and future population, employment, and travel and congestion information. These 

assumptions are consistent with those in the current conformity determinations for the region’s 

Transportation Plan and TIP. 

7.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques 

The general conformity regulations require the use of the latest and most accurate emission estimation 

techniques available, unless such techniques are inappropriate (40 CFR § 93.159(b)). Vehicular emission 

factors were estimated by using the CARB emission factor program, EMission FACtors 2007 

(EMFAC2007), which is the emission model used in the preparation of the SIP. Parameters were set in 

the program for each individual county to reflect conditions within each county, and statewide 

parameters were used to reflect statewide conditions. 

Pollutant emissions from building demolition and construction of the at-grade rail segments, elevated rail 

segments, retained fill rail segments, transaction power substations, industrial buildings at the heavy 

maintenance facility and HST stations, including parking garages and platform facilities, were calculated 

using the URBanEMISsions (URBEMIS) 2007 model (see Air Quality Technical Report, Section 7.10. 

URBEMIS2007 uses emission factor data for off-road equipment based on data from the OFFROAD 2007 

and EMFAC2007 models. Project-specific load factors (the ratio of average equipment horsepower utilized 

to maximum equipment horsepower) were input into the URBEMIS2007 program to account for updated 

load factor data from CARB’s Off-Road/Nonroad 2011 database.2 An adjustment was also made to 

account for an error built into URBEMIS2007’s application of load factor data; failure to make the 

adjustment would otherwise result in under-reporting emissions.

 

2 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadappd.pdf (Table D-7 of ARB’s Appendix D at this website) (CARB 

2010b). These factors represent the latest information regarding construction equipment usage; the Final EIR/EIS calculations 

account for this latest information. The ARB updates also included updates to the average industry equipment age (see pages D-18 

to D-25 of ARB’s Appendix D), generally concluding that the average equipment age is newer/cleaner than then-existing ARB 

databases contained. Because of time pressures and modeling complexities, the construction emissions estimates in the 

Final EIR/EIS do not account for the newer/cleaner equipment. Doing so would reduce the emission levels presented by a small 

amount, likely less than 10%.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-2

7.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities 

Project-specific data, including construction equipment lists and the construction schedule, were used for 

construction associated with the alignment/guideway. Where project-specific data were not available, 

URBEMIS2007 default settings were used. Calculations were performed for each year of construction.

Major activities were grouped into the following categories:

• Mobilization 

• Site preparation including demolition, land clearing, and grubbing

• Earth-moving

• Roadway crossings

• Elevated structures

• Track laying – elevated, at-grade and retained fill

• Traction power supply station

• Switching station

• Paralleling station

• HMF – including demolition, building, and track construction

• Merced station

• Fresno station

• Hauling emissions – including truck and rail 

7.4 Emission Scenarios 

The general conformity regulations require that the evaluation reflect certain emission scenarios (40 CFR

§93.159(d)). Specifically, these scenarios generally include the evaluation of the direct and indirect 

emissions from a proposed Project for the following years: (1) for nonattainment areas, the year 

mandated in the CAA for attainment and for maintenance areas, the farthest year for which emissions are 

projected in the approved maintenance plan; (2) the year during which the total of direct and indirect 

emissions for the Federal Action are projected to be the greatest on an annual basis; and (3) any year for 

which the applicable SIP specifies an emissions budget. Both the operational and construction phases of 

a project have to be considered, and the following applies to the proposed Project.

• Emissions generated during the operational phase of the HST would meet the emission requirements 

for the years associated with Items 1 and 3 because the emissions generated during the operational 

phase of the proposed Project would be less than those emitted in the No-Build scenario (see Final 

EIR/EIS Section 3.3). In addition, microscale analyses conducted for the EIR/EIS demonstrate that 

the operational phase of the HST would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS for all 

applicable pollutants (see Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.3.6.3). 

• Emissions generated during HST’s construction phase, which would include the year with the greatest 

amount of total direct and indirect emissions (Item 2), may be subject to general conformity 

regulations because they will increase regional emission rates and, as such, have the potential to 

cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an NAAQS. Therefore, analyses were conducted to estimate 

the amounts of emissions that would be generated during the construction phase (for comparison 

with the general conformity applicability rates) and the potential impacts of these emissions on local 

air quality levels. Emissions generated at the construction sites (e.g., tailpipe emissions from the onsite heavy-duty diesel equipment and fugitive dust emissions generated by vehicles traveling within 

the construction sites) and on the area’s roadways by vehicles traveling to and from these sites (by 

vehicles transporting materials and the workers traveling to and from work) were considered.

• Air quality dispersion modeling would be required for this conformity analysis to estimate the 

project’s localized impacts on PM2.5 and CO concentrations if the annual emissions of the pollutants 

generated during construction were to exceed the general conformity de minimis thresholds.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-3

Annual emissions were estimated for each year of the proposed Project’s construction period. These 

emissions, which are the maximum values for the project Preferred Alternative, are described in more

detail in Section 10.0 of this report.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-1

8.0 Applicability Analysis 

As stated previously, the first step in a general conformity evaluation is an analysis of whether the 

requirements apply to a proposed federal action in a nonattainment or a maintenance area. Unless 

exempted by the regulations or otherwise presumed to conform, a federal (non-Transportation) action 

requires a General Conformity Determination for each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect 

emissions caused by the federal action would equal or exceed an annual de minimis emission rate. 

8.1 Attainment Status of Project Area

EPA designates each county (or portions of counties) within California as attainment, maintenance, or 

nonattainment based on the area's ability to maintain ambient air concentrations below the air quality 

standards. Areas are designated as attainment if ambient air concentrations of a criteria pollutant are 

below the ambient standards. Areas are designated as nonattainment if ambient air concentrations are 

above the ambient standards. Areas previously designated as nonattainment that subsequently 

demonstrated compliance with the standards are designated as maintenance. Table 4 shows the 

designation status of the SJVAB for each criteria pollutant. 

Table 4

Federal Attainment Status

Pollutant Federal Classification

O3 Nonattainment (Extreme)

PM10 Maintenance

PM2.5 Nonattainment

CO Urban portion of Fresno County: Maintenance

Remaining basin: Attainment

NO2 Attainment

SO2 Attainment

Source: EPA (2010c).

Under federal designations, the SJVAB is currently classified as nonattainment for 8-hour O3, the 1997 

PM2.5 standard (annual standard of 15 micrograms/cubic meter [μg/m3

] and 24-hour standard of 65

μg/m3

), and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 μg/m3). The SJVAB is a maintenance area for PM10, and 

the Fresno Urbanized Area is a maintenance area for CO. The SJVAB is in attainment for the NO2 and 

SO2, and unclassified for lead. As such, FRA is required to demonstrate project-level compliance with the 

general conformity rule for NOx and VOCs (e.g., ozone precursors), PM2.5, and CO if project-related 

emissions of these pollutants would exceed the general conformity de minimis thresholds.

8.2 Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements 

As noted previously, the general conformity requirements apply to a federal action if the net project 

emissions equal or exceed certain de minimis emission rates. The only exceptions to this applicability 

criterion are the topical exemptions summarized below, or if the activity is on the federal agency’s 

presumed-to-conform list (40 CFR § 93.153(f)) or meets the narrow exemption for federal actions in 

response to an emergency or disaster (40 CFR § 93.153(e)).
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-2

• Actions that would result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly below 

the de minimis levels (40 CFR § 93.153(c)(2)). Examples include administrative actions and routine 

maintenance and repair. 

• Actions where the emissions are not reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR § 93.153(c)(3)). 

• Actions which implement a decision to conduct or carry out a conforming program (40 CFR § 93.153 

(c)(4)). 

• Actions which include major new or modified sources requiring a permit under the New Source 

Review (NSR) program (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(1)). 

• Actions in response to emergencies or natural disasters (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(2)).

• Actions which include air quality research not harming the environment (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(3)). 

• Actions which include modifications to existing sources to enable compliance with applicable 

environmental requirements (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(4)). 

• Actions which include emissions from remedial measures carried out under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) that comply with other applicable 

requirements (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(5)).

However, the Project does not meet any of these exempt categories. In addition, FRA has not established 

a presumed-to-conform list of activities at the time of this evaluation and the Project does not meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.153(e). 

8.3 Applicability for Federal Action 

After determining that the Project is not otherwise exempt, the applicability of the general conformity 

requirements to the Federal Action was evaluated by comparing the total of direct and indirect emissions 

for the calendar year of greatest emissions to the general conformity de minimis thresholds. Where the 

total of direct and indirect emissions attributable to the Federal Action were found to be below the de 

minimis emission rates for a pollutant, that pollutant is excluded from general conformity requirements 

and no further analysis is required. However, when the emissions of an applicable pollutant are at or 

above a de minimis threshold, that pollutant must undergo a general conformity evaluation. 

8.4 De minimis Emission Rates 

The general conformity requirements will apply to the Federal Action for each pollutant for which the total 

of direct and indirect emissions caused by the Federal Action equal or exceed the de minimis emission 

rates shown below. These emission rates are expressed in units of tons per year (tpy) and are compared 

to the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by the Project for the calendar year during which the 

net emissions are expected to be the greatest. The applicable threshold levels for the pollutants for which 

general conformity is required in the project area are shown in Table 5.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-3

Table 5

De Minimis Rates for Determining Applicability of General Conformity Requirements to Federal Actions

Pollutant Applicability Threshold Attainment Status

Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx)

10 tons per year

Nonattainment (Extreme)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 10 tons per year

Particulate Matter Smaller the 2.5 

Microns (PM2.5)

100 tons per year Nonattainment

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 tons per year Urban portion of Fresno: 

Maintenance

Remaining Basin: Attainment

Source: 40 CFR 93.153

It should be noted that, because O3 is a secondary pollutant (i.e., it is not emitted directly into the 

atmosphere but is formed in the atmosphere from the photochemical reactions of VOC and NOx in the 

presence of sunlight), its de minimis emission rate is based on primary emissions of its precursor 

pollutants - NOx and VOCs. If the net emissions of either NOx or VOCs exceeds the de minimis emission 

rate for O3 (EPA 1994), the Federal Action is subject to a general conformity evaluation for O3. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-1

9.0 Construction Activities Considered

As shown in Section 3.3 of the Final EIR/EIS, the results of the regional analyses conducted for the 

proposed Project demonstrate that emissions generated during the operational phase would be less than 

those emitted in the No-Build and existing conditions scenarios and that the microscale analyses 

demonstrate that the preferred alternative would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS for 

these pollutants. As such, emissions generated during HST’s construction phase are the only emissions 

subject to this general conformity determination. 

The analysis conducted for the Final EIR/EIS to estimate potential air quality impacts caused by on-site 

(e.g., demolition activities, construction equipment operations, and truck movements) and off-site (e.g., 

motor vehicle traffic effects due to truck trips and ramp closures) construction-phase activities included 

the following:

• Estimation of emissions generated by the construction activities (e.g., deconstruction, concrete and 

steel construction), including fugitive dust emissions and emissions released from diesel-powered 

equipment and trucks based on the hours of operation of each piece of equipment;

• Identification of heavily traveled truck routes to estimate the cumulative effects of on-site 

construction activity emissions and off-site traffic emissions;

• An on-site dispersion modeling analysis of the major construction areas;

• An off-site dispersion modeling analysis of the roadway intersections/interchanges adjacent to the 

construction areas using traffic data that include construction-related vehicles and background traffic; 

and

• A comparison of the on-site and off-site modeling results to the applicable NAAQS for the applicable 

pollutants. 

Emission rates for these activities were estimated based on the following:

• The number of hours per day and duration of each construction activity;

• The number and type of construction equipment to be used; 

• Horsepower (HP) and utilization rates (hours per day) for each piece of equipment;

• The quantities of construction/demolition material produced and removed from each site; and

• The number of truck trips needed to remove construction/demolition material, and to bring the 

supply materials to each site.

The following is a discussion of the major activities considered, the timing of these activities, and the 

procedures used to estimate emission rates.

A full description of construction analysis methodology can be found in Section 6.8 of the Merced to 

Fresno Section Air Quality Technical Report for this project (Authority and FRA 2012b).3

 

3 Available online at http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/final-eir-m-f.aspx.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-2

9.1 Mobilization

Mobilization would take approximately 4 months, beginning in March 2013. Emissions associated with 

mobilization were calculated using URBEMIS2007 for a site-specific land use category with properties 

similar to those of an industrial park. Mobilization emissions were estimated using the Mass Site Grading 

Phase in URBEMIS2007; fugitive dust emissions from mobilization would be negligible because of the 

minimal disturbance necessary at the construction sites. Two mobilization staging areas are anticipated

for the Merced to Fresno Section of the HST alignment. 

9.2 Site Preparation

9.2.1 Demolition

Demolition of existing structures along the HST alignment and HST stations is expected to start in July 

2013. The majority of demolition would occur in 2014 and 2015, with demolition activities concluding at 

the end of 2017. Demolition emissions were calculated using URBEMIS2007. In addition to the fugitive 

dust emissions resulting from the destruction of existing buildings, emissions were estimated for worker 

trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck hauling exhaust. Activity data for the demolition of 

buildings were based on site surveys. Only the option with the maximum demolition-related emissions 

was included in the total emissions estimate. 

The General Heavy-Industry land use category in URBEMIS2007 was used to model the demolition 

activities. The maximum daily volume of buildings to be demolished was estimated using the total area 

provided and the approximate duration of construction activities. 

9.2.2 Land Grubbing

Land grubbing refers to the site preparation activities for the HST alignment construction and would 

coincide with demolition activities. Emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 default parameters 

for the Light-Industry land use category together with the Mass Site Grading option and a site-specific 

equipment list. 

The construction areas used in URBEMIS2007 were the total areas to be cleared based on the length of 

the alignment. Although the track widths vary along the alignment, it was conservatively assumed that a 

width of 120 feet would be graded along the entire length of the alignment. This width accounts for the 

widest portion of the alignment (four tracks wide) plus a buffer area on each side. It was estimated that 

the maximum graded area would be 0.5 acre per day (Valsecchi 2010). The URBEMIS2007 default 

fugitive dust emission factor for grading (20 pounds per acre per day) was used to estimate fugitive dust 

emissions from land grubbing activities. 

9.3 Earth Moving

The earth moving activities include grading, trenching, and cut/fill activities for the alignment 

construction. The emissions associated with the earth moving activities were estimated using 

URMBEMIS2007 default parameters for the Light-Industry land use category as well as site-specific 

equipment. 

The construction area used in URBEMIS2007 was the total area to be cleared based on the length of the 

alignment. Although the track widths vary along the alignment, it was conservatively assumed that a 

width of 120 feet would be graded along the entire length of the alignment. This width accounts for the 

widest portion of the alignment (four tracks wide) plus a buffer on each side. It was estimated that the 

maximum graded area would be 0.5 acre per day (Valsecchi 2010). 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-3

The default fugitive dust emissions from cut/fill activities were estimated based on the total quantity of 

cut and fill material of the onsite excavation and offsite hauling. 

9.4 HST Alignment Construction

The HST alignment construction is expected to occur from 2014 to 2016, and includes the following 

construction phases and operation of a concrete batch plant: 

• Constructing structures for the elevated track

• Laying elevated track, laying at-grade track

• Constructing the retaining wall for the retained fill track

• Laying retained fill track

9.4.1 Track Type and Alignment Alternatives

Three track types (elevated, at-grade, and retained fill), three HST alignment alternatives (UPRR/SR 99, 

BNSF, and Hybrid), and the HMF track were considered in the EIR/EIS analysis. The HST alignment 

alternatives differed in their total length, location, width, and percent at-grade/elevated/retained fill. The 

UPRR/SR 99, BNSF, and Hybrid alternatives had two options based on the construction of a wye. The Ave 

24 Wye and Ave 21 Wye options were included in the alignment construction calculations by 

incorporating the length of each wye into the total length of the alignment. Emissions associated with the 

HMF track were estimated using the same approach as for the alignment alternatives. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative (the Hybrid Alternative) was conservatively based upon the 

longest possible design option (i.e., the Ave 21 Wye). Alignment construction of the at-grade track, 

elevated track and retained fill would take place in 2015 and 2016. 

9.4.2 Concrete Batch Plants

Concrete would be required for construction of bridges used to support the elevated sections of the 

alignment, a slab base on certain of those elevated structures and for construction of the retaining wall 

used to support the retained fill sections of the alignment. To provide enough onsite concrete, it was 

estimated that three batch plants would operate in the project area during construction of the alignment 

sections. Because the locations of the concrete batch plants are unknown, emissions were estimated 

based on the total amount of concrete required (independent of the number of concrete batch plants) 

and emission factors from AP-42 Chapter 11.12 – Concrete Batching (EPA 2006). Emissions from on-road 

truck trips associated with transporting material to and from the concrete batch plants were also 

included. 

The HST Project would also include the relocation and expansion of freeway segments, local roads, and 

overpasses and reconstruction of several intersections. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from these 

activities were estimated using the default equipment list and construction schedules from the 

Sacramento Roadway Construction Emissions Model (SMAQMD 2009) and URBEMIS2007. 

9.4.3 Material Hauling

Emissions from the exhaust of trucks used to haul material to the construction site were calculated using 

heavy-duty truck emission factors from EMFAC2007 and anticipated travel distances of haul trucks within 

the SJVAB. Ballast and sub-ballast materials could potentially be hauled by rail within the air basin. Rail 

emission factors from EPA document Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA 2009b) and the travel 

distance by rail to the project site were used to estimate rail emissions. 

Ballast materials could potentially be transported from locations outside of SJVAB. For the regional 

emission analysis, emissions from ballast material-hauling were calculated using the distance traveled 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-4

within the SJVAB. Emissions from ballast material-hauling by trucks and locomotives outside the SJVAB 

were estimated based on the travel distances and transportation method (by rail or by truck) from the 

locations where ballast materials would be available. Rail emission factors using EPA guidelines found in 

Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA 2009b) were used to estimate the locomotive emissions. Other 

construction materials would likely be delivered from supply facilities within the SJVAB. 

Five potential quarries that provide ballast material were identified. Of these, three quarries, including 

Napa Quarry, Lake Herman Quarry, San Rafael Rock Quarry, were included in the evaluation because of 

their proximity to the project construction site. These three quarries are all located within 70 miles of the 

SJVAB border and would have material available for the project construction. The Bangor Rock Quarry 

Site A was included in the evaluation because it is located within 100 miles of the SJVAB border. In 

addition, this quarry would have material available for the project needs in quantities that exceed the 

material quantities available at the closest quarries. The other quarry, Kaiser Eagle Mountain Quarry, 

which is located 350 miles by rail (250 miles by road) from the border of the SJVAB, was analyzed 

because the annual production rate at this quarry was sufficient to meet construction material 

requirements.

This analysis was based on the largest amount of ballast needed for the project for a worst-case year. It 

was assumed that the material would be transferred either by diesel truck from the quarry to rail (if there 

was no rail head onsite) and then by rail to the border of SJVAB, entirely by rail to the border of the 

SJVAB (if there was a rail head onsite), or by diesel truck from the quarry to the border of the SJVAB. 

Emissions could potentially occur in several air basins and air districts outside SJVAB. Detailed analysis of 

each scenario is presented in Appendix H of the Merced to Fresno Section Air Quality Technical Report

(Authority and FRA 2012b).

9.5 Train Station Construction

Emissions from HST station construction would be a result of mass site grading, building construction, 

and architectural coatings. Where applicable, emissions resulting from worker trips, vendor trips, and 

construction equipment exhaust were also included. Paving activities were not considered because 

surface parking lots are not expected as part of the construction; only parking structures with emissions 

captured during the building construction phase were included. 

Construction of the HST stations would begin in 2019 and be completed by the summer of 2022. 

URBEMIS2007 was used to estimate emissions from construction phases of the HST stations. The LightIndustry land use category in URBEMIS was used for construction of the station buildings, parking 

structure, platforms, bridges, and columns. 

9.6 Heavy Maintenance Facility Construction

Emissions associated with construction of the HMF are expected as a result of mass site grading, asphalt 

paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Emissions would also result from construction of 

the HMF Access Guideway rail. The General Heavy-Industry land use category was assumed in 

URBEMIS2007 modeling to estimate the emissions from HMF construction. 

Construction of the HMF facility would occur from approximately July 2018 to the end of 2019. 

Construction of the HMF track would occur from December 2018 to May 2019. 

9.7 Power Distribution Station Construction

Emissions associated with construction of the traction power substations, switching stations, and 

paralleling stations would be from mass site grading, building construction, and architectural coatings. 

Paving activities were not considered because these stations would not have paved areas and access 

roads would be covered with gravel. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-5

The emissions from power distribution station construction were calculated using default parameters in 

URBEMIS2007 with the Light-Industry land use category. Two traction power substations, three switching 

stations, and four paralleling stations would be included in the Preferred Alternative. For simplicity, only 

one of each station type was modeled in URBEMIS2007; the resulting emissions were multiplied by the 

number of stations to be constructed. Construction of power distribution stations is expected to occur 

after September 2017. 

The URBEMIS2007 default number of construction equipment items was based on the total acres of 

building construction. The URBEMIS2007 default equipment list was used for the traction power 

substations; however, for the switching and paralleling stations, the default list was overwritten with the 

default equipment list for 1 acre of building construction, taken from Appendix H of the URBEMIS2007

User’s Guide, because otherwise, given their small size, the default number of equipment items used 

would be zero.

9.8 Roadway Construction

The HST Project would include the relocation and expansion of freeway segments, local roads, and 

overpasses, and reconstruction of several intersections. Based on project-specific data, a simplified 

construction schedule was used to estimate construction emissions from four roadway project scenarios, 

and URBEMIS2007 was used to estimate the emissions from each scenario. The representative project 

roadway length for each scenario was estimated by averaging all anticipated project roadway lengths 

within that designated scenario. 

To estimate construction emissions, the roadway projects were grouped by county, by size, and by 

inclusion in the RTPs (i.e., projects included in the RTPs were grouped together, and projects not 

included in the RTPs were also grouped together). Projects not listed in the RTPs and occurring only as a 

result of the HST were included in the annual construction emissions for the project. 

9.9 Demobilization

Demobilization would occur for approximately one month in 2017 and one month in 2022. Emissions 

associated with demobilization were calculated using URBEMIS2007, using a site-specific land use 

category with properties similar to an industrial park. The land use area entered into URBEMIS2007 was 

conservatively estimated based on the longest alignment footprint. While construction activities were 

represented using a mass site grading phase, fugitive dust emissions during demobilization were 

presumed negligible because of minimal surface disturbance associated with this activity. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 10-1

10.0 Estimated Emission Rates and 

Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds

Total annual estimated emissions generated within the SJVAB during the proposed Project’s construction 

period, as presented in the HST Final EIR/EIS, are provided in Table 6. These values are the peak on-site 

emissions during each analysis year plus maximum annual off-site emissions. The maximum estimated

values of VOCs (12.14 tpy) and NOx (128.76 tpy) are approximately 0.005% and 0.04%, respectively, of 

the 2010 estimated emission rates in the SJVAB (see Table 3).

Construction emission rates were estimated in the EIR/EIS for each of the six alternatives/options 

previously under consideration for the Merced to Fresno Section. However, only those values associated 

with the Preferred Alternative are included in this Conformity Determination. These values are compared 

with the general conformity applicability threshold values. These values represent the Preferred 

Alternative with the Avenue 21 wye option, because that option has the highest estimated emissions. If 

the Avenue 24 wye option is selected, the estimated emission rates will be lower than those presented in 

this determination. 

Table 6

Total Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (tons/year)

NOx 39.85 128.76 109.51 114.52 32.02 13.34 49.35 15.14 7.36 3.96 10

VOCs 2.97 12.14 11.07 8.33 2.42 1.73 10.83 1.81 1.01 4.90 10

PM2.5* 1.71 6.33 5.84 4.29 1.72 0.57 2.94 0.97 0.46 1.98 100

CO 14.11 52.45 49.24 31.51 11.40 7.65 32.42 18.41 11.58 2.51 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

* Includes sulfur dioxide emission rates as a partial precursor to PM2.5 (i.e., it was conservatively assumed that 100% of SO2 emissions becomes 

PM2.5) 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 11-1

11.0 Regional Effects 

As the regional emissions for all of the applicable pollutants are lower during the operations phase of the 

HST Project than under No-Build conditions (and will therefore not exceed the de minimis emission 

thresholds), only emissions generated during the construction phase were compared to the conformity 

threshold levels to determine conformity compliance. As shown in Table 6, construction-phase emissions, 

compared to the general conformity applicability rates, are as follows:

• Annual estimated NOx emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year in years 

2013 through 2020; 

• Annual estimated VOC emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year in years 

2014, 2015, and 2019; and

• Annual estimated PM2.5 and CO emissions are less than the applicability rate of 100 tons per year in 

all years.

As such, a General Conformity Determination is required for this project for NOx and VOCs for the years 

indicated. This determination, which is being published coincident with the ROD for the Project, includes

a commitment from the FRA/Authority to reduce all NOx and VOC emissions through emissions offsets

using a VERA with the SJVAPCD, explained in Section 12.2 below.

No additional analyses are required for the other pollutants. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-1

12.0 General Conformity Evaluation

For federal actions subject to a general conformity evaluation, the regulations delineate several ways an 

agency can demonstrate conformity (40 CFR § 93.158). This section summarizes the findings that were 

used to make the determination for the HST Project.

12.1 Conformity Requirements of Proposed Project

Based on the results shown in Table 6, conformity determinations are required for construction-phase 

emissions for: 

• NOx – because annual estimated emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year 

for years 2014 through 2020; and

• VOCs – because annual estimated emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 100 tons per 

year for years 2014, 2015, and 2019. 

12.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements

To support the general conformity compliance determination, the FRA demonstrates herein that the 

emissions of NOx and VOCs (a precursor to O3) caused by the construction of the proposed Project will 

not result in an increase in regional NOx and VOC emissions. This will be achieved by off-setting the NOx

and VOC emissions generated by the construction of the HST in a manner consistent with the applicable 

general conformity regulations. 

The offsets will be accomplished through a VERA between the Authority, the project proponent, and the 

SJVAPCD. The requirement for the VERA would be imposed on the project through the following 

mitigation measure from the Final EIR/EIS:

AQ-MM#4: Offset Project Construction Emissions through a SJVAPCD Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA). The Authority and SJVAPCD will enter into a 

contractual agreement to mitigate the project’s emissions by providing funds for the district’s 

Emission Reduction Incentive Program (SJVAPCD 2011) to fund grants for projects that achieve 

emission reductions, thus offsetting project-related impacts on air quality. The project will 

commit to reduce construction emissions for NOx and VOC through the VERA program.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent (the Authority, in this case, in partnership 

with the FRA) will provide pound-for-pound offsets of emissions that exceed general conformity 

thresholds through a process that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the 

SJVAPCD serving role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful 

mitigation effort.

To implement a VERA, the Authority and the SJVAPCD enter into a contractual agreement in which the 

proponent agrees to mitigate the project's emissions (NOx and VOCs, in this case) by providing funds for 

the SJVAPCD's Emission Reduction Incentive Program to fund grants for projects that achieve emission 

reductions, thus offsetting project-related impacts on air quality. The SJVAPCD is obligated under the 

VERA to seek and implement such reductions, using the project proponent’s funds. The types of projects 

that have been used in the past to achieve such reductions include electrification of stationary internal 

combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigations pumps); replacing old trucks with new, cleaner, more 

efficient trucks; and a host of other emissions-reducing projects.

In implementing a VERA, the SJVAPCD verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as 

a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the 

enforceability of achieved reductions. The initial agreement is generally based on the projected maximum 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-2

emissions that exceed thresholds as calculated by a District-approved Air Quality Impact Assessment 

and/or the project’s EIR/EIS; the agreement then requires the proponent to deposit funds sufficient to 

offset those maximum emissions exceedances. However, because the goal is to mitigate actual 

emissions, the District has designed adequate flexibility into these agreements such that the final 

mitigation is based actual emissions related to the project, based on actual equipment used, hours of 

operation, etc. that the proponent tracks and reports to SJVAPCD during construction. After the project is 

mitigated, the District certifies to the lead agency that the mitigation is completed. Thus, a VERA provides

the lead agency with an enforceable mitigation measure that will result in emissions exceedances being 

fully offset.

According to the SJVAPCD, since 2005 the SJVAPCD has entered into seventeen VERAs with project 

proponents and achieved 1,393 tons of NOx and PM10 reductions per year. It is the SJVAPCD's experience 

that implementation of a VERA is a feasible mitigation measure which effectively achieves actual emission 

reductions, mitigating the project to a net-zero air quality impact.

The Authority is negotiating a VERA with the SJVAPCD. Final approval and execution of the VERA by the 

Authority and the SJVAPCD is expected approximately concurrent with final approval of this general 

conformity determination. The SJVAPCD has stated that it is certain that there are enough emissions 

reductions projects within its air basin to fully offset the project’s NOx and VOC exceedances.4 The 

Authority has provided FRA with a written commitment to offset the emissions through the VERA 

agreement with the SJVAPCD, which is included in Appendix A.

 

4 The information in this general conformity determination regarding the VERA and the SJVAPCD’s Grant Incentives Program 

comes from (a) www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/GrantPrograms.htm, (b) the SJVAPCD’s October 12, 2011 comment letter on 

the Merced to Fresno Draft EIR/EIS document and (c) telephone discussions with the SJVAPCD.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 13-1

13.0 Reporting and Public Comments

In developing the analysis underlying this general conformity determination, FRA and the Authority have 

consulted extensively with the SJVAPCD on a variety of technical and modeling issues. The Authority has 

also consulted with EPA and CARB on the overall approach to general conformity. To support a decision 

concerning the Federal Action, FRA issued a draft General Conformity Determination for public and 

agency review for a 30-day period. FRA made the draft General Conformity Determination available to 

the public consistent with 40 CFR § 93.156. Copies of the draft General Conformity Determination were 

made available on both FRA’s and the Authority’s websites. FRA also provided copies of the draft General 

Conformity Determination to the appropriate regional offices of EPA, CARB, and SJVAPCD for a 30-day 

review. 

As a result of that 30-day public review and comment period, FRA received only one comment on the 

draft General Conformity Determination. The comment was from EPA and is included in Appendix B. 

EPA’s comment letter, received on May 1, 2012, acknowledges the coordination between EPA, SJVAPCD, 

and the Authority regarding CAA general conformity requirements. EPA requested that this coordination 

continue in order to finalize the General Conformity Determination for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

portion of the project and recommended that the finalization process and details of the VERA be included 

in the ROD. FRA and the Authority are committed to continuing this coordination, and AQ-MM#4 

requiring the Authority to negotiate and implement the VERA is included as a mitigation commitment in 

the ROD. 

13.1 Reevaluation of General Conformity 

The general conformity regulations state that the status of a specific conformity determination lapses 5 

years after the date of public notification for the final general conformity determination, unless the action 

has been completed or a continuous program has been commenced to implement the action (40 CFR § 

93.157(a)). Because the Federal Action (i.e., FRA issuance of a ROD to construct the California HST 

Project) envisions a construction period extending more than 5 years, the final General Conformity 

Determination will remain active as a “continuous program.”
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 14-1

14.0 Findings and Conclusions 

As part of the environmental review of the proposed Project, FRA conducted a general conformity 

evaluation pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B. The general conformity regulations apply at this time to 

this Federal Action because the project area is located in an area that is designated as a severe 

nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for PM2.5, and a (partial) maintenance 

area for CO. The FRA conducted the general conformity evaluation following all regulatory criteria and 

procedures and in coordination with EPA, SJVPCD, and CARB. As a result of this review, the FRA 

concluded, based on the fact that project-generated emissions will either be fully offset (for construction 

phase) or less than zero (for operational phase), that the proposed Project’s emissions can be 

accommodated in the State Implementation (SIP) for the SJVAB. FRA has determined that the proposed

Project as designed will conform to the approved SIP, based on: 

A commitment from the Authority that construction-phase NOx and VOC emissions will be offset 

consistent with the applicable federal regulations through a VERA with the SJVAPCD;

− The Authority and the SJVAPCD will enter into a contractual agreement to mitigate the project's 

NOx and VOC emissions by providing funds for the SJVAPCD's Emission Reduction Incentive 

Program to fund grants for projects that achieve the necessary emission reductions;

− The SJVAPCD will seek and implement the necessary emission reduction measures, using 

Authority funds; and 

− The SJVAPCD will serve in the role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and 

verifier of the successful mitigation effort. 

Therefore, FRA herewith concludes that the proposed Project, as designed, conforms to the purpose of 

the approved SIP and is consistent with all applicable requirements. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 15-1

15.0 References 

40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A. Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, 

Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

Transit Laws. 

40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B. Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal 

Implementation Plans. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2012a. Merced to Fresno 

Section California High-Speed Train (HST) Final Project Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and Final Section 4(f) Statement and Draft 

General Conformity Determination. Volume I: Report. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC. April 

2012.

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration (Authority and FRA). 2012b. 

Merced to Fresno Section Air Quality Technical Report, California High-Speed Train Project 

EIR/EIS, Prepared by AECOM and CH2M HILL. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC. Available 

online at http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/final-eir-m-f.aspx. April 2012.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004a. California State Implementation Plan (SIP), 2004 Revisions 

to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (July 2004). Page last reviewed April 13, 2009. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/co/co.htm. Accessed on October 27, 2009.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004b. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan 

for Carbon Monoxide. Adopted July 22, 2004. Available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/co/co.htm. Accessed August 20, 2010. Sacramento, CA 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009. Almanac Emission Projection Data. (Published in 2009). 

2010 Estimated Annual Average Emissions. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic1_query.php. Accessed November 17, 2009.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010a. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.hrml. Accessed October 22, 2010.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010b. Off-Road Diesel equipment: In-Use Off-Road Equipment 

(Construction, Industrial, Ground Support and Oil Drilling), Appendix D: OSM and Summary of 

Off-Road Emissions Inventory Update. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadappd.pdf. 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2009. Roadway Construction 

Emissions Model, CEQA Tools. http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/index.shtml. Accessed July 21, 

2010.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007a. 2007 Ozone Plan. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm. Accessed 

January 25, 2010. Fresno, CA. April 30, 2007.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007b. Particulate Matter Plans, 2007 PM10 

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf. Accessed 

October 27, 2009. Fresno, CA. September 20, 2007.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 15-2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2008. Particulate Matter Plans, 2008 PM2.5 

Plan. Adopted April 30, 2008. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/air_quality_plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_PM25_2008.htm. Accessed 

October 27, 2009. Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Frequently Asked Questions. 

http://www.valleyair.org/General_info/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm#About%20The%20Air%

20Pollution%20Problem. Accessed November 17, 2009

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2010. Ozone Plans. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm. Accessed January 25, 2010. 

Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2011. Emission Reduction Incentive Program. 

Available at www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/GrantPrograms.htm. Fresno, CA

URBEMIS. 2007. URBEMIS Emissions Modeling Software, 2007 Version 9.2.0. Released June 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. General Conformity Guidance: Questions and 

Answers. July 13, 1994. Accessible at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/conform/gcgqa_71394.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California - South Coast and Coachella. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/November/Day-14/a22463.htm. Accessed August 20, 

2010. Washington, DC. July 28, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Emission Factors & AP42, Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors, Chapter 11.12 Concrete Batching. Washington, DC. June 2006

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated 

July 14, 2009. Accessed October 29, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA-420-F-09-

025. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Prepared by the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. April 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Revision to the General Conformity Guidance, 

75 Federal Register 17254, 17255. April 5, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Monitor Values Report – Criteria Pollutants. Available 

at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~CA~California. Accessed December 20, 2010. 

Washington, DC. Updated December 17, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010c. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria 

Pollutants. Available at http://epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html. Accessed July 30, 2010. 

Washington, DC.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Historical Climate Information, Fresno, California, Normals, 

Means, and Extremes. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca93193. Accessed October 27, 

2009.
APPENDIX A

Emissions Offset Commitment







APPENDIX B

Draft General Conformity 

Determination Comment
S

___

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

PRO San Francisco, CA 94105

David Valenstein Tom Fellenz

Federal Railroad Administration California High Speed Rail Authority

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 770 L Street, Suite 800

Mail Stop 20, W38-219 Sacramento. CA 95814

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the California High-Speed Rail System,

Merced to Fresno Section

Dear Mr. Valenstein and Mr. Fellenz:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Final Eiwironmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the

Merced to Fresno Section of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System in California. which was shared with

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 18, 2012. We completed our review pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations

(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

EPA has worked closely with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and California High-Speed Rail

Authority (CI-ISRA) through the programmatic environmental analysis. as well as through intensive

early coordination at the project level. Project level coordination was guided by specific decision

checkpoints, which are defined in an agreement signed between EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

FRA, and CHSRA (Integrated National Eiwironmentai Policy Act and Clean Water Act Section 404

Memorandum of Understanding (NEPA/404 MO U)). We appreciate the opportunity to engage in early

coordination, and we believe that it will continue to lead to efficient resolution of potential issues and

strengthened environmental documents as the environmental analysis of the statewide HSR system

continues.

For the Merced to Fresno portion of the HSR system, EPA provided recommendations through a formal

comment letter (October 13, 2011) following our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS). We again provided recommendations via a March 28, 2012 comment letter following our

review of the Administrative FEIS. We appreciate the responsiveness to multiple recommendations

provided by our agency throughout the coordination and commenting process to date. Through this

letter, we note remaining concerns that were not addressed in the FEIS and can be addressed in the

Record of Decision (ROD) by documenting commitments for the final design and construction phase.

The enclosure to this letter provides additional description of EPA’s remaining recommendations, which

include, but are not limited to, the following:

1
Air Quality Impacts

- Continue to work with the San Joaquin Valley Air District and EPA to finalize the

general conformity determination for the San Joaquin Air Basin portion of the

project.

— Provide commitments for identified air quality mitigation measures to reduce

construction and operational emissions to the greatest extent.

• Aquatic Resource Impacts

- Commit to avoidance and minimization measures identified by FRA and CHSRA

during the NEPAJ4O4 MOU process and checkpoints.

- Commit to a set of low impact development measures to retain, infiltrate, and treat

stormwater runoff from all features of the HSR project.

• Planning and Growth Related Impacts

- Commit to continue partnering with the Cities of Fresno and Merced to promote

strong station-area planning in order to maximize economic, community and

environmental benefits from the project.

- Recognize the planning efforts that are needed at urban edges of station-cities and

neighboring communities in order to prevent unplanned 1—ISR induced growth. and

commit to partnering and providing support to promote good planning.

- Commit to assess which agricultural lands outside of Fresno and Merced are most

at risk of experiencing HSR induced development pressures, and commit to

promote placement of conservation easements in those locations.

- Commit to partner with local and regional transit providers to develop connectivity

plans and implement measures to increase transit access to HSR.

More information on the above items and additional recommendations are provided in the detailed

comments section enclosed within this letter. EPA recognizes the potential environmental benefits,

including reduced vehicle emissions, which an alternative transportation choice like HSR can provide if

planned well. In addition to being a cleaner transportation option, we understand that a well-planned

HSR system can serve as an important catalyst for improved regional connectivity and strengthened

economic centers. We are committed to continued coordination with FRA and HSRA as the

environmental review process for the entire statewide 1-ISR system continues. In addition, we appreciate

our ongoing partnership with FRA. CI-ISRA, U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Federal Transit

Administration, and California Strategic Growth Council under the Meinoranthim. of Understanding/dr

Achieving an Environmentally Sustainable HSR System ,Qr caii/rnia, signed in September 2011. We

encourage FRA and CHSRA to continue to collaborate with EPA on best practices for maximizing

environmental, economic, and community benefits from this project, while also identifying opportunities

to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Merced to Fresno FEIS and we would appreciate the

opportunity to discuss our comments prior to release of the ROD. When ROD is signed, please send a

copy to the address above (mail code: CED-2). If you have any questions, please contact mc at 415-972-

2
3843 or Connell Dunning, the lead reviewer for this project. at 415-947-4161 or

dunning.connell@epa.gov.

Sincerely.

.1 /1

$v

‘ Enrique Manzanilla, Director

Communities and Ecosystems Division

Enclosures: EPA’s Detailed Comments

Cc via email:

Mark A. McLoughlin, ICF International

Colonel Michael C. Wehr, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Leslie Rogers, Federal Transit Administration

Ophelia B. Basgal, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Dan Russell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Robert Tse, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Michelle Banonis, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Ken Alex. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

Heather Fargo, Strategic Growth Council

Matt Rodriguez, California EPA

Kurt Karperos, California Air Resources Board

Seyed Sadredin, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Traci Stevens, Business Transportation and Housing

Garth Fernandez, California Department of Transportation

Diana Dooley, California Health and Human Services

John Laird, California Natural Resources

Julie Vance, California Department of Fish and Game

Brian R. Leahy, California Department of Conservation

Paul Romero, California Department of Water Resources

Bill Orme, State Water Resources Control Board

Mayor William Spriggs, City of Merced

Mayor Ashley Swearengin, City of Fresno

3
EPA’S DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM. MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION MAY I. 2() 12

1. AIR QUALITY

EPA understands that California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is currently coordinating

with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and California Air

Resources Board (CARB) regarding Clean Air Act general conformity requirements. including a

Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the high speed rail (HSR) system.

Recommendations for the Record of Decision (ROD):

• EPA recommends that FRA and HSR continue to work with the SJVAPCD and EPA to

finalize the general conformity determination for the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJAB)

portion of the project. Describe the process for finalizing the general conformity

determination in the ROD and clarify that emissions from any interim use of the new

tracks will be accounted for in final emissions inventories.

• Include details of the Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA), including

specific incentives and strategies for focusing emissions reductions proximate to actual

impact locations in order to focus mitigating measures to those communities most

impacted.

EPA is supportive of the many project design features and mitigation measures identified in

Section 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to reduce air quality

impacts. It is stated in the FEIS that a site specific Health Risk Assessment (1-IRA) ft)r the Heavy

Maintenance Facility (HMF) will he conducted once a final HMF site is chosen. EPA continues

to recommend that an analysis of health risk be used to help inform the choice of where to site

the HMF.

Recommendations for the ROD:

• Provide commitments for the project design features and mitigation measures identified

in the FEIS to ensure that air quality impacts from construction and operation of the HSR

system are mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

• Provide details regarding any future health risk analysis that will he conducted prior to

selecting a site for the HMF and how this analysis will he made available to the public.

2. AQUATIC RESOURCES and CLEAN WATER ACT

Developing a Final Mitigation Plan for Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 should be a key

priority for FRA and CHSRA, as it will help avoid potential delays during pro}ect permitting.

EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide guidance

to ERA and CHSRA to reduce uncertainty to the maximum extent practicable and provide

substantive comments on the development of a Final Mitigation Plan.

During future CWA Section 404 permitting coordination, we recommend continued use of the

approved Watershed Approach. Specifically. the Conditional Rapid Assessment Method

(CRAM) and Watershed Evaluation Report (WER) (submitted during Checkpoint C of the

NEPAI4O4 MOLJ process) provided information to fully describe the location, condition and

context of the impacted landscape. The analysis showed approximately 1/3 of vernal poois and

other non-riverine wetlands, and 1/4 of riverine wetlands along the lISR alignments were in goO(l
condition. We note that these results were not described in the FEIS; however this inft)rlnation

will assist in 1) providing context to the current and impacted resource conditions, 2) disclosing

the project’s mitigation needs, and 3) providing assurances that those needs will be met.

Recommendations for the ROD:

• Commit to and describe measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S..

(including additional avoidance measures proposed in Chapter 5 of the NEPA/404 MOU

Checkpoint C Summary Report) and provide a summary of proposed compensatory

mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

• Disclose the project’s mitigation needs and provide assurances that those needs will be

met. Provide a summary of key findings and analyses conducted during the Calilornia

Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) and Watershed Evaluation Report (WER) in order to

provide context to the determination of mitigation needs.

EPA appreciates the additional discussion of best management practices and low impact

development (LID) measures provided in the Storm Water Management Report and recommends

that specific LID commitments to be implemented throughout the HSR system he identified in

the ROD.

Recommendations for the ROD:

• Identify commitments for LID measures to be used during construction and post

construction stages of the project to retain infiltrate and treat stormwalcr runoff from all

features of the HSR project.

3. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND WILDLIFE MOVEMENT

EPA appreciates information added to the FEIS on San Joaquin River crossing design options

and predicted impacts, such as impacts on Essential Fish Habitats and special-status fish species.

Additionally we appreciate the discussion of Wildlife Crossing structures provided in Section

2.4.2. 1 of the FEIS. We encourage CHSRA and FRA to continue to work with resource agencies

as designs are further developed to ensure appropriate avoidance, wildlife crossings, and

mitigation measures are developed to address project impacts.

Recommendations for the ROD:

• Include a commitment for FRA and CHSRA to continue coordination with Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

throughout the project timelinc.

• Commit to specific FWS- and CDFG-approved design measures thai: 1) remove wildlife

movement barriers, 2) enhance use of wildlife corridors, and 3) provide crossings with

suitable habitat, topography, light, and openness to accommodate multiple species, as

well as other mitigation measures to address impacts that cannot he avoided.

4. REGIONAL AND LOCAL INDUCED GROWTH, LAND USE, AND PLANNING

EPA is supportive of FRA and CHSRA’s vision for HSR station areas that stimulate infill

development in city centers, are pedestrian friendly, well connected via multiple transportation

options, and provide easy access to goods, services, and jobs. The vision and form of HSR

induced development outlined in the FEIS is only likely to occur if major investments in

7
planning, changes to land uses, and coordination among housing, transportation, business and

many other sectors first take place. We recognize FRA and CHSRA’s station-area planning grant

program as a critical step toward achieving this vision. We also applaud FRA and CHSRA’s

strong partnerships with the Cities of Fresno and Merced on HSR station-area planning. Based

on information provided in the FEIS, however, we strongly suggest that additional commitments

are needed from FRA and CI-ISRA in the ROD in order to prevent significant unplanned, low

density HSR induced growth. In addition, the public should be informed of the range of potential

growth scenarios that could occur to increase awareness of potential outcomes and the

importance of local planning decisions.

While EPA is very supportive of FRA and CHSRA’s efforts on station-area planning, we again

strongly suggest that a parallel planning process to protect against unplanned development is

needed at urban edges (i.e. county level) and neighboring communities that are likely to

experience HSR induced growth. This parallel process could consist of partnering with local and

regional governments, state agencies or non-profit organizations while CI-ISRA is finalizing

design and construction for the HSR project. FRA and CI-ISRA have already committed to

partner with the Department of Conservation to establish and purchase agricultural conservation

easements. FRA and CHSRA can maximize the benefits from this effort by working to place

easements in areas most at risk from HSR induced growth.

New information added to the FEIS on SB375 and Sustainable Communities Strategies provides

a more comprehensive understanding of efforts to achieve well-planned, efficient development

patterns that best serve communities. EPA urges FRA and CHSRA to commit to continue to

partner with station-cities to support local planning efforts, and to form new partnerships to

protect against induced growth at urban edges and neighboring communities, In addition, we

encourage commitments to coordinate with local and regional transit agencies to promote

connectivity with HSR. While the FEIS appears to assume that HSR stations will attract wellcoordinated, relatively denser, infill development, this assumption should he supported with

strong commitments, documented and memorialized through the environmental planning

process, from FRA and CHSRA.

Recommendations for ROD:

• Discuss the potential uncertainty in future induced growth projections afl(l provide a

range of potential impacts that the region could experience, with reference to location.

pattern, timing, and intensity of growth. Identify any connections to local planning elTorts

and the role local decision-making will play in determining the location of future HSR

induced growth (already urbanized areas, adjacent agriculture land, or other greenficlds,

for example).

• Commit to continued coordination with station cities throughout the design and

construction phases of the project to assist with development of planning documents. land

use regulations, and municipal policies that encourage higher density, mixed-use, transitoriented development around stations.

• Commit to coordinate throughout the design and construction phases with non-station

comnmnities that may experience development pressure due to access to HSR. Support

efforts to develop planning documents, land use regulations. and municipal development

policies to inhibit low-density development in these areas.

3
• Develop and commit to criteria (such as proximity to stations and maintenance facilities)

and commit to use the criteria for future identification of agricultural and rural lands most

vulnerable to HSR induced growth impacts.

• Commit to working with the California State Department of Conservation and/or local

land trusts to facilitate identification of potential conservation areas and support of future

easements as a means to mitigate potential unplanned growth patterns.

• Commit to promote and support agricultural land conservation easements for high quality

agricultural land most at risk for conversion due to the project as a means to mitigate

potential induced growth impacts.

• Commit to collaborate with local transit agencies and transportation authorities to

develop transit connectivity plans for HSR station areas and neighboring communities

where high HSR ridership is expected. Specifically, commit to coordinate with Fresno

Area Express. Merced County Association of Governments, and Yosemite Area Regional

Transportation System.

• In order to achieve stations that are multi-modal hubs, commit to:

o Partner with local and regional transportation agencies to facilitate easy transfers

between transit and HSR, such as shared ticketing and wayfinding.

o Design stations to be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly by incorporating Icatures

such as bike lockers, changing rooms, and showers.

o Coordinate with car share organizations and promoting use of shared vehicles at

HSR stations to provide an additional alternative to private car use.

o Work with local jurisdictions on planning for parking and following the Urban

Design Guidelines (prepared by CHSRA) and best practices.

o Minimize the number of parking spaces to the greatest extent possible at stations

in order to facilitate the use of transit, construct multi-level parking structures as

opposed to large expansive parking lots, and promote programs to phase down the

number of parking spaces over time.

o Avoid surrounding HSR stations with parking lots and creating a halTier effect (as

depicted in Figure 2-42b if the FEIS).

• Commit to augmenting CHSRA’s “HSR Station Area Development: General Principles

and Guidelines” document and “Urban Design Guidelines” document so that they include

equity, and guidelines for promoting equity, as a key principle.

• Commit to working with cities and other stakeholders to help promote the integration of

an appropriate percentage of low-income housing into station-area developments. The

Response to Comments states that low-income housing will he addressed by other

entities.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS

EPA appreciates the revisions to the environmental justice analysis, including the addition of a

clearly defined reference community, following EPA’s comments on the DEIS. We recommend

further disclosure of information and additional commitments in order to more fully address

environmental justice and community impacts. This information may also help a(l(lrCSs issues

related to compliance with Title VI of Civil Rights for CHSRA as recipient of federal funds.

4
Reconimendations for ROD:

• Revisit conclusions regarding whether disproportionate impacts would occur for the

categories where the FEIS states that disproportionate impacts would not occur

because impacts would be the same among all populations. Since nearly all

populations in the project area are communities of concern, it seems that all

populations being affected the same might also mean that “impacts would be

predominately borne by communities of concern.” This would fulfill FRA and

CI-ISRA’s stated criteria for defining disproportionate impacts. Include any changes

to conclusions regarding environmental justice impacts along with mitigation in the

ROD.

• Provide estimates of the duration of construction activities that would take place

within each potentially impacted community.

• In order to more fully disclose impacts, include a table that displays residential and

business displacements “by community” and then totaled for each alternative,

following the example of Table 3.12-9 from the Fresno to Bakersfield DEIS.

• Augment MM-SO#2 to commit to focusing business relocation efforts ol

neighborhood-serving businesses within their existing neighborhoods to minimize

impacts to community cohesion to the extent possible and when properly zoned

parcels are available or can he made available.

• Commit to conducting community workshops in all significantly affected areas to

obtain input and identify mitigation measures for residents whose property would not

be taken, but whose community would he substantially altered by construction of

HSR facilities, including loss of neighbors. Follow the example of commitments

made for the areas northeast of Hanford and Corcoran on page 3.12-83 of the Fresno

to Bakersfield DEIS.

6. HEAVY MAINTENANCE FACILITY

EPA understands that analysis and decisions related to the final siting of the heavy Maintenance

Facility (HMF) will be included in the San Jose to Merced environmental review process. Please

consider the following when assessing HMF siting.

Recommendations for the ROD:

Response to Comments states that HMFs will he assessed in a future environmental

document. In the ROD, clarify which document will assess l-IMFs. how public input

will be gathered, and how a decision will he made.

• Commit to the consideration of significant impacts to sensitive receptors in the future

analysis and selection of the HMF site.

• Include as a criteria in the decision-making for siting the HMF the estimated cancer

risk and the Respiratory Hazard Index.

7. COMPENSATION FOR IMPACTS TO AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS

As FRA and CHSRA are finalizing the strategy for compensating for the loss of farmland and

farming operations, EPA suggests that the methodology be tailored to address specific

agricultural issues.

5
Recommendations for ROD:

• Include a robust description of the compensation strategy that will be used for

farmland, including, 1) how it was developed: 2) how it calculates the present value

of lost future earnings: 3) how it assesses the decreased efficiency of Operations Ofl

remaining land (e.g. due to smaller field sizes, etc.); and 4) assumptions used

regarding land staying in the same cropping system and/or changing to systems more

amenable to smaller sites, such as truck farming for local consumption.

• In the description of the compensation strategy, include a land valuation methodology

that accurately assesses which parcels will be deemed “non-economic”, including I)

assumptions for analysis; 2) source of data used; 3) factors that were considered

(beyond connectivity to other farmland, as stated); and 4) the specific i-ole of

agricultural specialists in making determinations.

8. ENERGY

EPA supports CHSRA’s commitment to 100% renewable energy and facilities with net-zero

energy usage, as well as the addition of text to the FEIS describing CHSRA’s ongoing

partnership with National Renewable Energy Laboratory and EPA on developing a renewable

energy strategy.

Recommendations for ROD:

• Commit to promote siting of renewable energy infrastructure on contaminated and

underutilized lands over pristine lands if FRA and CI-ISRA have a role in influencing

where the source of energy for powering the trains will come from. RE-Powering

America’s Lands Initiative has a mapping tool that allows users to see contaminated

lands by location (http://www.epa.gov/renewab1eenergylançjmpingooLhtmu.)

• Commit to coordinate with local farming stakeholders to consider linking farming

with the need to secure renewable energy to power the project. For example.

coordinated site of wind turbines, bio-digesters, and other technologies might benefit

both farmers and the CHSRA.

9. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS - CHARACTERIZATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

EPA appreciates changes made to the FEIS in the “NEPA Impacts Summary” sections of

Sections 3.12 through 3.18. These sections now clearly indicate whether impacts would be

considered significant under NEPA. Although the Response to Comments slates that Section

3. 19 has also been revised, significance determinations do not appear to be included for

cumulative impacts.

Recommendation for ROD:

• Provide a summary identifying whether the anticipated cumulative impacts of the

proposed project are significant, as defined by Council on Environmental Quality in 40

CFR Part 1508.27.

10. SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERSHIP, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES

EPA recognizes the many ongoing efforts by FRA and CHSRA to achieve an environmentally

sustainable HSR system, including partnering with EPA and others to promote best practices.

6
We note that several of our comments were addressed in the Response to Comments (response

#774-26); however, those responses were not included as commitments in the FEIS. We

recommend that all commitments identified in the Response to Comments be included in the

ROD. In addition, as applicable, include the following commitments as elements ol the

Environmental Management System or relevant guidance documents.

Recommendations for ROD:

• Commit to continue to work with the HUD/DOT/EPA Partnership ft)r Sustainable

Communities and the State of California Strategic Growth Council under the

Memorandum of Understanding fr Achieving an En i’,ron,ne,,tallv Sustainab1e High—

Speed Train System in CaliThrnia (Sustainability MOU).

• Commit to implement an Environmental Management System (EMS). The Response to

Comments (response #774-26) states that an EMS will be implemented, but a

commitment does not appear to be in the environmental document.

• Commit to incorporate specific language on preferred qualifications and practices in

Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals to help ensure that contractors have

the necessary expertise and develop appropriate proposals to design, construct, and

operate the HSR system in a sustainable manner, in line with CHSRA’s stated goals. EPA

appreciates that the Response to Comments states that this is being addressed (response

#774-26). It does not, however, appear to be included in the FEIS.

• Commit to analyze the strengths and feasibility of obtaining LEED certiflcation at the

Platinum Level for HSR facilities, including stations and maintenance facilities.

• Commit to exceed CALGreen standards in priority areas by meeting “optional”

standards, including: pollutant control, indoor air quality, renewable energy, energy and

water conservation, low impact development, and designated parking for fuel

efficient/electric vehicles.

• Commit to provide information on green building practices when working with local

jurisdictions on station-area development. In addition, encouraging third party

certification (such as LEED for Homes and Build it Green) and goals to exceed

CALGreen requirements by meeting “optional” standards.

• Commit to provide technical assistance for green building in station areas. Incorporate

green building principles into FRA and CHSRA’s ongoing grant program to support

station-area development and related guidance documents (i.e. Urban Design Guidelines).

• Commit to encourage and assist local jurisdictions in designing for adaptability and reuse

in station areas to increase flexibility to meet future community needs. This is especially

critical for any parking features which may become unnecessary afer transit connectivity

is developed. For guidance, see Public Architecture. Design for Reuse Primer.

http://www.publicarchitecture.org/reuse/, and Lifecycle Building Challenge Resources.

http://www.lifecyclcbuildingorg!resources.php.

• Commit to work with local jurisdictions to obtain LEED for Neighborhood Development

(LEED-ND) Certification for station areas. LEED-ND certification provides independent,

third-party verification that a building or neighborhood development projeci is located

and designed to meet high levels of environmentally responsible. sustainable

development.

7
11. CONSISTENCY ACROSS HSR PROJECT SECTIONS

Through our concurrent review of separate environmental documents for Merced to Fresno and

Fresno to Bakersfield HSR sections, EPA identified impact categories where methodologies for

analysis appear to vary. While regional differences will require adjustments to impact

methodologies, EPA continues to recommend consistency in the analysis when applied to

various HSR Project Sections. Sections where inconsistencies were noted include hazardous

materials, HMF operational noise, cumulative noise impacts, and environmental justice.

Recommendations for the ROD:

• Confirm that methodologies and resulting conclusions and decision-making

processes are being applied consistently across the multiple HSR sections, EPA is

available to assist with reviewing template methodologies upfront to increase

efficiency of the overall environmental review process.

8