1

Appendix C: Final EIS Comments and Responses CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

F‐1 Air Quality EPA While we recognize that the project could reduce air quality impacts by reducing freeway traffic,

EPA remains concerned about localized impacts during both construction and operation. We

support the decision to choose the EMU technology option, but continue to encourage FRA to

commit to mitigation of localized impacts, particularly near sensitive receptors and in

environmental justice communities.

Following 

assessed 

conducte

Central St

3 and Las 

communi

minimally 

the propo

operationThe Final 

impacts. the Final 

harm dur

F‐2 Air Quality EPA In our comments on the DEIS, we noted the absence of a thorough discussion of localized PM10 air

quality impacts and we recommended that the FEIS include a qualitative analysis of potential PM10

hot spot impacts. The FEIS states that it is appropriate to predict concentrations of PM10 and

PM2.5 on a regional and localized basis, and includes an analysis of CO hot spot impacts, but does

not contain an analysis of localized PM10 impacts.... We remain concerned about potential hot spot

impacts during construction. While the FEIS indicates that the mitigation measures will reduce total

emissions levels, the FEIS does not justify that sensitive receptors in the vicinity of construction

activities will not experience adverse impacts. For example, the FEIS notes that single‐family

residential development is located approximately 250 feet to the north and to the south of the

proposed Frias Substation. We also note in our comments below the proximity of residential areas

to the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B site option. In order to mitigate potential

adverse impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of construction activities, we encourage FRA to

include commitments to aggressive mitigation measures in the ROD.

In assessi

Conformi

required t

matter co

forth in th

only to pr

The FRA d

For const

threshold 

the respe

automobiAs noted 

to localize

incorpora

F‐3 Air Quality EPA The FEIS states that construction activity would result in pollutant levels that would exceed general

conformity de minimus levels without mitigation. It states that Mitigation Measures AQ‐1, AQ‐3,

and AQ‐5 will be required to reduce construction period emissions to below general conformity de

minimus thresholds. Accordingly, FRA should commit to the mitigation measures that will reduce

emissions to below the de minimus level in the ROD. All applicable state and local requirements for

reduction of PM and other toxics from construction‐related activities should also be included in the

The Final 

impacts t

were inclu

to minimi
2

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

ROD.

F‐4 Air Quality EPA The FEIS response to comments section states that the locations where traffic levels would be the

highest would be at passenger stations, and that the Victorville and Las Vegas passenger stations

are not located near sensitive land uses. However, we note that the FEIS provides information to

the contrary, stating in the Land Use and Community Impacts Chapter of the FEIS that residential

uses are within approximately 300 feet of the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B site

option and that the residents could be exposed to air quality, traffic, and noise impacts associated

with the station. EPA has concerns about potential MSAT impacts to these residents, particularly

because this is an environmental justice community. In order to mitigate potential adverse impacts

to this community, we encourage FRA to include commitments to aggressive mitigation measures in

the ROD, including design options to minimize MSAT and other localized air emissions.

Please see 

pollutant 

EIS Sectio

of future 

Furtherm

air toxics. 

standards 

FRA comm

FRA agree

served by 

travel and 

site. As in

transit se

station sit

introduct

Suppleme

to accom

F‐5 Alternatives Olympia

Companies

It appears that there are options for both the West and East side of I‐15.... [Olympia Companies]

strongly encourages using the East side of I‐15 for the alignment of this facility. There is none or

very minimal residential on the East side. Also, many if not most of the people that will use the

DesertXpress are coming to visit The Strip (which is located on the East side of I‐15).

In Segme

selected f

15 freewa

run in the 

Pacific Ra

I‐15 corrid

analysis o

resultant 

F‐6 Alternatives Glendon Who is going to ride a train with a destination like Victorville? Consider the magnetic train plan

directly to Anaheim, CA. Futuristic, creative – makes sense.

The Appli

reviewed 

ridership 

conducte

would be 

Las Vegas

review co

is to run f

downtow

Las Vegas

Victorville

Memoran

BackgrouPlease see 

DesertXp

Section 1

southern 
3

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

independ

F‐7 Alternatives City of Las

Vegas

The downtown area includes approximately 99 hotels and motels, including 17 casinos with a

combined room capacity of 15,561. In addition, the Fremont Street Experience has a daily visitor

attendance of approximately 25,000 people. The exclusion of the Downtown Station from the

preferred alternative of the Environmental Impact Statement will result in the further bifurcation of

Las Vegas tourism between the southern Las Vegas Boulevard and the City of Las Vegas Downtown.

The omission of the Downtown Station from the proposed DesertXpress project is a detriment to

the City of Las Vegas and the Las Vegas valley as a whole. Please reconsider the preferred

alternative.

This comm

was not in

Station as 

Alternativ

to have o

uses the D

require th

considere

hinder rid

the Nevad

accommo

Table F‐4‐Record of 

Station in 

F‐8 Alternatives Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

Utilizing the I‐15 corridor would curtail long‐term land development of the area and create blight. The I‐15 f

adding a h

of the fre

metropol

plans to e

metropol

urbanizin

rail servic

of the cor

with the a

F‐9 Alternatives Marks Ridership estimates are overstated. Our analysis concludes that people living in Las Vegas desiring

to go to San Diego, CA; Los Angeles; San Fernando Valley; Arrowhead and Big Bear Resorts; the

Reagan Library; Disneyland or southern parts of Ventura County would not be interested in taking a

train to Victorville so that they could rent a car and drive to their selected destination. The larger

the family the greater the probability that travel by vehicle would be less expensive than the Desert

Express. Even more significantly, is that it is our understanding that the ridership estimate was

provided by the same firm that estimated the ridership for the Las Vegas Monorail system which

proved to be inaccurate.... the basic argument for building the system is that it will reduce traffic on

Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and the metropolitan Los Angeles and Southern California areas as

well as contribute to a reduction in accidents on the Interstate 15 corridor. Since you can not force

ridership the assumption that traffic will be reduced significantly is flawed. People in the Western U.

S. are very mobile and car oriented for recreational purposes. It well established that individuals or

families utilizing air transportation rent vehicles at their destination as opposed to seeking public

transportation. The exception being foreign citizens or people from heavily urban areas with

extensive public transportation infrastructures.

Please see 

study, wh

and reaso

F‐10 Alternatives Marks The few minute difference between the EIS selected alternative terminus at Las Vegas (i.e., South of

Flamingo Road and West of Interstate 15 would require extensive infrastructure adjustments that

Segment 

Union Pac
4

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Clark County can not afford. Such infrastructure improvements would involve road and bridge

realignment; public parking; taxi; bus and public transportation staging areas. Alternative 6B with a

downtown terminus, although slightly longer in travel time (literally 15 minutes) would utilize the

existing Union Pacific right of way and terminate in an area which would benefit from

redevelopment; has ample parking; public transportation and can easily meet other infrastructure

requirements.

noted in S

allow the use confli

selected S

Record of 

in the sele

F‐11 Alternatives Marks It is our understanding that the Desert Express project is designated as privately funded. As such,

the FRA acting on behalf of the Federal Government can only provide loan guarantees and limited

grants were existing rail systems are upgraded. This raises several questions. The project is currently

estimated at roughly $ 6 Billion dollars. However, we are all painfully aware that this project like

others of its kind (e.g., Washington Metro) will see estimated cost increase substantially before

project completion. It is a certainty that additional funding will be required. If the Federal Railway

Admin. under the DOT is unable to provide additional funding support for the project and the

entrepreneurs who started the project cannot raise additional capital, who will be finish and

operate the project? Will the public receive a form of "Quit Claim" and this elephant becomes a

burden on the public it should never have had.

Please ref

and Impro

F‐12 Alternatives Marks Since the loan guarantee from the FRA is federal money does it come with restrictions such as:

Builder must use Union Labor; and all equipment must be purchased from U.S. companies and

fabricated in America. The required use of Union Labor will certainly increase the estimated cost of

build out. In addition, there is no passenger rail car company or light rail manufacturer in the U.S.;

hence, all rail vehicles, parts and operating equipment will have to be acquired from a foreign

source. This represents an outflow of U. S. funds without a corresponding inflow of funds. Such a

situation represents a negative to the U. S. World Trade Deficit.

Please ref

and Impro

F‐13 Alternatives City of

Barstow

Rather, a reasonable range of alternatives are those that can be carried out based on technical,

economic, environmental, and other factors, and not only alternatives that are desirable to the

applicant. In some cases, a lead agency may need to include alternatives that are outside the legal

jurisdiction of the lead agency or even alternatives that require legislation. No true alternatives to

the proposed Project were considered or analyzed in the FEIS, the Draft EIS or the Supplemental

Draft EIS. The FEIS mentions only two other alternatives that were rejected, one along the Union

Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") railroad alignment and the other involving much of the same route as the

proposed action, but with a portion of the route through urbanized portions of the Las Vegas Valley.

There are many other alternatives the FRA could have considered that would have satisfied the

purpose to move traffic from Southern California to Las Vegas and the need to reduce traffic on the

only route available, I ‐15, including constructing an additional highway, adding bus routes, and

constructing rail lines in locations other than along the I‐15 corridor. None of these options were

considered (with the exception of the rejected alternative along the UPRR Railroad).

As docum

a full alte

the Projec

in screeni

is articulabus route

proven hi

options. 

segments 

environmsee Final 

275 and 2

shared us

Vegas, Ne

way.

F‐14 Alternatives City of

Barstow

Most egregiously, the EIS describes ‐ but deliberately excludes from comparison with the proposed

Project ‐‐ the maglev project.

In other words, the FRA considers these two projects to be true alternatives to one another ‐ they

each satisfy the same purpose and need and the construction of one will obviate the need for the

other. (Id.) NEPA requires that competing projects be analyzed in a single document, not ignored

and considered in separate documents as if the other did not exist.

Furthermore, as noted above in the City's comments on the EIS statement of purpose and need, the

Please ref

Maglev TrFRA did re

addressed 

proposed 

comment 
5

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

DesertXpress and maglev proposals are even more directly comparable than they were when the

DEIS and SDEIS were circulated, since the FEIS discloses that the DesertXpress, like the maglev, may

receive public financing...The City expressed great concern in its October 15, 2010 comment letter

("comment letter") that the DesertXpress EIS subverts the purpose of environmental review under

NEPA by defining‐ or at least interpreting‐ its statement of purpose and need so narrowly as to

artificially exclude any analysis of a viable, existing alternative with the potential to avoid adverse

impacts on the City.

This comment was not even addressed in the FRA's responses to comments in the FEIS (see Table F‐

4‐2, Response to Comment No. S‐56), nor was the document revised in any way to correct this

significant deficiency. Interpreting the statement of purpose and need so narrowly as to exclude

consideration of any "build" alternatives other than those proposed and privately financed by the

Project applicant is a clear violation of NEPA. This error is particularly egregious and striking when

there is an existing, feasible maglev alternative that could potentially reduce or avoid significant

impacts of the Project.

Please ref

and Impro

F‐15 Alternatives San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The existing railroad right of way was discarded early on as an alternative. The alternatives

evaluated in FEIS running in the I‐15 corridor are really the same alternatives with minor deviations.

Please see 

F‐16 Alternatives EPA We note that FRA is the lead federal agency for the proposed California‐Nevada Interstate Maglev

project as well as the DesertXpress project. Our comments on the DEIS had questioned how these

two projects, both proposed for the same transportation corridor, would ultimately be compared in

terms of fulfilling the purpose and need of providing passenger rail in the same corridor, while

minimizing impacts. We continue to believe that FRA should provide a comparison of the potential

costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of these two competing proposals so that decision‐

makers can clearly see a comparison of the potential costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of

each technology....

Please ref

Maglev Tr

F‐17 Alternatives ‐  

Ridership

EPA However we continue to have concerns about the fact that the ridership and market projections

discussion included in the FEIS is based on the DesertXpress Updated Ridership and Revenue Study

prepared in December 2005 and the DesertXpress Ridership Forecast Review prepared in February

2008, and does not consider the economic downturn of the past few years, as we recommended in

our DEIS comments. FRA has stated that information they have received indicates that travel in this

corridor has increased in recent years despite the economic downturn. However, in the absence of

a more recent ridership study, EPA remains concerned about the FEIS conclusions.

The comm

the Las Ve

visitation‐

data on I‐

vehicle tr

and 3 of t

percentag

year prior

Nevada fr

year‐long 

decreased 

year‐end 

that the c

2005 and 

traffic ent

recession 
6

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

For furthe

Vegas Vis

and Visito

2010 Las 

9, 2011 at 

F‐18 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

The Biodiversity Guidance explains that NEPA documents cannot limit their analysis of biological

impacts to an assessment of impacts on species protected under the Federal Endangered Species

Act. Rather, adequate consideration of impacts on biological resources in NEPA documents includes

an analysis of impacts on non‐listed species, state protected species, areas that are important to

biodiversity even though they may not have an official designation, ecosystem impacts and

cumulative impacts.

Please ref

the FRA a

evaluatio

agencies; 

agreed to 

Squirrel is 

effects to 

F‐19 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

The project study area for biological impacts is the Project footprint. This was not changed in the

FEIS despite the City's detailed comments explaining that this approach to the analysis of impacts

on biological resources is wholly inadequate under NEPA. Limiting the area of evaluation to only

those areas where the Project will be constructed reduces the assessment to a snapshot of impacts

to individual animals or plants who are located there at the time of the work. There is no

assessment of impacts on the ecosystem or on the biodiversity of the region. This myopic review

does not provide an assessment of the impacts on biological resources and fails to comply with the

mandates of NEPA.

The FRA d

Please ref

disturban

were esta

please see 

of the rail 

Therefore

consultat

capture a

analysis e

biological 

F‐20 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

The documents concede that essential information about various plant species was not obtained

prior to the issuance of the DEIS (pp. 3.14‐16 and 3.14‐53), the SDEIS (p. 3.14‐16) or the FEIS (p. 4‐

92, Table F‐4‐2, response to comments), due to the prolonged drought in the region. The FEIS and

draft documents indicate that such surveys will be conducted prior to beginning construction on the

Project. (Id.) Even if such studies are completed prior to breaking ground, the information obtained

will only be available to mitigate impacts on site, it will not be available to inform the public or the

decision‐makers in assessing the environmental impacts of the different alternatives before the

decision on the Project as mandated by NEPA.

Although 

due to dro

(2006 and 

documen

potential 

17, for fu

which not

the most 

A full bota

rail alignm

F‐21 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

The FEIS and draft documents only provide a general, conclusory statement of the impact of the

various alternatives on specific biological resources in terms of acreage, with no connection

between the acreage affected and the population or individual animals/plants.

The FEIS adds no new analysis, but instead concludes that the analysis in the draft documents is

sufficient. None of the documents analyzes the loss of habitat, changes to habitat, loss of

individuals, or other impacts on the local populations, the ecosystem or the biodiversity in the area

despite the FRA's response to the City's comment indicating that such information has been

provided. (FEIS, Table F‐4‐2, p. 4‐92.)

Please see 

effects to 

F‐22 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

Furthermore, there is no assessment of the impact on the multi‐species habitat conservation plans

that are within the Project impact area, or the preserves or special habitat areas other than

The Draft 

conservat
7

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

conclusory statements that impacts will be minimal. The City made this comment to the SDEIS. In

response, the FEIS now identifies various multi‐species habitat conservation plans that are within

the Project impact area, applicable regulations, and certain wildlife action plans, but there is still no

assessment of the impact of the preferred alternative or any of the other alternatives on the

biological resources in the impact area of the proposed Project or alternatives or on the ability of

the identified plans to achieve their conservation goals in light of the potential impacts from this

Project. The FEIS and draft documents contain no explanation of the scope of the impacts or how

they relate the thresholds of significance.

3.14.1.2 a

in all of th

3.14.2.3 i

County H

F‐23 Biological

Resources

City of

Barstow

Finally, the City notes with disappointment that the UFWS Biological Opinion for the DesertXpress

Project was not complete by the time of preparation of the FEIS, and is in fact not even expected to

be submitted until April 30, 2011 ‐only two days before the close of comments on the FEIS. (FEIS, p.

1‐10.) The absence of a final Biological Opinion undercuts the conclusions of the FEIR, and hampers

public and agency review of the FEIS.

Although 

an enviro

appendix 

the Sectio

consultat

assessme

Avoidanc

Decision, 

F‐24 Biological

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

To the Serrano peoples, the route of the DesertXpress is significant in that it follows, in part, the

course of the Mojave River, an important part of the Serrano ancestral homeland. As planned, the

DesertXpress, starts in Victorville where it crosses the Mojave River and cuts overland to Barstow

where it again crosses the river and follows it eastward toward Baker.

The comm

Mojave R

minimum 

would be 

The only p

utility cor

substatio

would spa

crossing w

incremenminimal.

F‐25 Biological

Resources

EPA We acknowledge FRA's plan to coordinate with wildlife agencies in the design and spacing of

culverts and fencing, to ensure that appropriate wildlife crossings are available. FRA should commit

to this coordination in the ROD to ensure appropriate design and location of wildlife crossings.

All mitiga

minimize 

F‐26 Cultural

Resources

29 Palms The Desert Xpress Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately evaluate the nature

and extent of cultural resources that will be impacted and fails to identify adverse impacts,

mitigation and treatment measures to cultural and biological resources. The proposed project will

cause significant adverse impacts to the big horn sheep and desert tortoise, animals that are

considered a cultural resource to Native Americans.

The FRA d

cultural re

impacts, i

3.14.2.3. 

(see page 

impacts to 

locations, 

from the 

of the Pro

NEPA to d

in this are
8

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

F‐27 Biology NV Dept of

Wildlife

The Department is pleased that the Project's Preferred Alternative does not deviate from the I‐15

freeway and Union Pacific Railroad transportation right‐of‐ways described for segments 5A, 5B, 6A,

and 6C (Clark County, Nevada). These Preferred Alternative segments pose the least adverse effects

to Nevada's wildlife resources. However, as indicated in our comments to the Draft EIS, there is still

potential for individuals of species (including State protected) coming into harm’s way. Heightened

attention to the banded Gila monster and burrowing owl along segments 5A and 5B would be

appreciated as for all intents and purposes they would be associated with the desert tortoise as

discussed in chapter section 3.14.2.3 Preferred Alternative on pages 3.14‐23 through 3.14‐30 and

but not clearly reflected in the summaries in Tables F‐ 3.14‐1 through F‐3.14‐3.

The comm

noted in F

specifical

that there 

Project; n

surveys to 

protocol i

In additio

during pro

worker tr

Mitigation 

F‐28 Comments/

Coordination

Dean MartinRuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

Existing property/home owners within 500 feet of the "Preferred Alternative" route within the Dean

Martin corridor were not properly notified.

Please see 

involveme

availabilit

500 feet o

prior to th

2011 to a

addition, 

copies of 

on the FR

F‐29 Comments/

Coordination

Marks Upon contacting your local representative we were advised that selection from the various

alternatives had been made and that the Final EIS was perfunctory in nature.

The Final 

which wa

Cooperat

making th

important 

F‐30 Comments/

Coordination

Marks The process itself did not allow sufficient time for the public to respond since the average public

was kept in the dark about specifics. More importantly, 2‐3 hours for public testimony at Las Vegas

seems rather limited without specific notification to affected areas such as Enterprise Township and

Spring Valley Township.

Please see 

public hea

2009). Th

attendanc

oral comm

email.

F‐31 Comments/

Coordination

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") has not engaged in meaningful consultation with the

Tribe... The Tribe made a request for completion of site record forms for historic properties and

requested the opportunity to comment on historic property inventory reports as part of identifying

cultural properties. Only a few consultation meetings were held, and only two in 2010 (January and

September) requested by Tribal representatives.

As indicated NEPA requires consultation with Tribes on impacts to the human environment,

including relationship of people to the environment, cultural and social effects. NEPA requires

consultation with Tribes about impacts to sacred sites. NEPA requires consultation on mitigation.

This has not occurred.

As detaile

outreach 

preparati

Washingt

governmeSection 4

numerou

these and 

With rega

cited requ

selection 

interested 
9

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

With rega

F‐32 Comments/

Coordination

29 Palms The Federal Railroad Administration, the lead federal agency in the project, has failed to engage in

meaningful government to government consultation with the affected Tribes on the issues

described above. The unique government to government relationship with Tribes requires federal

agencies including the FRA to obtain meaningful and timely input from tribes on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities.

Please see 

F‐33 Cultural

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The FEIS contains inadequate information as to the nature, significance and extent of the cultural

resources and historic properties, as this evaluation has been impermissibly deferred.

The preferred alternative contains 77 prehistoric sites and 17 that contain a mixed assemblage of

pre‐historic and historic sites...The required evaluation of these sites and assessment of short and

long term adverse impacts, mitigation and treatment to cultural resources is impermissibly deferred

until later per a programmatic agreement and will occur after project approval and public

review...The Final EIS does not adequately evaluate the affected cultural environment...The Final EIS

does not adequately analyze the cultural impacts of the preferred project alternative because there

is a lack of information on the significance of the cultural resources to the Tribe and the other

affected tribes.

As describ

Agreemen

National H

consultat

Historic P

(ACHP). T

All Tribes 

multiple d

FRA and t

submitted 

Neverthe

of cultura

The PA fo

determin

Lead and 

determin

a SHPO), 

forms. T

require p

Action ba

Notwithst

well as th

efforts th

Draft EIS, 

searches 

Area of Po

of the PA 

70 prehist

as being o

Cooperat

Project in 

upon whi

When it a

stipulated 
10

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

all cultura

for the Pr

F‐34 Cultural

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

There is no information presented on potential Traditional Cultural Properties, Traditional Cultural

Landscapes, religious or ceremonial sites. Site record forms for identified historic properties in the

Project have not been completed and a historic properties inventory Report or Determination of

eligibility has not been completed.

As detaile

investigat

American 

The NAHC 

or adjace

represent

possibility 

efforts wi

regarding 

documen

via telephDuring 20

informal c

4.1.1. On 

and/or its 

including 

additiona

including Action. H

recognizearchaeolo

evaluatio

federal de

Bulletin 3

other trad

investigat

recognize

F‐35 Cultural

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The pedestrian surveys and site records do not identify subsurface resources, which is an important

component to inadvertent discoveries that are not always visible.

The PA fo

according

requirem

Consultin

the PA re

possible c

F‐36 Cultural

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

NEPA 's implementing regulations provide: "if the incomplete information relevant to reasonably

foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the

overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the

environmental impact statement." 40 C.F.R. ISO 1.1. There is currently insufficient information in

the FEJS for the Tribe to determine the extent of impacts and meaningfully consult on mitigation

measures.

As detaile

informati

for the Pr

determin

Lead and 

determin

a SHPO), 

forms. T
11

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

require p

Action ba

F‐37 Cultural

Resources

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Tribe advised the lead agency of the necessity to consult with traditional practitioners and

elders that have knowledge of cultural places, landscapes, including trails, traditional gathering and

ceremonial sites that may be impacted and necessity to withhold sensitive information from public

disclosure. The full extent of existing cultural resources is not yet known; as this information has not

yet been fully developed. The full extent of project effects and impact on the cultural environment

cannot be determined at this time.

Regarding 

Through t

traditiona

such prop

Notwithst

communidisagrees 

complete 

obligation

also coord

Project m

to‐face co

publicatio

their conc

F‐38 Cultural

Resources

29 Palms The route of the DesertXpress contains 77 prehistoric sites and 17 that contain a mixed assemblage

of prehistoric and historic sites. In addition to these archaeological sites, the project preferred

alternative and other alternatives, have, yet to be fully determined, significant adverse impacts to

Traditional Cultural Properties of significance to Native Americans. These include but are not

necessarily limited to the area of the Halloran rock landscape, nearby pre‐historic quarries, Mojave

River habitation landscape, Cronise Lake habitation sites, Mojave trail, Chemehuevi Salt Song trial,

Serrano traditional trials, Mohave Song Story Trails and other pre‐historic trails.

Please see 

F‐39 Cumulative

Impacts

San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

There are cumulatively significant cultural and biological impacts that have not been fully assessed.

The FEIS fails to adequately consider the cumulative effect on cultural resources and animal and

plant habitat of the desert. There are cumulatively significant biological impacts to animals in the

project area that have important values to Native Americans. For example cumulative impacts to

big horn sheep and desert tortoise, animals considered a cultural resource by Native Americans.

Habitat will be further fragmented and loss of connectivity will threaten the tortoise, the big horn

sheep and other species. Of particular concern are the cumulative effects of renewable energy

projects within the geographic scope of the lvanpah valley which contains of desert tortoise and big

horn sheep habitat. The FEIS fails to provide an adequate analysis of how these related projects, in

conjunction with the proposed action, are thought to have impacted or are expected to impact the

environment and how this will be mitigated to an acceptable level. The acreages and the intent of

the identified related projects are given, but actual cumulative impacts of these projects are not

analyzed with specificity. While mitigation would reduce impacts to these biological resources, the

Preferred Alternative when viewed collectively with Native American interest in habitat

maintenance, will have an unacceptable adverse effect on biological and thus cultural resources.

Cumulativ

3.16‐28, S

biological 

Section 3

would de

Pass area

result in c

well as to 

addition, 

project co

training, o

Mitigation 

3.14.3 ide

biological 

F‐40 Environmental

Justice

EPA The FEIS also states that residents adjacent to the Preferred Alternative are already exposed to

substantial transportation infrastructure and associated environmental impacts, and therefore the

project would not introduce substantial new effects to the environmental justice communities.

Please see 
12

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Additional impacts to already burdened communities is likely to be significant and must be

considered and mitigated. For example, the FEIS states that residents in the vicinity of the proposed

Las Vegas Central Station B are within 300 feet of the proposed station location, are already

exposed to noise and air quality impacts from the I‐15 freeway, and could be exposed to air quality,

traffic, and noise impacts associated with the proposed station. Commitments to mitigate these

impacts should be included in the ROD.

F‐41 General NV Dept of

Wildlife

Again, of the Project action alternatives described, the Department is supportive of the Preferred

Alternative.

The comm

F‐42 Growth City of

Barstow

The FEIS concludes that the economic impacts identified in the Husing Report will not result in a

significant impact under NEPA. The FEIS bases this determination on the statement that the adverse

economic impacts identified in the Husing Report "are not at a level that would result in secondary

physical environmental effects." (FEIS, p.3.2‐14.) As noted above, NEPA requires an EIS to analyze

whether adverse economic impacts will result in significant physical changes to the environment

(often identified as "urban decay"). (City of Rochester v. United States Postal Service, supra. 541

F.2d 967.) However, the FEIS provides absolutely no reasoned explanation for its conclusion that

the adverse economic impacts identified in the Husing Report will not result in secondary physical

effects.The Husing report simply fails to evaluate the effect of a semi‐permanent economic downturn on

the urban fabric of Barstow. Because of this shortcoming in the Husing Report, the FEIS lacks any

factual or analytical basis upon which to rest its conclusion that the DesertXpress will not produce

significant urban decay in Barstow.

Please see 

assertions 

DesertXp

considere

negative e

informati

refer to In 

F‐43 Growth City of

Barstow

No other projects are discussed with regard to negative growth impacts and the overall conclusion

focuses solely on the temporary beneficial construction impacts to reach a false conclusion that

Barstow will only experience growth benefits from the preferred alternative. The report by Dr.

Barbieri, attached to this letter, explains that numerous other developments may contribute, along

with the DesertXpress Project, to cumulative growth impacts on the City of Barstow. The FEIS fails

to discuss any of those other projects, and therefore its treatment of cumulative growth impacts is

entirely inadequate under NEPA.

The cited 

for the Cit

casino an

potential 

of the cum

reasonab

F‐44 Growth EPA While the area surrounding the preferred station site in Victorville may be planned for growth, the

DesertXpress project would undoubtedly impact the timing and potentially the form of that growth.

In addition, since the chosen station site (VV3) is the site alternative that is located further from

existing development than either of the other station site alternatives, growth‐related impacts

would likely be greater than with the other station sites. Mitigation measures, such as

commitments to work with local land use planning authorities to implement land use controls in the

station area and surrounding areas, should be included in the ROD. The ROD should also include

references to the transit‐oriented principles that FRA has developed as part of the California High

Speed Train system.

The Appli

officials o

of the VV

Final EIS C

would hav

around th

growth in 

While the 

transit‐or

Authority

privately‐

F‐45 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC The EIS should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a threat to human

health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies:

The analy

identified 
13

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

 National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

 Envirostor (formerly CaiSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of

Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below).

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA

facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.

 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System

(CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S. EPA.

 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated

Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid

waste disposal facilities and transfer stations.

 GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

 Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking

underground storage tanks.

 The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California,

90017, (213) 452‐3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).

F‐46 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC The EA should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for

any site within the proposed Project area that may be contaminated, and the government agency to

provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement

in order to review such documents.

Final EIS M

plan prior 

the monit

contamin

for segreg

groundwa

issuance omonitorin

F‐47 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should be conducted

under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee

hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II

Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling

results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be clearly

summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by regulatory

agencies should be included in the EIS......If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related

activities, on site soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic

waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be

conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to

construction of the project.

Phase I En

project al

documen

from them 

F‐48 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete‐paved surface areas are being planned to be

demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the presence of other hazardous

chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead‐

based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken

during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance

with California environmental regulations and policies.

Final EIS M

buildings 

and lead 

implemen

F‐49 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be

required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another

location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project

proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure

Please see 

requires t

permits fo

related to 
14

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

that the imported soil is free of contamination.

F‐50 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during any

construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and approved

by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to

determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a

risk to human health or the environment.

Mitigation 

Mitigation 

F‐51 Hazardous

Materials

DTSC If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the

wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law

(California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control

Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous

wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection

Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618‐6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment

processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the

local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for

authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUP A.

Final EIS M

Materials 

materials

appropria

regulation

Federal p

or fuel sto

F‐52 Hydrology EPA EPA strongly encourages FRA to include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, which

will be required in order to receive a CWA Section 404 permit, in the ROD.

EPA understands that the USACE will be issuing Nationwide Permits for the project. If this is the

case, an alternatives analysis and demonstration that the preferred alternative is the least

environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), as discussed in our DEIS comments, is

not required. However, avoidance and minimization measures are required, and these should be

included as commitments in the ROD. While the Project applicant will be obtaining the CWA Section

404 permit, FRA should include mitigation commitments in the ROD.

The FRA w

Section 8

The proce

Applicant 

visit was c

applicatio

water qua

F‐53 Hydrology EPA As stated in our DEIS comments, we strongly encourage FRA to commit to the use of natural

washes, in their present location and natural form, to the maximum extent practicable with the

placement of adequate natural buffers for flood control. We also encourage FRA to improve

obstructed natural flows where practicable during project construction.

For most 

immediat

drainage 

impacts t

would de

the Projec

natural dr

specifical

downstre

F‐54 Hydrology EPA The FEIS also states that VV3 requires a larger footprint than the other two station options because

VV3 emphasizes surface parking areas instead of structured parking. EPA is concerned about the

impact of this facility on hydrology, water quality, and other resources. FRA' s decision to construct

surface parking instead of structured parking will result in higher storm water runoff and potential

impacts to water quality than either of the other station options. EPA strongly encourages FRA to

reconsider a smaller footprint, elevated parking structure and to commit to reduced impacts and

aggressive best management practices (BMPs) to control and treat stormwater during construction

and operation of the facility, and monitoring to ensure effectiveness of the BMPs. Commitment to

less impacting design and BMPs should be included in the ROD.

Final EIS S

construct

the comm

alternativ

Section 4

In additio

A), constrpermits u

required t

response 

F‐55 Land Use Dean Martin The "Preferred Alternative" route would jeopardize the rural lifestyle of the adjoining homes and The I‐15 f
15

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

RuralNeighborhoodPreserveAssociation

connecting preservation area. The high‐speed train will diminish the viability of the area for future

home development.

adding a h

metropol

of the fre

patterns i

Transport

portions o

into this c

corridor a

F‐56 Land Use Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

The FEIS general assumption on industrial land use does not consider actual Clark County land uses.

The maintenance facility at [Wigwam] does not conform to current Clark County land uses. The

facility is a heavy industrial use, which is not permitted in its current proposed location and will

have a severe impact on the surrounding area. Currently, the only area in Enterprise with the

appropriate zoning is the Arden industrial area adjacent to the Union Pacific right of way.

The comm

facility is 

1.4.1.2, w

Transport

state and 

F‐57 Land Use Marks Some areas of the selected route in Clark County NV are listed as Industrial when in fact they are

Business Development, Professional and Research.

The gene

the actua

entirely w

F‐58 Land Use City of

Barstow

The Land Use Chapter (3.1) contains statements and conclusions that the proposed Project has low

and moderate compatibility with certain land uses along the route such as residential areas and

sensitive BLM lands with a very cursory statement regarding the basis for the incompatibility.

There are also no conclusions regarding the land use impacts after mitigation despite the response

to comment No. S‐238 indicating that conclusions regarding land use impacts after mitigation are

presented in FEIS Section 3.1.4. Section 3.1.4 simply states that incorporation of the mitigation

measures will mitigate permanent effects relating to Project construction and operation and that

the Preferred Alternative will result in the conversion of lands to transportation uses. (FEIS, p. 3.1‐

43.) Neither of these statements provides any conclusion regarding the significance of impacts from

the Project as required by NEPA.

Please see 

occur wit

significan

F‐59 Land Use City of

Barstow

The FRA's response to comments by the City of Barstow and adjacent areas that the information on

land use policies in the draft documents was grossly out of date indicates that this information was

updated in the FEIS. (Response to Comment No. 334.) However, a review of the FEIS shows only

very minor revisions were made to Section 3.1.1.1 and no citations to recent data were added to

show that the information is actually current.

Despite this fact, the FEIS changes a few terms, but otherwise does not appear to have addressed

this issue, calling into question the adequacy of the land use analysis in the FEIS pertaining to the

City and surrounding areas.

Final EIS S

of Barstow 

Revised fi

3.1‐1 and 

comment 

As describ

Alternativ

F‐60 Land Use CCDOA In its comments on the DEIS, CCDOA pointed out that the preferred alignment for Segment 5

penetrated both the southern and northern runway protection zones (RPZs) for the western‐most

runway at the SNSA. The revised alignment subsequently described in the SDEIS appears to avoid

any intrusions into the southern RPZ by remaining on the west side of I‐15 at that point. However,

because the proposed alignment of the DesertXpress subsequently crosses back to the east side of

I‐15, it still intrudes into the northern RPZ for the western‐most runway at the SNSA. CCDOA noted

this in its comments on the SDEIS and renewed its objection to any proposal that would result in

any part of the DesertXpress infrastructure being located in an RPZ.

This conflict was not resolved in the FEIS. The preferred alignment for Segment 5 in the FEIS still

intrudes into the northern RPZ. In response to CCDOA's comments on the SDEIS concerning this

Please see 

been revi

Administr
16

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

intrusion, FRA added Mitigation Measure LU‐2: Rail Alignment Design in Existing and Planned

Runway Protection Zones. This mitigation measure requires the Applicant to "coordinate with the

FAA during the design‐build process regarding any existing and planned airport uses and established

Runway Protection Zones." It also requires the Applicant obtain a determination from the FAA that

"the project does not present a hazard to air navigation" under Part 77. See FEIS at 3.1‐42 and 4‐

103 (response to CommentS‐126).

F‐61 Land Use CCDOA CCDOA renews its objection to the proposed alignment of Segment 5. Intrusion of physical objects

into the RPZ is a critical safety issue. Accordingly, we cannot agree that proposed mitigation

measure LU‐2 provides adequate safeguards for the northern RPZ at the SNSA. As we have noted

before, given the configuration of the western SNSA runway and the NDOT right‐of‐way for I‐15,

avoidance of the RPZ is best achieved by using an alignment that remains on the west side of 1‐15

until it has passed the northern RPZ. We have consulted with Mr. David Kessler, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Project Manager for the SNSA Enviromnental Impact Statement, and

he agrees that the preferred alignment for Segment 5 unacceptably interferes with FAA's safety

requirements for RPZs, and that an alignment that stays on the west side of the I‐15 right‐of‐way

would adequately protect the RPZ.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐62 Land Use CCDOA As we explained in our October 2010 comments on the SDEIS, the project's impacts on aviation

safety cannot adequately be examined without considering the results of FAA's Part 77 analysis and

any mitigation measures such as lighting and marking required by FAA in any subsequent

determinations. There is no discussion of the Part 77 determinations in the FEIS; only a

requirement that the Applicant obtain a Part 77 determination that "the project" does not present a

hazard to air navigation. Thus, FRA's FEIS still lacks a full examination of the potential aviation

hazards for each alternative. FRA' s response to CCDOA's comment does not address the lack of

analysis in the FEIS. It merely cites Mitigation Measure LU‐I, which addresses only impacts to one‐

engine inoperative (OEI) surfaces; and Mitigation Measure LU‐2, which requires the Applicant to

obtain Part 77 determinations from the FAA. See Comment S‐122 and Response at FEIS p. 4‐102.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐63 Land Use ‐ 

Aviation

FAA FAA recommends the FRA's Final EIS and Record of Decision include a reference to 49 U.S.C. 47101

that states in part:

"

... it is the policy of the United States that the safe operation of the airport and airway system is

the highest aviation priority ... "

The comm

F‐64 Land Use ‐ 

Aviation

FAA The FAA recommends DesertXpress reduce the height of the proposed rail line, including the

overhead catenary, below the 62.5:1 OIS for departure ends Runways of 25L and 25R at LAS.

FAA strongly recommends FRA consider an alternative that has the proposed rail line pass under

the Union Pacific Rail Road similar to how Interstate 15 passes under the railroad.

The FAA encourages the FRA to work with DesertXpress to adjust the alignment of the proposed rail

project to ensure it does not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace at LAS.

Until the FAA has completed a detailed review of the proposal, under 14 CFR Part 77, the FEIS is

premature in making a statement that a no‐hazard determination is available.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐65 Land Use –

Aviation

FAA The proposed alignment of the DesertXpress along the eastern edge of the Interstate 15 Right‐of‐

Way causes the train to penetrate the RPZ for Runway 18R/36L at the proposed SNSA. This

penetration of the RPZ is not acceptable to the FAA because it is a land use that is inconsistent with

Paragraph 212 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300‐13, Airport Design.

FAA views a passenger train in an RPZ as a prohibited land use. The function of the RPZ is to protect

people and property on the ground. We believe the FRA would agree the safety of both aircraft and

rail passengers is of the utmost importance.

Please see 

been revi

Administr
17

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

The RPZ for the proposed SNSA extends over a portion of the Interstate 15 highway pavement.

However, we cannot accept introduction of a new land use that could pose a hazard to air

navigation. An at‐grade railroad with overhead power lines would be inconsistent with the FAA's

Airport Design Standards.

Mitigation Measure LU‐2, shown on page 3.1‐42 of the Final EIS is not acceptable to the FAA

because it does not relocate the proposed rail alignment outside of the RPZ.

F‐66 Land Use –

Aviation

Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

Any above grade track section that impairs runway capacity ability at McCarran International

Airport must have a design solution before the project is approved. Reduced runway capacity will

influence air carriers' decisions on the service levels to McCarran. Runway impairment can result in

serious economic impact to the entire Las Vegas valley.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐67 Land Use –

Aviation

Marks Although discussed in the EIS, it would appear that there is a conflict between aircraft safety in an

emergency single engine take‐off. It is our understanding that a part of the selected alternative

would require elevated tracks that are in or adjacent to active runways. This is one of many reasons

that building height is restricted in the aircraft zones that the selected alternative will traverse.

Under these circumstances Airlines will have to limit passenger, fuel and baggage on departing

aircraft to comply with the engine failure rules. The net effect will be a decline in airline traffic at

the Las Vegas airport.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐68 Land Use ‐

Aviation

FAA We believe the FEIS fails to consider the 62.5: 1 Obstacle Identification Surface (OIS) by the

proposed rail alignment as it relates to Runways 25L and 25R at LAS.

This rule requires commercial operators of large or turbine‐powered airplanes departing an airport

under IFR to have a procedure for avoiding obstacles in the event of an engine failure on takeoff.

Please see 

been revi

Administr

F‐69 Miscellaneous Marks No mention was made of the illegal immigration problem and the ability of ICE to carry out its

mission. The intended rail system provides a significant opportunity for illegal immigrants to move

East and North in the U.S. This exacerbates the problem of control. Even if you could add ICE

personnel the cost would be prohibitive. Security at points of ingress and egress will be required to

ensure that no possible terrorist activity can take place. If each train carries 250‐300 passengers’

means at maximum use there would be 600 potential terrorists Victims at both the Victorville and

Las Vegas terminals. Security, such as that used at airports, would require an area large enough to

screen people, baggage and equipment prior to departure.

The FRA i

way inter

Enforcem

corridor w

freeway; 

approxim

with anot

With rega

over rail s

mandate 

mandate 

programs 

the event 

of railroad 

regulation

any physi

examined 

F‐70 Miscellaneous CCDOA As you know, CCDOA is contractually and statutorily obligated to ensure that land uses in and

around its aviation facilities will not impair the use and operation of such facilities. Accordingly,

while CCDOA neither supports nor opposes DesertXpress, CCDOA is committed to ensuring that any

Please see 

been revi

Administr
18

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

new infrastructure in southern Clark County is compatible with the siting, construction, and

operation of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA). CCDOA is also

committed to ensuring that new infrastructure in the Las Vegas Valley does not interfere with

operations at McCarran International Airport (LAS) or any of its other facilities.

F‐71 Miscellaneous CCDOA We recommend that FRA delay issuance of a Record of Decision until it is able to examine the

impacts of mitigation measures required by FAA for aviation safety purposes.

In consult

Measures 

Record of 

F‐72 Miscellaneous SCH The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Final Environmental Statement to selected

state agencies for review. The review period closed on May 2, 2011, and no state agencies

submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State

Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act.

The Proje

F‐73 Miscellaneous James Brown I am opposed to the train paralleling 1‐15 from Downtown las Vegas to Victorville. I live two blocks

from 1‐15 near Silverado Ranch Road. I live on an acre and have for over twenty two years. I have

invested over 1 million dollars on my 5000 square foot home, free standing 1000 square foot home

theater, five car garage and 600 square foot work shop. A high‐speed train so nearby will adversely

affect my quality of life as well as my physical and emotion well being and substantially decreased

the value of my property.

I suggest the train run parallel to the existing train at least until it gets to Sloan or Jean. It can easily

connect to the 1‐15 corridor to Victorville. The people who live near that train chose to live where

they are. None of the rest of the population near 1‐15 chose to live near a train.

The comm

alignment 

right‐of‐w

(Commen

Union Pac

way and t

unwilling 

authority 

Segment 

AlternativThe I‐15 f

adding a h

metropol

determin

The Neva

up to 14 l

passenge

transport

use comp

Please als

noise mit

Figure F‐3

systems a

significan

F‐74 Noise Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhoodPreserveAssociation

 The FEIS does not provide the estimated sound levels for different operating speeds.

 The sound barrier of 4 feet will not contain the sound for residents adjacent to the tracks.

 How will sound be mitigated where the rail is elevated?

The Final 

locations. 

Final EIS) 

The Final 

alternativ

analyzed 
19

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Executive 

locations 

identified 

F‐75 Noise Marks The selected alternative is adjacent to existing residential areas. The noise and vibration will be

excessive thereby reducing the quality of life as well as the value of these residential properties.

The FRA e

Final EIS S

proposed 

the meas

in this Rec

of solid p

that noise 

levels ow

relative to 

With rega

Preferred 

proposed 

F‐76 Purpose &

Need

Gary & Carol

Haley

I have lived and worked in California for most of my 70 plus years and we prefer our automobiles

for trips to Las Vegas! It will not be used and become another tax supported burden to the working

public like all the others in this state. The money should be spent to fix and repair our deteriorating

highway system not just on 115 but throughout our country. Harry Reid knows this and should act

accordingly! As I recall, you used to be able to catch a Union Pacific Train in Victorville and Barstow

which took you to and from the Union Plaza Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. This stopped years ago

due to the lack of interest and customers.

The comm

in any of t

F‐77 Purpose and

Need

City ofBarstow

The FEIS now indicates that the DesertXpress may, following completion of NEPA review, apply for

federal funding under the Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. (FEIS, p. 1‐15.)

This information ‐which was not disclosed to the public until after circulation of the DEIS and SDEIS ‐

means that the DesertXpress Project may no longer meet the purpose and need identified in the

EIS.

While the governme

possibility 

private na

and Need 

F‐78 Purpose and

Need

City ofBarstow

Finally, the FEIS confuses the definition of the proposed Project by speculating, without analysis,

that the DesertXpress could be extended to the Ontario International Airport, the San Bernardino

station, or "other communities" in the Los Angeles Basin." (FEIS, p. 1‐8.) The FEIS does not explain

how these connections could possibly be achieved while maintaining the high‐speed rail definition

of the Project. These tantalizing prospects appear to be illusions, used in the FEIS (as the promise of

"private financing" has been used in the past) to make the DesertXpress appear to be a more

appealing project than it really is.

The cited 

line would 

commenc

However, 

EIS analys

demonstr

envisione

F‐79 Purpose and

Need

EPA While we commend the FRA for seeking to provide a public transportation option in the Southern

California and Southern Nevada area, we continue to have concerns raised in the DEIS and SDEIS

about the siting of the project southern terminus in Victorville, rather than a terminus in a larger

population center with other transit connections. We continue to recommend consideration of an

option of connecting the high speed train service to the greater Los Angeles area, thereby reducing

the number and length of individual automobile trips required to get to Victorville.

The propo

Desert Co

between 

include th

potential 

F‐80 Section 4(f) San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Department of Transportation Act, section 4(f) evaluation is incomplete. The FEIS presents

inadequate information as to the nature. Significance and extent of the potentially eligible 4(f)

historic properties. These include but are not necessarily limited to culturally significant landscapes

where significant traditional events, activities or cultural observances have taken place that are

associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Serrano,

Please see 
20

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Mohave and Chemehuevi Indian history. These include landscapes such as the area of the Halloran

rock landscape, nearby pre‐historic quarries, Mojave River landscape, Cronese Lake habitation sites.

Mojave trail, and Chemehuevi Salt Song trial, Mohave Dream Song Trails, Serrano Traditional Trails

and other pre‐historic trails.

F‐81 Section 4(f) San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The FEIS improperly excludes historic properties from 4(f) consideration as eligible under other

National Register of Historic Places criteria and considers only under Criterion D ... After

consultation with the SHPO or in this case the BLM and the appropriate Native American Tribes

and/or Tribal Historic Preservation officer concludes that the archaeological resource is important

chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation m

place...The required consultation with Tribes for a determination that the resource is important

chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and therefore has minimal value for

preservation in place, has not occurred with regard to the 4(f) properties evaluated in FEIS. . . .

The consultation with Tribe; as to 4(f) eligibility of Halloran, Cronise and that CA‐SBR 07098,

CA‐SBR‐00885 has been inadequate. Consultation took place on the Halloran and Cronise sits with

site visits in January 2010. The Tribe expected that there would be a continuing dialogue as the 4(f)

eligibility. The Tribe was not informed or consulted of pending determinations to remove these sites

or others sites.

As stated 

assessing 

comment

Register u

be consid

those arc

other wor

B, or C of 

evaluatio

As docum

interested visit in Jan

Through t

develope

minimize 

Final EIS S

Cooperat

The Progr

formal eli

the Lead a

took exte

informati

resources

has reviewUnder the 

the BLM a

project re

including 

the BLM s

one or mo

for the Na

be requireThe FRA b

site recor

field offic

eligibility 
21

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

F‐82 Section 4(f) San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Tribe disagrees with the determination that CA‐SBR‐00885 is eligible under criterion "D" only.

The site should also be eligible under NHRP criterion "A." The site has not been assessed as a

cultural landscape.

The resou

The FRA a

January 2

possible v

grade and parking lo

the BLM d

question. 

carry forw

response 

F‐83 Section 4(f) San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Tribe disagrees with the determination that CA‐SBR‐03694 is eligible under criterion "D" only.

The site should also be eligible under criterion "A." The required consultation with Tribes for

determination that the resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data

recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place, has not occurred with regard to this

property.

National R

resource 

in light of 

According 

scatter. T

the site e

area. For 

not contr

Please als

F‐84 Section 4(f) San Manuel

Band ofMissionIndians

The Tribe disagrees with the determination that CA‐SBR 07098/H is eligible under criterion "D" only. As stated 

eligible fo

unaware 

to broad 

significan

period, or 

high artist

compone

Please als

F‐85 Section 4(f) The Tribe disagrees with the determination that JSA ‐SD‐S‐002 is eligible under criterion "D" only.

This site should be evaluated as part of larger cultural landscape.

Based on 

the FRA a

prehistor

trail and n

Please als

As noted 

identified 

landscape 
22

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

F‐86 Traffic and

Transportation

City ofBarstow

The FEIS does not require either the lead agency or the applicant to actually implement the

recommended mitigation measures; rather, it only suggests that "[a]pplicant would be responsible

to contribute to these mitigation measures equal to their fair‐share of the adverse effect as

determined by the appropriate jurisdictional authority." The FEIS does not, however, examine

whether programs are actually in place in the affected jurisdictions under which the applicant

would be required to contribute on a "fair share" basis. Moreover, the FEIS contains no analysis of

what the applicant's "fair share" would be for any of the recommended mitigation measures.

Furthermore, the FEIS contains absolutely no analysis of the likelihood that any particular mitigation

measure would actually be implemented, even if the applicant were required to pay its "fair share."

Therefore, the FEIS is entirely lacking in evidentiary support for its conclusion that the identified

potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts will be mitigated by the measures

discussed in the document.... Since the FEIS does not require the mitigation measures to be adopted

and implemented, the potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts identified in Section

3.5 remain significant and unavoidable. Thus, the conclusion in the FEIS that all impacts will be

mitigated by the mitigation measures is erroneous and fails to comply with the statutory mandate

of NEPA that all environmental impacts of the proposed Project be identified to allow informed

decision‐making.

The Reco

Biologica

Record of 

would all

The mitig

Transport

preparati

Per Sectio

agency an

Project to 

limited to 

Cooperat

commitm

the Proje

measures 

F‐87 Transportation EPA In our comments on the SDEIS, we highlighted the fact that the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) has committed to supporting sustainable communities through the HUD/DOT/EPA

Partnership for Sustainable Communities. We believe that with additional project commitments,

such as coordination with other transit providers to facilitate intermodal connections, commitments

to work with local land use planning authorities to implement land use controls in the station area

and surrounding areas, and commitments to coordinate this project with other federal investments

in the project area, this project could better support the principles that HUD, DOT, and EPA

committed to supporting as part of the Partnership....EPA also has remaining concerns about the air

quality and growth inducement impacts of a project terminus in Victorville, due to the fact that the

majority of riders would drive to the station from larger population centers throughout Southern

California. We reiterate our recommendation that FRA coordinate with other public and private

transit providers to encourage non‐automobile trips to the DesertXpress stations. We specifically

recommend coordination with local transit providers in Las Vegas, such as the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, in order to facilitate intermodal connections.

As the FR

shares the 

served by 

travel and 

site. As in

transit se

station sit

introduct

accommo

The Appl

commits t

transit or

surroundi

connectio

F‐88 Transportation/

Safety

Dean MartinRuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

How susceptible are train operations to wind speeds in excess of 50 mph along the above grade

tracks?

As stated 

operation 

has propo

unique m

include hi

F‐89 Transportation/

Safety

Dean MartinRuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

Will the pillars for the above grade tracks, north of Blue Diamond Road, create a vehicle safety

hazard?

Please see 

concerns 

by the FH

examined 

involved l

Interface 

Applicant

this Recor
23

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

conducte

appropria

design.

F‐90 Transportation/

Safety

Marks The selected route indicates an elevated track necessary to clear the Silverado Ranch interchange;

the Silverton Hotel and the Blue Diamond State Highway 160 flyover. The height of this elevated

tract is upwards of 50‐80 feet plus catenaries equipment. The problem stems from high winds. How

is life and property protected from uncontrollable winds (some in excess of 50 miles per hour)?

As stated 

operation 

has propo

unique m

include hi

F‐91 Transportation/

Safety

Marks The EIS cites traffic statistics to support its position that removal of vehicles from Interstate 15 will

make travel easier and less hazardous by reducing accidents. Of particular note was the statistics

pertaining to rear end accidents. Most accidents are the result of driver error (on the phone,

texting, simply not paying attention or acts of god such as blown tires on trucks) it is difficult to

accept, with any certainty, that the simple reduction in traffic flow numbers will reduce rear end or

fatal accidents. In order to achieve such an objective, you have to have better roads and drivers, not

necessarily less cars as well as more law enforcement.

As stated 

collisions. 

However, 

reduce co

rate of re

F‐92 Utilities Southern

CaliforniaEdison

The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) presumption of federal preemption to the California

Public Utilities Commission's licensing and permitting authority continues to be an open issue.

Despite the Surface Transportation Board (STB) decision issued June 25, 2007, concerning federal

preemption of DesertXpress from most state and local laws, it remains SCE's understanding that

while the rail portion of the DesertXpress may be preempted, SCE's electric facilities are not and

remain subject to CPUC General Order 131‐D (GO 131‐D), which sets forth the requirements and

the CPUC's authority for, among other things, construction and relocation of electric facilities above

50 kV pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)....

SCE in prior comments has recommended the FRA contact the CPUC Energy Division to discuss the

assumed federal preemption of CPUC authority. Based on recent communications with the CPUC

Energy Division and the applicant DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, SCE believes that no discussion

between the parties has taken place. SCE again urges the FRA to contact the CPUC Energy Division

to ensure the proper approach is taken on the federal preemption issue.

Please be advised if development plans result in the need to build new or relocate existing SCE

electrical facilities that operate at or above 50 kV, the SCE construction may have environmental

impacts subject to CEQA review as required by the CPUC.

If the SCE facilities are not adequately addressed in the CEQA review for the larger project, and the

new facilities could result in significant environmental impacts, the required additional CEQA review

at the CPUC could delay approval of the SCE power line portion of the project for two years or

longer. Additionally, if new construction/relocation of SCE facilities is required for the proposed

project, further delays may occur due to the SCE development process of required electrical

infrastructure.

Please see 

(Final EIS 

identified

response 

be expresused to d

right whic

STB expla

preempti

could only 

F‐93 Utilities Southern

CaliforniaEdison

SCE Company right‐of‐ways and fee‐owned properties are purchased for the exclusive use of SCE to

operate and maintain its present and future electric system facilities. Any proposed use of SCE

rights‐of‐way will be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basis by the appropriate SCE operating

department. Approvals or denials will be in writing based upon review of the maps provided and

compatibility with SCE right‐of‐way constraints and rights.

The comm

F‐94 Utilities and

Services

City ofBarstow

The FEIS states that new stations may be needed for the Clark County Fire Department and the San

Bernardino County Fire Department, but there is no analysis regarding the potential environmental

impacts associated with such new facilities in either of the draft documents or the FEIS. (DEIS, pp.

Section 3

incremen

conclusio
24

CommentNumber

Final EISSection/Topic Commenter Comment Response

3.4‐35 to 3.4‐36, SDEIS pp. 3.4‐16 to 3.4‐17, FEIS pp. 3.4‐16 to 3.4‐17.) The FEIS further states that

the Barstow Fire Protection District informed the FRA that present staffing levels are insufficient to

meet the needs of Segment 2C and new facilities will be necessary if this Segment is part of the final

Project, but there is no analysis of the environmental impacts associated with such new facilities in

either the drafts or the FEIS. (DEIS, pp. 3.4‐35 to 3.4‐36, SDEIS p. 3.4‐16, FEIS p. 3‐4.17.) Instead, the

FEIS dismissed this comment by claiming that due to the Project's close proximity to two existing

stations in Barstow, the additional need for the proposed Project can be readily met with the

existing stations. The FEIS completely ignores the specific concerns raised in the comment.

The failure to address these potential environmental impacts in the FEIS renders the analysis of

environmental impacts associated with utilities and services inadequate under NEPA.

providers 

of the pro

facilities. 

affected athis Recor

these and 

F‐95 Visual Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

The effects of light pollution were not considered. The above grade tracks must have shielded

lighting to protect the adjacent residents and businesses. The at‐grade tracks north of St. Rose

Parkway have residents less than 50ft. from the tracks who need to be protected.... Lighting for the

sub‐station and maintenance facility were not addressed.

Final EIS Slighting w

headlight

associate

Measures 

Applicant 

corridor. 

the scree

Mitigation 

maintena

urbanized 

shall inco

screen we

where ap

F‐96 Visual Dean Martin

RuralNeighborhood

PreserveAssociation

The businesses located north of Blue Diamond Road will have their signs blocked by the above

grade track structure. This could result in severe economic impact to business and property owners.

The visua

points no

and other 

of railroad 

environm

effects re