Prepared by: 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

March 2011 

Volume I: Report

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Proposed 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train

Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the 

project. The Cooperating Agencies are the Bureau of Land Management, the Surface Transportation 

Board, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Park Service. 

In March 2009, FRA, in coordination with the Cooperating Agencies, published a Draft EIS and circulated 

the document for a 56-day public and agency review and comment period. Following publication of the 

Draft EIS, the project applicant proposed several modifications and additions based upon substantive 

comments received during public and agency review to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. 

These proposed project modifications and additions were analyzed in Supplemental Draft EIS, published 

by FRA and the Cooperating Agencies in September 2010 and circulated for a 46-day public and agency 

review and comment period. 

In accordance with regulations implementing NEPA, the Final EIS evaluates the environmental effects 

associated with the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA and the Cooperating Agencies and the No 

Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be almost entirely located within the 

existing I-15 corridor, with tracks running alongside freeway travel lanes. The Preferred Alternative also 

specifies station and maintenance facility sites and identifies Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) as the 

locomotive technology. The Final EIS also compares the environmental effects of the Preferred 

Alternative to the other Action Alternatives. The Final EIS also includes amendments to the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS to both reflect updated information since publication of the previous documents 

and to address certain comments received during the respective public and agency comment periods (40 

CFR 1502.9(b)). 

The Preferred Alternative would have adverse environmental effects related to sensitive biological 

resources, cultural resources, hydrological resources, utility infrastructure, localized traffic effects near the 

Victorville and Las Vegas stations, land use and community impacts relative to business displacements, 

increased noise levels, air quality pollutant emissions during construction, and existing grazing land 

allotments. Mitigation measures and strategies are described to avoid or minimize these adverse effects. 

Conversely, the Preferred Alternative demonstrates several beneficial effects to the environment, 

including diverting automobile traffic from the I-15 freeway, providing economic growth during 

construction, and improving air quality and energy consumption during operation. 

This Final EIS is being made available to the public in accordance with NEPA. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.10, this Final EIS will be circulated for a 30-day waiting period commencing on the publication date 

of EPA’s notice of availability in the Federal Register, which is expected to be Friday, April 1, 2011. 

Following this waiting period, the Lead and Cooperating Agencies will each issue a Record of Decision on 

the proposed project. A Record of Decision is a concise public document that formally states the decision 

of the federal agency on the project and explains factors considered in reaching the decision. 

The Final EIS is available at public libraries identified below as well as on the internet at the following 

address: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml. 

Victorville City Library

15011 Circle Drive

Victorville, CA 92395

Barstow Library

304 East Buena Vista

Barstow, CA 92311

Las Vegas Library

833 Las Vegas Blvd. N.

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Clark County Library

1401 Flamingo Road

Las Vegas, NV 89119

Written concerns on this Final EIS should be sent by mail and received by Monday, May 2, 2011, 

addressed to the Federal Railroad Administration as follows: 

Attn: DesertXpress 

Ms. Wendy Messenger 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., MS-20

Washington, DC 20590 

To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. Please recycle the 

paper again once you have finished with it and no longer need a copy.
March 2011 Final EIS 

i 

Table of Contents 

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................ES-1 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................... LA-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Project .................................................................1-2

1.3 Need For the Proposed Project ................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations .................................................. 1-9

1.5 Relationship to Other Federal Agency Policies, Plans, and Programs ..... 1-15

1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study 

Area ........................................................................................................... 1-18

1.7 Issues Raised During Scoping ................................................................... 1-25

2.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Summary of Alternatives .............................................................................2-1

2.2 Considerations in the Development of Alternatives .................................. 2-8

2.3 Alternatives in Detail ................................................................................ 2-18

2.4 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................ 2-44

2.5 Environmentally Preferable Alternative .................................................. 2-52

3.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts .........................................................3.1-1

3.2 Growth ......................................................................................................3.2-1

3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands .................................................................3.3-1

3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services .................................................................. 3.4-1

3.5 Traffic and Transportation .......................................................................3.5-1

3.6 Visual Resources ..................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..................................................3.7-1

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................. 3.8-1

3.9 Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 3.10-1

3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change ................................................. 3.11-1

3.12 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 Energy .................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Biological Resources............................................................................... 3.14-1 
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ii

3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ................................................................. 3.15-1

3.16 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................... 3.16-1

3.17 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources ........ 3.17-1

3.18 Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity ................................ 3.18-1

3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................. 3.19-1

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................... 4-1

4.1 Agency Involvement....................................................................................4-1

4.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 Response to Public and Agency Comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS ............................................................................. 4-7

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 6-1
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

iii

List of Figures 

Figure A Project Location .................................................................................ES-2

Figure B DesertXpress Environmental Impact Statement Process ..................ES-5

Figure C Responsible Parties Associated with DesertXpress EIS 

Preparation .........................................................................................ES-8

Figure D Converging Transportation Corridors Near Victorville ...................ES-12

Figure E Typical Train Speeds ........................................................................ ES-17

Figure F-1-1 Project Location .................................................................................. 1-27

Figure F-2-1 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-3: Project 

Modifications and Additions (3) ........................................................ 2-55

Figure F-2-2 Project Location ................................................................................. 2-56

Figure F-2-3 Preferred Alternative – Map 1 of 5 ..................................................... 2-57

Figure F-2-4 Preferred Alternative – Map 2 of 5 .................................................... 2-58

Figure F-2-5 Preferred Alternative – Map 3 of 5 .................................................... 2-59

Figure F-2-6 Preferred Alternative – Map 4 of 5 .................................................... 2-60

Figure F-2-7 Preferred Alternative – Map 5 of 5..................................................... 2-61

Figure F-3.1-1 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-6: Land Use/ 

Zoning Designation (1).................................................................... 3.1-44

Figure F-3.1-2 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-7: Land Use/ 

Zoning Designation (2) ....................................................................3.1-45

Figure F-3.1-3 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-8: Land Use/ 

Zoning Designation (3) ................................................................... 3.1-46

Figure F-3.1-4 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-9: Land Use/ 

Zoning Designation (4) ....................................................................3.1-47

Figure F-3.1-5 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-10: Land Use/ 

Zoning Designation (5) ................................................................... 3.1-48

Figure F-3.1-6 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-3: Land 

Ownership (3).................................................................................. 3.1-49

Figure F-3.1-7 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-4: Land 

Ownership (4) ................................................................................. 3.1-50

Figure F-3.1-8 Land Ownership/Management (1) ................................................... 3.1-51

Figure F-3.1-9 Land Ownership/Management (2) ..................................................3.1-52

Figure F-3.1-10 Land Ownership/Management (3) ..................................................3.1-53

Figure F-3.1-11 Land Ownership/Management (4) ..................................................3.1-54

Figure F-3.1-12 Land Ownership/Management (5) ..................................................3.1-55

Figure F-3.1-13 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Multiple Use Classifications, 

California Desert Conservation Area ...............................................3.1-56

Figure F-3.1-14 Environmental Justice – California .................................................3.1-57

Figure F-3.1-15 Environmental Justice – Nevada .................................................... 3.1-58
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

iv

Figure F-3.3-1 Farmlands within Direct/Impacts Impact Areas, Preferred 

Alternative – Segment 3B ................................................................3.3-11

Figure F-3.3-2 Grazing Allotments ......................................................................... 3.3-12

Figure F-3.3-3 Preferred Alternative, Segment 4C – Grazing Land Allotments ......3.3-13

Figure F-3.5-1 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.5-3: Future Year 

2013 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes Victorville 

Station (VV3) ................................................................................... 3.5-27

Figure F-3.5-2 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.5-4: Future Year 

2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes, Victorville 

Station (VV3) ...................................................................................3.5-28

Figure F-3.5-3 Freeway Sections Evaluated ............................................................ 3.5-29

Figure F-3.5-4 Trip Distribution Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) ...........................3.5-30

Figure F-3.5-5 Existing Intersection Geometry Las Vegas Station (Southern 

Station) .............................................................................................3.5-31

Figure F-3.5-6 Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) Trip Distribution ................. 3.5-32

Figure F-3.5-7 Future Year 2013 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes 

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) ............................................. 3.5-33

Figure F-3.5-8 Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes 

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) ............................................. 3.5-34

Figure F-3.5-9 Existing Intersection Geometry Las Vegas Station (Central 

Station B) ......................................................................................... 3.5-35

Figure F-3.5-10 Trip Distribution Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) ................ 3.5-36

Figure F-3.5-11 Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes 

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) ............................................. 3.5-37

Figure F-3.5-12 Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes 

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) .............................................3.5-38

Figure F-3.5-13 Examples of Visual Screening ......................................................... 3.5-39

Figure F-3.6-1 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (1) ..........................................................3.6-23

Figure F-3.6-2 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (2) ..........................................................3.6-24

Figure F-3.6-3 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (3) .......................................................... 3.6-25

Figure F-3.6-4 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (4) ..........................................................3.6-26

Figure F-3.6-5 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (5) .......................................................... 3.6-27

Figure F-3.6-6 View Comparison, Victorville Station (VV3) ...................................3.6-28

Figure F-3.6-7 View Comparison, North of Clark Mountains (With Approved 

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation System) ....................................3.6-29

Figure F-3.6-8 View Comparison, Central Barstow ................................................3.6-30

Figure F-3.6-9 View Comparison, Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF ............... 3.6-31

Figure F-3.8-1 Revision of Draft EIS Figure 3.8-6: Hydrology and Floodplains (6) .........................................................................................3.8-34

Figure F-3.8-2 Hydrology and Floodplains (1) ........................................................3.8-35

Figure F-3.8-3 Hydrology and Floodplains (2) .......................................................3.8-36

Figure F-3.8-4 Hydrology and Floodplains (3) ....................................................... 3.8-37
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

v 

Figure F-3.8-5 Hydrology and Floodplains (4) .......................................................3.8-38

Figure F-3.8-6 Hydrology and Floodplains (5) .......................................................3.8-39

Figure F-3.8-7 Location of Ephemeral Drainages, Preferred Alternative – 

Segment 4C .....................................................................................3.8-40

Figure F-3.10-1 Properties of Environmental Concern ........................................... 3.10-11

Figure F-3.10-2 Hazardous Sites of Environmental Concern – Segment 2C .......... 3.10-12

Figure F-3.12-1 Noise Mitigation Locations, Barstow ............................................ 3.12-26

Figure F-3.12-2 Noise Mitigation Locations, Las Vegas (Terminating at Las Vegas 

Southern Station) ........................................................................... 3.12-27

Figure F-3.12-3 Noise Mitigation Locations, Las Vegas (Terminating at Las Vegas 

Central Station B) .......................................................................... 3.12-28

Figure F-3.14-1 Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.14-4: Biological 

Resources (4) ................................................................................. 3.14-64

Figure F-3.14-2 Biological Resources (1) ................................................................ 3.14-65

Figure F-3.14-3 Biological Resources (2) ................................................................ 3.14-66

Figure F-3.14-4 Biological Resources (3) ................................................................. 3.14-67

Figure F-3.14-5 Biological Resources (4) ................................................................ 3.14-68

Figure F-3.14-6 Biological Resources (5) ................................................................ 3.14-69

Figure F-3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .............................................................. 3.15-37

Figure F-3.15-2 Section 4(f) Resources (2) ............................................................. 3.15-38

Figure F-3.15-3 Section 4(f) Resources (3) ..............................................................3.15-39

Figure F-3.15-4 Section 4(f) Resources (4) ............................................................. 3.15-40

Figure F-3.15-5 Section 4(f) Resources (5) .............................................................. 3.15-41

Figure F-3.15-6 Clean Air Act Designated Class I Areas ..........................................3.15-42

Figure F-3.15-7 View Comparison, North of Clark Mountains (With Approved 

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation System) ...................................3.15-43

Figure F-3.16-1 Potential Cumulative Projects (1) ................................................... 3.16-41

Figure F-3.16-2 Potential Cumulative Projects (2) ................................................. 3.16-42

Figure F-3.16-3 Potential Cumulative Projects (3) ................................................. 3.16-43

Figure F-3.16-4 Potential Cumulative Projects (4) ................................................. 3.16-44

Figure F-3.16-5 Potential Cumulative Projects (5) ................................................. 3.16-45

Figure F-3.16-6 Potential Cumulative Projects (6) ................................................. 3.16-46

Figure F-3.16-7 Potential Cumulative Projects (7) .................................................. 3.16-47
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

vi

List of Tables 

Table 1 Comparative Effects, Preferred Alternative Versus No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ES-27

Table F-1-1 Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated for Action Alternatives .... 1-13

Table F-1-2 Federal, State, Regional, and Local Agencies Consulted in EIS 

Process ................................................................................................. 1-14

Table F-2-1 Summary of Action Alternatives .......................................................... 2-4

Table F-2-2 Alternatives Criteria ............................................................................. 2-9

Table F-2-3 Federal Agency Alternatives Criteria ................................................... 2-9

Table F-2-4 Ridership Projections Utilized in EIS Analyses ................................. 2-10

Table F-2-5 Reasons for Elimination of Potential Alignment Segments............... 2-14

Table F-2-6 Temporary Construction Areas .......................................................... 2-36

Table F-2-7 Summary of Key Operating Features, DEMU and EMU ................... 2-39

Table F-2-8 Temporary Construction Areas – Preferred Alternative .................... 2-51

Table F-3.1-1 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses .............................................3.1-3

Table F-3.1-2 Existing Land Use Summary – Alignment Adjustment Areas 

(AAAs) ................................................................................................3.1-5

Table F-3.1-3 Compatibility with Land Use Designations .....................................3.1-10

Table F-3.1-4 Summary of Economic Impacts to Barstow During DesertXpress 

Operation (Year 1 Operation through Year 18 Operation) ............... 3.1-17

Table F-3.1-5 Alternatives Comparison – Land Use and Community Impacts .....3.1-35

Table F-3.2-1 Existing and Projected Population, City of Barstow ......................... 3.2-3

Table F-3.2-2 Summary of Economic Impacts to Barstow During DesertXpress 

Operation (Year 1, Year 3, and Year 18 Operation) ......................... 3.2-14

Table F-3.2-3 Estimated Operation Employment by Location .............................3.2-20

Table F-3.2-4 Alternatives Comparison – Growth Effects ....................................3.2-30

Table F-3.3-1 Indirect Effects to Farmland ............................................................. 3.3-4

Table F-3.3-2 Alternatives Comparison – Farmlands and Grazing Lands.............. 3.3-6

Table F-3.4-1 Utilities and Public Service Providers to the Preferred Alternative .. 3.4-3

Table F-3.4-2 Alternatives Comparison – Utilities/Emergency Services .............. 3.4-21

Table F-3.4-3 Measures to Avoid or Minimize Conflicts with Existing Utility 

Infrastructure .................................................................................. 3.4-27

Table F-3.5-1 2013 & 2030 Baseline Plus Project- LOS Conditions Victorville 

Station ............................................................................................... 3.5-6

Table F-3.5-2 2013, & 2030 Baseline Plus Project – LOS Conditions on I-15/Dale 

Evans Parkway Ramp Junctions ....................................................... 3.5-7

Table F-3.5-3 2013 & 2030 Baseline Plus Project- LOS Conditions at Las Vegas 

Southern Station ...............................................................................3.5-8
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

vii 

Table F-3.5-4 2013 & 2030 Baseline plus Project- LOS Conditions at Las Vegas 

Central Station B ............................................................................... 3.5-9

Table F-3.5-5 Freeway Mainline Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline Plus 

Project Conditions ........................................................................... 3.5-10

Table F-3.5-6 Areas Along I-15 with Less Than 40-foot-Width Clearance ............3.5-17

Table F-3.5-7 Alternatives Comparison – Traffic and Transportation ..................3.5-21

Table F-3.5-8 Preferred Alternative Traffic Mitigations ........................................ 3.5-24

Table F-3.6-1 Alternatives Comparison – Visual Resources ..................................3.6-17

Table F-3.7-1 Archaeological Resources within the APE – Preferred 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.7-11

Table F-3.7-2 Geology and Paleontology of the DesertXpress Alignment, by 

Segment ........................................................................................... 3.7-22

Table F-3.7-3 Known National Register Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological 

Resources in the APE ...................................................................... 3.7-29

Table F-3.7-4 Alternatives Comparison – Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources ........................................................................................ 3.7-32

Table F-3.8-1 Direct Permanent Effects to Water Resources ................................ 3.8-13

Table F-3.8-2 Direct Temporary Effects to Water Resources ................................ 3.8-16

Table F-3.8-3 Direct Permanent Impacts to the 100-Year Floodplain .................. 3.8-19

Table F-3.8-4 Peak Discharge for the 100-Year 24-Hour Storm Event................. 3.8-21

Table F-3.8-5 Alternatives Comparison – Hydrology and Water Quality .............3.8-23

Table F-3.9-1 Likelihood of Geologic Hazards ........................................................3.9-4

Table F-3.9-2 Alternatives Comparison – Geologic Hazards ..................................3.9-6

Table F-3.9-3 Operational Period Mitigation Measure Applicability ......................3.9-9

Table F-3.9-4 Construction Period Mitigation Measure Applicability ....................3.9-9

Table F-3.10-1 Alternatives Comparison – Hazardous Materials ........................... 3.10-5

Table F-3.10-2 Mitigation Measure Applicability.................................................. 3.10-10

Table F-3.11-1 Year 2007 Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) ... 3.11-2

Table F-3.11-2 Federal Attainment Status for Mojave Desert Air Basin and Clark 

County .............................................................................................. 3.11-3

Table F-3.11-3 Summary of 2008 and 2009 Air Quality Data, Clark County 

Monitoring Stations ......................................................................... 3.11-3

Table F-3.11-4 National and State (California and Nevada) Ambient Air Quality 

Standards ......................................................................................... 3.11-5

Table F-3.11-5 Threshold Values Used to Determine Impact Significance ............. 3.11-9

Table F-3.11-6 Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, No 

Action Alternative, Opening Year and Horizon Year ..................... 3.11-10

Table F-3.11-7 Preferred Alternative Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Opening Year 

Operations ...................................................................................... 3.11-12
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

viii 

Table F-3.11-8 Preferred Alternative Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Horizon Year 

Operations ...................................................................................... 3.11-13

Table F-3.11-9 Preferred Alternative Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, Clark County Air Basin, Opening Year 

Operations ...................................................................................... 3.11-13

Table F-3.11-10 Preferred Alternative Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Clark County Air Basin, Horizon Year 

Operations ...................................................................................... 3.11-14

Table F-3.11-11 CO Hotspot Analysis, Opening Year, Victorville Station ............... 3.11-16

Table F-3.11-12 CO Hotspot Analysis, Horizon Year, Victorville Station ................ 3.11-16

Table F-3.11-13 CO Hotspot Analysis, Opening Year, Las Vegas Southern 

Station ............................................................................................. 3.11-17

Table F-3.11-14 CO Hotspot Analysis, Opening Year, Las Vegas Central 

Station B .......................................................................................... 3.11-17

Table F-3.11-15 CO Hotspot Analysis, Horizon Year, Las Vegas Southern 

Station ............................................................................................ 3.11-18

Table F-3.11-16 CO Hotspot Analysis, Horizon Year, Las Vegas Central 

Station B ......................................................................................... 3.11-19

Table F-3.11-17 Revised Construction Period Regional Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Before 

Mitigation ....................................................................................... 3.11-21

Table F-3.11-18 Revised Construction Period Regional Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Clark County, Before Mitigation ...... 3.11-21

Table F-3.11-19 Alternatives Comparison – Air Quality .......................................... 3.11-23

Table F-3.11-20 Construction Period Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Post Mitigation ............ 3.11-26

Table F-3.11-21 Revised Construction Period Regional Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Clark County, Post Mitigation .......... 3.11-26

Table F-3.12-1 Vibration Impact Criteria ................................................................. 3.12-7

Table F-3.12-2 FRA Construction Noise Criteria .................................................... 3.12-8

Table F-3.12-3 Preferred Alternative Noise Impacts (Prior to Mitigation) ............ 3.12-10

Table F-3.12-4 Alternatives Comparison Table – Noise and Vibration ................. 3.12-18

Table F-3.12-5 Noise Mitigation Locations ........................................................... 3.12-23

Table F-3.13-1 Operational Energy Consumption Factors ..................................... 3.13-2

Table F-3.13-2 Annual Overall Operational Energy Consumption ..........................3.13-3

Table F-3.13-3 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors ...................... 3.13-4

Table F-3.13-4 EMU Peak-Period Electricity Demand (MW) .................................. 3.13-5

Table F-3.13-5 Construction Energy Consumption................................................. 3.13-6

Table F-3.13-6 Alternatives Comparison – Energy Resources ................................ 3.13-8

Table F-3.14-1 Alternatives Comparison – Biological Resources (1 of 3) ............. 3.14-38

Table F-3.14-2 Alternatives Comparison – Biological Resources (2 of 3) ............ 3.14-42
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ix

Table F-3.14-3 Alternatives Comparison – Biological Resources (3 of 3) ............ 3.14-46

Table F-3.15-1 Park and Recreational Lands within One Mile of the Preferred 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.15-7

Table F-3.15-2 Archaeological Resources Not Qualifying for Protection under 

Section 4(f) Resources .................................................................... 3.15-17

Table F-3.15-3 City of Barstow Parks within One Mile of Preferred 

Alternatives .................................................................................... 3.15-32

Table F-3.16-1 Utility and Public Service Providers.............................................. 3.16-23

Table F-3.16-2 Horizon Year 2030 Mojave Desert Air Basin Regional Criteria 

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) ........... 3.16-34

Table F-3.16-3 Horizon Year 2030 Clark County Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) ...................................3.16-35

Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on Draft EIS ................................................ 4-11

Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on Supplemental Draft EIS ........................ 4-83
DesertXpress Table of Contents 

March 2011 Final EIS 

x 

List of Appendices 

Appendix F-A Summary Reports for the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Public Hearings 

Appendix F-B Highway Interface Manual 

Appendix F-C Plan and Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative 

Appendix F-D Ridership Forecast Review 

Appendix F-E Barstow Study – Economic Impact of DesertXpress 

Appendix F-F Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis 

Appendix F-G Traffic Impact Analysis for the DesertXpress Project and 

Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for Victorville Station Site 3 

(VV3) 

Appendix F-H Programmatic Agreement under Section 106 

Appendix F-I Jurisdictional Delineation Reports 

F-I-1: Death Valley 

F-I-2: Ivanpah Dry Lake 

F-I-3: Jean Dry Lake 

F-I-4: Roach Dry Lake 

F-I-5: Las Vegas Wash 

F-I-6: Mojave-Coyote 

Appendix F-J Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 

Appendix F-K Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern 

F-K.1: Hazardous Materials Assessment Reports 

Appendix F-L Regional Emission Calculation Worksheets 

Appendix F-M Biological Assessment 

Appendix F-N Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Proposed Segment 4C 

Alignment 

Appendix F-O Mojave Ground Squirrel Habitat Assessment 

Appendix F-P Vegetation Mapping Surveys 

Appendix F-Q Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species 
March 2011 

ES-1 

Project Background and Executive Summary 

This is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed DesertXpress 

project. 

This summary is intended to assist readers in answering these and other important 

questions: 

 What is the DesertXpress project? 

 What is an environmental impact statement? 

 What goes into an environmental impact statement? 

 How is an environmental impact statement prepared? Who prepares it? 

 What were the steps in the environmental review of the DesertXpress project? 

 What are some areas of controversy related to the DesertXpress project? 

 What are some of the environmental effects related to the DesertXpress project? 

A list of acronyms used in this Final EIS follows this chapter. 

What is the DesertXpress project? 

The project involves the construction, operation, and maintenance of a high-speed 

passenger train along the 200-mile corridor between southern California (Victorville) and 

Las Vegas, Nevada. The project would include stations and maintenance facilities at each 

end of the rail alignment in Victorville and Las Vegas. Figure A shows where the project 

would be located. 

The purpose of the project is to provide reliable and safe passenger rail transportation 

between southern California and Las Vegas. 

What is an Environmental Impact Statement? 

An EIS is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that 

describes the environmental effects of a proposed action to inform decision makers and 

the public. NEPA is an U.S. environmental law that facilitates public disclosure and 

establishes policies for federal agencies to study the reasonable range of alternatives and 

assess environmental impacts of proposed projects. 

An EIS must be prepared by a federal agency for any major federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the natural and built environment. A “major federal action” might 

include an agency proposal to approve or implement a project or program. The term 

“environment” refers to the natural and physical setting, including resources like animals, 
93

95

95

COLORADO R.

Lake

Mohave

LAKE

HAVASU

LAKE MEAD

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NP

Mojave National

Preserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Death Valley NP

KERN

LOS ANGELES

SAN BERNARDINO

INYO

MOHAVE

CLARK

NYE

Lancaster

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Bullhead City

San Bernardino

Burbank

Paradise

Barstow

Baker

Yermo

15

40

15

215

395

395

Needles

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Project Location

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

A

Legend

Preferred Alternative

Proposed Terminals

190

127

127

247

58

138

138

247 18

18

62

178

372 NEVADA

373 NEVADA

160

NEVADA

163

NEVADA

160

NEVADA

ARIZONA

68

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 4C

Segment 5B

Segment 6B

Las Vegas

Victorville
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-3 

plants, buildings, and landscapes, and the relationship of people with that natural and 

physical setting.1 An “environmental effect” is any change to the environment resulting 

from the proposed activity. Environmental effects can be both positive (beneficial) or 

negative (adverse). An EIS typically includes measures to avoid, mitigate, or lessen the 

potential adverse effects.2 

What goes into an EIS? 

NEPA assumes that any proposed goal 

can be achieved through different 

means. To this end, NEPA requires 

that an EIS evaluate the 

environmental effects of a “reasonable 

range” of project alternatives. NEPA 

defines a “reasonable alternative” as 

an option that would feasibly achieve 

the objectives of a particular proposed 

action.3

 

NEPA does not require any specific 

number of alternatives. Instead, the 

number and type of reasonable 

alternatives depends on the specific 

nature of the project. The reasonable 

range of alternatives is determined 

after careful consideration a number 

of factors which may include technical 

and environmental criteria. 

Practicality is another consideration in 

determining whether an alternative is 

“reasonable”–NEPA allows cost, 

engineering considerations, and other 

factors to be considered. 

However, NEPA does require that an 

environmental document explicitly 

note several specific alternatives: 

 

1

 40 CFR 1508.14. 

2

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332. 

3 Council on Environmental Quality, “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental 

Policy Act Regulations,” 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 1981). 

Key Acronyms:

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

Key Players in NEPA Process:

Lead Agency – Agency preparing or having taken 

responsibility for preparation of the EIS. The Federal 

Railroad Administration is the Lead Agency for the 

DesertXpress project. 

Cooperating Agency – Agency with special expertise 

on environmental issue or jurisdiction by law. The 

Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land 

Management, Surface Transportation Board, and 

National Park Service are the Cooperating Agencies for 

the DesertXpress project.

Key NEPA Terminology:

Environmental Effect – A change to the environment, 

positive or negative, as a result of a project or specific 

activity.

Proposed Action – The federal project or specific 

activity evaluated in the EIS.

No Action Alternative – The condition where the 

project (or action) is not implemented; maintains the 

status quo.

Agency Preferred Alternative – The 

option/alternative which the agency believes would 

fulfill their statutory mission and responsibilities, after 

thorough consideration of relevant economic, 

environmental, and technical factors.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative – The 

option/alternative which will cause the least damage to 

the biological and physical environment, and best 

protect, preserve and enhance historic, cultural, and 

natural resources .
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-4 

 No Action Alternative 

 Agency Preferred Alternative 

 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Each of these is discussed in more detail below. 

Under NEPA, the “No Action Alternative” details the environmental effects that would 

result if no action were taken.4 Taking “no action” does not automatically mean “no 

environmental effects.” For example, for a project that proposes to clean up or remediate 

a contaminated area, the “No Action Alternative” would mean that no clean up or 

remediation takes place, potentially leading to substantial negative environmental effects 

from the existing contamination. 

The term “Agency Preferred Alternative” refers to the option/alternative that the lead and 

cooperating agencies believe would best fulfill each agency’s statutory mission and 

responsibilities, in consideration with economic, environmental, and technical factors.5

 In 

the case of the DesertXpress project, neither the lead nor cooperating agencies indicated a 

Preferred Alternative at the Draft EIS stage. Instead, the agencies used the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS to identify the Agency Preferred Alternative. 

NEPA defines the “Environmentally Preferable Alternative” as the alternative that will 

best promote NEPA’s overall goals: that is to say, the alternative that causes the least 

damage to the environment and best protects natural and cultural resources.6

 

Determining the environmentally preferable alternative requires judgment on the part of 

the Federal agencies insofar as one alternative could be preferable for some resources 

while another alternative is preferable for other resources. 

What is the process for preparing the DesertXpress EIS? 

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations 

define the general framework for preparing an EIS. Each federal agency may also have its 

own, more specific guidelines for implementing NEPA that will influence the contents of 

an EIS. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) uses its Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts to supplement the CEQ regulations.7

 

Figure B illustrates the DesertXpress EIS process. 

 

4 40 CFR 1502.14(c); CEQ’s Forty Questions, No. 4(a)

5 40 CFR 1502.14(e); CEQ’s Forty Questions, No 4(b), 5. 

6 CEQ’s Forty Questions, No. 6(a), 6(b). 

7

 Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28546 (May 26, 

1999). 
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

DesertXpress Environmental

Impact Statement Process

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

B

April 2009: Circulate Draft EIS & Hold Public Hearings

2008 - March 2009: Prepare Draft EIS

2006 - 2008: Environmental Technical Studies

July 2006: Notice of Intent & Public Scoping Meeting

October - December 2010: Federal Agencies Identify Preferred Alternative

March 2011: Release Final EIS

Spring 2011: Agency Approvals

September - October 2010: Circulate Supplemental Draft EIS & Hold Public Hearings
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-6 

Scoping

The scoping process refers to the early and open process for identifying significant issues 

related to a proposed action. As part of the scoping process, agencies and the public are 

invited to participate and provide comment. Public scoping meetings are held to give 

agencies and the public a chance to verbally submit comments, discuss the proposed 

alternatives, and talk about the EIS process with project team members. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the DesertXpress project was published in the Federal 

Register on July 14, 2006. FRA also sent out notices to property owners and published 

announcements in local newspapers in the vicinity of the project areas. These notices and 

announcements included an invitation to attend a series of public scoping meetings (held 

July 25 and 26 in Barstow, Las Vegas, and Victorville) to obtain input from the public 

regarding the scope and content of the environmental studies to be conducted for the 

Draft EIS. 

Draft EIS

The purpose of the Draft EIS is to disclose all environmental effects associated with the 

alternatives, whether they are adverse or beneficial and allow for public to review and 

comment of the document. The lead agency will publish the document, informing people 

of its availability through a variety of means. 

The Draft EIS for the DesertXpress project was published and made available for public 

review in March 2009. A Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on 

March 27, 2009. Newspaper ads, mailings to property owners, and press releases to the 

local media were just a few ways in which people were informed about the project and 

availability of the Draft EIS. Public hearings for the Draft EIS were held in Las Vegas, 

Barstow, and Victorville in April 2009. Appendix F-A of this Final EIS contains 

summary reports of the public hearings held for the Draft EIS. 

Supplemental Draft EIS 

Sometimes, following publication of a Draft EIS, significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns or impacts arise or substantial changes in 

the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or impacts are proposed. In these 

situations NEPA requires the preparation of one or more Supplemental Draft EIS 

documents. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS for the DesertXpress project was published and made 

available for public review in September 2010. A Notice of Availability was published in 

the Federal Register on September 3, 2010. Newspaper ads, mailings to property owners, 

and press releases to the local media were used to inform the public about the project and 

availability of the Supplemental Draft EIS. Public hearings for the Supplemental Draft 

EIS were held at Las Vegas and Barstow in October 2010. Appendix F-A of this Final 

EIS contains summary reports of the public hearings held for the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-7 

Final EIS 

Once the public comment period for the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS is 

complete, the next step is to prepare the Final EIS. The Final EIS addresses all of the 

comments received on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS with responses to those 

comments by the lead agency. In addition, the Final EIS must also define the “Agency’s 

Preferred Alternative” – meaning the action that fulfills the agency’s statutory mission and 

responsibilities, given consideration to economic, technical and other factors and that the 

lead agency recommends among all the alternatives considered. This could be an action 

alternative or the “no action” alternative. 

The Record of Decision 

This is the final step in the EIS process. The Record of Decision (ROD) is a concise public 

document that formally states the decisions of the federal agencies on the project and 

identifies the alternatives considered, the Preferred Alternative, and the required 

mitigation plans and monitoring commitments. For the DesertXpress project, the Lead 

Agency and each Cooperating Agency will draft and publish individual RODs no sooner 

than 30 days from issuance of the Final EIS. 

Who prepares an EIS? 

NEPA establishes a framework whereby federal, state, local and tribal agencies as well as 

the public can have important roles in project development and the environmental review 

process. Figure C illustrates the responsible parties associated with the preparation of 

this EIS. 

FRA is the Lead Agency preparing 

this EIS for the DesertXpress HighSpeed Passenger Train Project 

(DesertXpress project). FRA has the 

authority to regulate the safety of 

railroads, including the DesertXpress 

project, and manages financial 

assistance programs for rail capital 

investments. 

For the DesertXpress NEPA process, 

FRA has worked with several 

Cooperating Agencies, as detailed 

in the table to the right. The role of 

the Cooperating Agencies is to assist 

Cooperating Agency Responsibility

Surface 

Transportation 

Board

Authority over construction, 

acquisition, operation, and 

abandonment of rail lines, 

railroad rates and services, and 

rail carrier consolidations and 

mergers.

Bureau of Land 

Management

Approval authority over the use 

of public lands under their 

management.

Federal Highway 

Administration

Authority over the use of and/or 

modification of Interstate 

highway right-of-way.

National Park 

Service

Authority over the management 

and use of the Mojave National 

Preserve.
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Agencies and Parties Associated with DesertXpress EIS

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

C

Cooperating Agencies

Other Interested Parties

Private Applicant

DesertXpress

Enterprise, LLC

Native American

Tribes

Tribal Organizations

State and Local

Governments

Clark County, NV

San Bernardino

County, CA

City of Victorville

City of Barstow

City of Las Vegas

Interested

Members

of the Public

Federal Resource

Agencies

EPA

USACE

USFWS

and others

California

Department

of Transportation

(CALTRANS)

Federal Highway

Administraion

(FHWA)

Bureau of

Land Management

(BLM)

National Park

Service

(NPS)

Surface

Transportation

Board (STB)

Lead Agency

Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA)

Federal Railroad

Administration

Nevada

Department

of Transportation

(NDOT)
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-9 

the Lead Agency during the scoping process and in developing information and preparing 

environmental analyses; the specific roles depend on the agency’s expertise and 

relationship to the proposed action. 

While not considered formal Cooperating Agencies, the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) also 

work closely with FRA throughout the EIS process. These agencies reviewed the proposed 

project and environmental analyses and provided comments and input on the overall 

process. FRA also conducted extensive consultation with Tribal organizations throughout 

all stages of the environmental review. Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination,

of this Final EIS lists all of the agencies and tribal organizations that were consulted in the 

development of these documents. 

Typically, for transportation projects, the Lead Agency is the agency that proposes a 

specific project or action to be evaluated. In the case of the DesertXpress project, 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (the Applicant) is a private entity and has proposed to 

construct and operate the DesertXpress project. The Applicant is not associated with any 

federal, state, or local agency. The Applicant will secure financing and own the highspeed train system and be responsible for the project’s development, construction, 

operation, and maintenance. Although the Applicant is a private entity, the Applicant is 

still required to comply with the NEPA process and obtain approval and permits from FRA 

and the Cooperating Agencies to construct and operate the DesertXpress project. 

Information provided by the lead and Cooperating Agencies and others during the 

environmental review process has informed the Applicant of the project’s development 

and design. 

How was the DesertXpress environmental review process conducted? 

The environmental process for the DesertXpress project began formally in July 2006. 

Scoping Meetings for the DesertXpress project were held in August 2006 and a Draft EIS 

was published on March 27, 2009. 

The Draft EIS presented the reasonable range of alternatives for rail alignment, station 

site, maintenance facility, and train technology options and discloses the environmental 

effects of those alternatives. The Draft EIS described the alternatives, existing 

environmental settings, effects from construction, and operation, and mitigation measures 

to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects. 

The Draft EIS informed decision makers, interested parties, and the public to about the 

differences and tradeoffs among various alternatives and options. The alternatives were 

organized to allow for the Lead and Cooperating agencies to “mix and match” by choosing 

various segments and site options in composing a Preferred Alternative. 

The Draft EIS was circulated for 56 days for public review and comment. Public hearings 

were held in Las Vegas, Barstow, and Victorville to provide additional opportunity for the 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-10

public to comment on the Draft EIS. Appendix F-A of this Final EIS contains summary 

reports of the public hearings held for the Draft EIS. 

Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIS, the Applicant proposed several project 

modifications and additions to address comments received on the Draft EIS and to reduce 

or avoid significant environmental effects. 

FRA prepared a Supplemental Draft EIS to evaluate the project modifications and 

additions, which included an additional station site option in Victorville, two new rail 

alignment options, modifications to the Victorville and Las Vegas maintenance facilities, 

and rail alignment adjustments. 

FRA published the Supplemental Draft EIS on September 3, 2010 and circulated it for a 

46 day public review period. FRA held public hearings on the Supplemental Draft EIS in 

Las Vegas and Barstow to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment. 

Appendix F-A of this Final EIS contains summary reports of the public hearings held for 

the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

The information presented in and the comments received on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS were considered when preparing this Final EIS. Both documents 

are incorporated by reference. This Final EIS addresses any changes to the DesertXpress 

Project Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS as a result of public or agency comments. 

This Final EIS also provides an evaluation of the environmental effects of the Preferred 

Alternative, which was selected by the Lead and Cooperating Agencies from the range of 

Action Alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Mitigation 

measures for the Preferred Alternative are included to reduce or eliminate adverse 

environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

What is the purpose of the DesertXpress project? 

One of the most important aspects of NEPA 

is the requirement to define the “purpose 

and need” of a project. In other words–

what is the project for? What need will it 

fulfill? 

In this case, the purpose is to provide 

reliable and safe passenger rail 

transportation between southern California 

(Victorville) and Las Vegas. 

It is estimated that the DesertXpress project 

would divert approximately 3 million 

annual automobile trips from Interstate 15 

(I-15) each year. This transportation shift 

would reduce air pollutant emissions from 

Purpose of DesertXpress Project

Provide reliable and safe high-speed 

passenger train service as alternative to auto 

or air travel in I-15 corridor

Relieve congestion on I-15

Improve air quality by diverting auto trips 

from I-15

Improve safety, reliability, and convenience 

of travel in I-15 corridor

Provide future capacity to meet growth 

projections

Reduce transportation energy consumption
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-11

automobiles, reduce fuel consumption for automobile use on the I-15 corridor, and limit 

the need to expand the I-15 highway. Future increases in ridership demand for the highspeed train would be handled by adding more trains to the service as needed. 

In part, the need this project will address is the rapid increase in travel demand between 

southern California and Las Vegas that has placed increasing pressures on the highways 

and airports serving the region. For motorists traveling to Las Vegas from southern 

California, the major highway systems, including Interstate 215 (I-215), Interstate 10 (I10), U.S. Route 395 (U.S. 95), Interstate 210 (I-210)/California State Route 210 (SR 210), 

and California State Route 138 (SR 138), converge with the I-15 freeway near Victorville. 

Figure D illustrates this transportation connection. The convergence of major 

transportation corridors funnels automobiles onto the I-15 freeway corridor, which results 

in traffic congestion on the I-15 freeway near Victorville and along the I-15 freeway 

corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas. The number of automobiles traveling on the 

I-15 corridor between these two locations has been steadily increasing and the projected 

growth will add more automobiles to the existing roadway system. It is estimated that 

approximately 75,000 automobiles will drive this portion of the I-15 freeway every day in 

2015 and up to 100,000 automobiles per day in 2025.8 

 

The need for the high-speed rail service also stems from safety concerns due to frequent 

accidents in the I-15 corridor; constraints to the expansion of air travel, such as expanding 

airports; and the lack of funding available to substantially widen or improve the I-15 to 

increase traffic capacity. 

Refer to Chapter 1.0, Purpose and 

Need, of this Final EIS for further 

discussion of the purpose and need for the 

DesertXpress project. 

The Applicant would be responsible for 

financing the development, construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the highspeed train. The estimated capital cost for 

the DesertXpress project would be 

approximately $6 to $6.5 billion. 

While the project is privately sponsored, the applicant may become eligible for financial 

assistance from the federal government through a federal loan program, Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF). 

 

8 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow-Add Southbound Mixed-Flow Lane, 

Caltrans, FHWA, County of San Bernardino, May 2001. 

Need for the DesertXpress Project

High and increasing demand in the I-15 

freeway corridor

Accident frequency on I-15

Constraints to expansion of air travel

Environmental impacts of continued reliance 

upon the private automobile in I-15 corridor

Lack of funding available to significantly 

widen or improve I-15
 

182 Miles

to Las

Vegas

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Converging Transportation

Corridors Near Victorville

Source: Geografika Consulting, 2011.

D

15

15

15

215

215

210

10

10

395

18

138

60

From

PALMDALE

AREA

From

SAN

DIEGO

VICTORVILLE

182 Miles

to Las Vegas

from Victorville

LOS

ANGELES

AREA
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-13

What alternatives were considered in the DesertXpress EIS? 

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS presented a reasonable range of alternatives 

for rail alignment, station site, maintenance facility, and train technology options. The 

alternatives were developed to allow for maximum flexibility in choosing a preferred 

alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

NEPA requires consideration of a No Action Alternative. In other words, what would the 

environmental effects be if no action were taken? The No Action Alternative is used as a 

comparative baseline for the DesertXpress project. Under this scenario, the high-speed 

train and associated facilities would not be constructed. 

Individuals traveling between southern California and Las Vegas would continue to use 

the existing forms of transportation, including driving their personal automobiles, 

utilizing public or private bus transportation, or traveling on airplanes. 

The No Action Alternative also includes the planned and programmed improvements or 

reasonably foreseeable projects in the region between Victorville and Las Vegas through 

the long-range planning horizon year 2030. These projects are detailed in Section 2.3.1.

Action Alternatives 

Prior to publication of the Draft EIS, the FRA and the Applicant considered a number of 

alternative options for the DesertXpress project. Some of these alternatives were screened 

and eliminated from further evaluation based on technical and environmental criteria 

developed by the Applicant, FRA, and the Cooperating Agencies. The criterion included 

the following: 

 Technical and alignment factors, such as connectivity and physical space 

constraints within the existing right-of-way (ROW) 

 Ridership potential 

 Constructability 

 Environmental impacts 

 Consistency with adopted plans and programs 

 Conflicts with the transportation purposes of the I-15 freeway corridor. 

A range of alternatives was identified to be evaluated in the Draft EIS and was refined and 

added to in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The alternatives were designed to allow the Lead 

and Cooperating Agencies to mix and match potential alternatives in selecting a Preferred 

Alternative. The alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS are 

summarized below. Refer to Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this Final EIS for a detailed 

description of each alternative. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-14

Rail Alignments 

The proposed rail alignments begin from station site options in Victorville and terminate 

at station site options in Las Vegas. Victorville was chosen as a logical termini for the rail 

alignment due to the collector effect of the major highway systems for southern California, 

which converge in Victorville, as depicted in Figure D. Due to the length of the proposed 

rail alignment between Victorville and Las Vegas, the DesertXpress project rail alignment 

has been divided into seven segments (Segments 1 through 7). Figure A shows the 

general boundaries of each rail alignment segment. 

Alternative A options consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be within 

the median of the I-15 freeway. Alternative B options consists primarily of rail alignment 

segments that would be within the fenced area of the I-15 freeway, adjacent to automobile 

travel lanes. In addition, a third alignment option was proposed for Segment 6 and 7, 

Option C. The Option C alignment would diverge from the I-15 corridor near the 

community of Sloan in unincorporated Clark County and generally follow, or be located 

within, the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ROW.9

The rail alignment alternative options include a mixture of at-grade, elevated, depressed, 

or tunneled alignments. 

Station Site Options 

The DesertXpress project would include one passenger station at each end of the rail 

alignment in Victorville and Las Vegas. Several station site options were considered in the 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Three station site options north of central Victorville and immediately west of the I-15 

freeway were considered for the Victorville Station 

 Victorville Station Site 1 (VV1) 

 Victorville Station Site 2 (VV2) 

 Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

Four station site options within close proximity to the Las Vegas strip were considered for 

the Las Vegas Station site. 

 Las Vegas Central Station A 

 Las Vegas Central Station B 

 Las Vegas Southern Station 

 Las Vegas Downtown Station 

 

9 Option C would require approval by the UPRR. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-15

Passengers would board and de-board the high-speed trains at the stations that would 

provide parking and passenger drop off facilities. The passenger stations would also 

include ticketing facilities, baggage handling, train boarding platforms, and waiting areas 

for train passengers. The Victorville Station site options would also include long-term 

parking facilities and hotel room check-in services for Las Vegas resorts. 

Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Each station site option would be paired with a maintenance facility in Victorville and Las 

Vegas. Multiple site options were considered for the Victorville and Las Vegas 

maintenance facilities. 

The maintenance facility paired with any of the three Victorville Station site options would 

be an operations, maintenance, and storage facility (OMSF). Two site options were 

considered: 

 OMSF Site Option 1 (OMSF 1) would function with VV1 only 

 OMSF Site Option 2 (OMSF 2) would function with any of the three Victorville 

Station site options. 

The Las Vegas maintenance facility site options would serve as a maintenance and storage 

facility (MSF). Each maintenance facility would pair with any of the Las Vegas Station site 

options. Four site options were considered: 

 Sloan Road MSF10

 Relocated Sloan Road MSF 

 Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Robindale Avenue MSF 

A third maintenance facility would be located near the midpoint of the rail alignment in 

Baker. This midpoint maintenance facility is referred to as the Baker Maintenance of Way 

(MOW) facility. Only one option was considered for the Baker MOW facility site. 

Train Technology, Autotransformers, and Utility Corridors 

Trains run on many different forms of power. For the DesertXpress project, two different 

operating technologies were considered. 

The first is referred to as the diesel-electric multiple unit train, or DEMU train technology. 

Under this option, small diesel engines under the floor of train cars. A diesel fuel supply 

would be required for this train technology. The diesel-electric powered trains would have 

a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph). 

 

10 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of 

the Sloan Road MSF considered in the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was developed in 

specific response to comments raised on the Draft EIS advising of potential conflicts between the Sloan MSF 

and planned transportation facilities in southern Clark County. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-16

The second option is referred to as the electric 

multiple unit train, or EMU train technology. 

This train technology would exclusively use 

electricity to power the train motors. No onboard fuel would be required and the trains 

themselves would have no direct exhaust. 

EMU trains would travel at up to 150 miles 

per hour. 

Trains would be at top speeds in areas where 

the tracks are generally straight and elevation 

changes are gradual. Where tracks would 

curve substantially, train speeds would be 

lower. And near stations, where trains would be taking off or slowing down, speeds would 

be lower still. Figure E shows a diagram of typical train speeds in different portions of 

the rail alignment. 

Overhead curved wires and supports (also referred to as catenary) would be required 

along the length of the rail alignment to provide continuous electric power to the trains. 

The photograph above shows a typical overhead catenary wire for a similar train system. 

Three electrical substations would be 

required to provide power to the EMU 

option, with one at each end of the rail 

alignment and one near the midpoint. The 

photograph to the right shows a typical 

substation design. The substations would 

connect to existing electricity systems and 

would transmit and distribute power to the 

rail alignment. Two of the substations would 

be located within the Victorville and Baker 

maintenance facilities. In Las Vegas, the 

Sloan MSF site option would include a 

substation. The Wigwam Avenue MSF and 

Robindale Avenue MSF site options would 

function with a separate substation in the southern Las Vegas metropolitan Las Vegas 

area, known as the Frias Substation. 

The substations at the Victorville, Baker, and Las Vegas Sloan Road maintenance facilities 

would require the construction of a new utility corridor with new overhead transmission 

lines to connection the substation to the nearest power source. The Frias Substation 

would be constructed immediately adjacent to overhead electrical transmission line and 

would not require a separate new utility corridor. 

Typical Overhead Catenary

Typical Electric Substation
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

TYPICAL TRAIN SPEEDS

Source: Geografika Consulting, 2011.

E

Straightaways

Speed: up to 150 mph

TYPICAL STRAIGHTAWAY

TYPICAL CURVED 

SECTION

TYPICAL STATION

LOCATION

Curved Sections

Speed: up to 110 mph

Within 0.5 miles of Station

Speed: 35 mph

Preferred Alternative

Rail Alignment
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-18

Autotransformers, or small electrical units that maintain and regulate the voltage along 

the rail alignment, would also be required for the electric train option. The 

autotransformers would be spaced about every 10 to 12 miles along the rail alignment. 

Temporary Construction Areas

Temporary construction areas (TCA) refer to specified sites that would be used to store 

equipment or stage construction activities during construction of the DesertXpress 

project. The majority of the TCAs would be restored to their natural state after completion 

of project construction. Several TCAs would be located on part or entirely on proposed 

sites for stations and/or maintenance facilities. Each rail alignment alternative option 

includes a subset of associated TCAs. 

What is the Preferred Alternative and why is it important? 

The Preferred Alternative is the project 

alternative that is favored by the agencies 

for approval and future construction. The 

Preferred Alternative is the alternative 

which FRA, Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), National Park Service 

(NPS) and the Surface Transportation 

Board’s (STB) believe would most closely align with their statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other 

factors. 

As Lead Agency, FRA was responsible for considering the recommendations of 

Cooperating Agencies for the selection of the Preferred Alternative. FRA and the 

Cooperating Agencies have considered the range of alternatives presented in the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS when selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative is a 200-mile rail corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas 

consisting of the following rail alignments and station/maintenance facilities. 

 Rail Alignments 

Segment 1 

Segment 2C Side Running 

Segment 3B (Modified) 

Segment 4C (absent legislation allowing implementation of Segment 4A)

Segment 5B 

Segment 6B 

Considerations for Agency Selection of 

Preferred Alternative

Environmental Effects

Public and Agency Comments on Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS

Technical Feasibility

Interagency Coordination
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-19

 Victorville Station Site Option: Victorville Station Site 3, Parking Option B

(VV3B) 

 Las Vegas Station Site Option: Las Vegas Southern Station or Central Station 

B 

 Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 

 Las Vegas MSF Site Option: Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Las Vegas MSF Substation: Frias Substation 

 Train Technology: Electric (EMU) 

Refer to Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this Final EIS for a full description of each 

Preferred Alternative component. 

What are some of the areas of concern related to the DesertXpress 

project? 

NEPA requires an EIS to include a summary of the areas of controversy, including the 

issues raised by agencies and the public.11 Areas of controversy are raised by agencies and 

the public during the formal scoping period, and during the public review of the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. Some of the areas of controversy related to the DesertXpress 

project are provided below by environmental resource topic. 

 Biological Resources 

Adverse impacts to species and habitat areas 

Use of sensitive lands, such as the Mojave National Preserve 

 Cultural Resources 

Potential effects related to pre-historic archeological resources 

 Growth 

Adverse economic effects to the City of Barstow 

 Noise and Vibration 

Noise impacts during construction and operation within populated areas, 

including Barstow and the greater Las Vegas area 

 Air Quality 

Emissions and localization of emissions associated with construction of the 

Preferred Alternative 

 Traffic and Transportation 

Extent of traffic-reducing benefits within in the Las Vegas area

 

11 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, Section 1502.12. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-20

Refer to Sections 3.1, Land Use and Community Impacts, through Section 3.16, 

Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS for a full description of the environmental 

impacts and mitigation measures related to the areas of controversy listed above. 

What are some of the environmental effects of the DesertXpress project? 

This Final EIS provides an evaluation of 

the environmental effects associated with 

the Preferred Alternative. The box to the 

right lists the environmental resource 

areas considered of note. 

The Preferred Alternative would have 

both negative (adverse) and positive 

(beneficial) impacts on the environment. 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures are provided to reduce or 

eliminate adverse environmental effects. 

Potential Effects 

The potential effects, both beneficial and 

adverse, of the Preferred Alternative are 

summarized below. 

Table 1 summarizes the comparable effects of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action 

Alternative for the DesertXpress project and follows the topical discussion of potential 

effects below. 

The Preferred Alternative has the potential to adversely affect sensitive biological 

resources, cultural resources, hydrologic resources, localized traffic near stations, land use 

and community impacts, including business displacement, utility water supply and 

service, noise level increase, air quality pollutant emissions during construction, and 

existing grazing land allotments. However, mitigation measures will be required that will 

reduce these potential adverse effects. In addition, the Preferred Alternative will have 

beneficial environmental effects, such as traffic diversion from I-15 freeway, economic 

growth, air quality improvements during operation, and energy consumption 

improvements during operation. 

Land Use and Community Impacts

The land use and community impacts analysis identifies existing regional and local land 

use and development plans that apply to the project area. It describes the changes that 

would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative, evaluates the consistency of the 

Preferred Alternative with local and regional planning documents, and discusses the 

effects on community cohesion. While the Preferred Alternative would not displace any 

housing units or local residents, the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station (Central 

Environmental Resource Areas

Land Use and Community Impacts

Growth

Farmlands and Grazing Lands

Utilities/Emergency Services

Traffic and Transportation

Visual Resources

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Hydrology and Water Quality

Geology and Soils

Hazardous Materials

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Noise and Vibration

Energy

Biological Resources
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-21

Station B) and Las Vegas maintenance facility (Wigwam Avenue MSF) would displace 

existing businesses. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station would displace existing 

industrial uses on the site, including staging and storage areas and a large warehouse with 

an indoor “kart” racing facility. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas maintenance facility 

would also result in the displacement of two landscape and garden design businesses. The 

Applicant would be responsible for complying with the appropriate federal and state laws 

pertaining to the displacement of these businesses. 

Section 3.1, Land Use and Community Impacts, of this Final EIS describes these 

environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Growth

The Victorville and Las Vegas stations and maintenance facilities would provide new 

permanent job opportunities and would bring employees to the area. As a result, this 

could cause an increase in spending in the area, thus contributing to the growth in the 

local economy. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would also result in temporary construction 

jobs. It is assumed that these jobs would be filled by individuals living within the project 

region and would not result in significant permanent relocation of construction workers 

from outside the project area. Thus, the new construction jobs would have a beneficial 

effect on local employment and growth. Barstow would be the most central city for 

construction of the Preferred Alternative, particularly for the 113-mile stretch of the rail 

alignment between Barstow and Primm. During the construction period of the Preferred 

Alternative, it is assumed that a significant share of the temporary construction jobs and 

associated revenue created by the DesertXpress project in San Bernardino County would 

flow into Barstow and its immediate environs. The salaries of these construction workers 

could also contribute to additional economic growth in the area. 

Operation of the Preferred Alternative would have a downward influence on Barstow’s 

economic growth. The Barstow economy is largely driven by taxable retail sales from 

freeway-related traffic on the I-15 freeway. With the anticipated shift of non-truck 

freeway-related traffic to the high-speed passenger train, the DesertXpress project would 

have an indirect negative growth effect to Barstow’s economy during operation. While this 

is a potential adverse economic growth effect to Barstow, it is not at a level that would 

result in secondary physical environmental effects to the city. 

Section 3.2, Growth, of this Final EIS describes these environmental effects in detail. 

Grazing Land

The analysis of grazing lands considers the potential for the Preferred Alternative to 

eliminate or sever grazing land activities on specified grazing land allotments. The 

Preferred Alternative would cross through several designated grazing land allotments in 

California. There are no grazing land allotments within the vicinity of the Preferred 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-22

Alternative in Nevada. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment and Victorville station 

and maintenance facilities would result in the permanent conversion of grazing land to 

transportation uses. Some areas of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment near the 

Mojave National Preserve would also introduce a new linear barrier within an existing 

grazing allotment, which could cut off livestock access to available water resources. The 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would hinder the crossing of livestock in the area, 

which could result in the overuse of the Mojave National Preserve for grazing activities, 

thereby representing an adverse effect. Mitigation would be implemented to minimize 

effects to grazing land and activities. 

Section 3.3, Farmlands and Grazing Lands, of this Final EIS describes these 

environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Utilities/Emergency Service

The utilities/emergency services analysis indentifies the existing public service and utility 

providers in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative’s track infrastructure and associated 

project stations, maintenance facilities, and other features to be constructed and operated. 

The services evaluated in this section include electricity and gas, water, wastewater 

facilities, and solid waste providers as well as police, fire, and emergency response. The 

Preferred Alternative Victorville Station (VV3) and maintenance facility (OMSF 2) would 

not be adequately served by existing Victorville Water Department facilities due to their 

distance from existing water mains. The nearest existing water facility is approximately 7 

miles south at a substantially lower elevation. The existing main does not extent far 

enough to serve VV3 and OMSF 2. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would require the 

construction and/or expansion of new water facilities, including storage facilities, wells, 

and/or transmission and distribution pipelines. Mitigation, including the payment of 

connection and/or user/service/tipping fees, would be implemented to reduce adverse 

effects related to utilities and emergency services. 

Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this Final EIS describes these 

environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Traffic and Transportation

The traffic and transportation analysis examines existing and future conditions of the 

Preferred Alternative and quantifies the long-term transportation impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would provide an alternative to automobile 

transportation between Victorville and Las Vegas along the I-15 corridor. Future I-15 

freeway traffic volumes would be reduced after construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

With fewer vehicles on the roadway, congestion along the I-15 freeway between Victorville 

and Las Vegas would be reduced and traffic operations would be improved, representing a 

beneficial effect to the I-15 freeway traffic volumes. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-23

By reducing the number of automobiles on I-15, the project could potentially reduce the 

accident rate, thus improving traffic safety. Along the California portion of the I-15 

corridor between 2003 and 2005, the fatal accident rate has exceeded statewide averages 

for highway facilities, particularly for the portion of I-15 between Barstow and the Nevada 

state line.12

 Given the relatively low resident population in this portion of the corridor, the 

data suggest that a disproportionate number of fatalities are related to longer-distance 

travel between Southern California and the Las Vegas Area. In Nevada, traffic accident 

data gathered from 2003 through 2006 suggests that congestion is a key factor in the 

number and type of accidents. In the stretch of I-15 between the Nevada state line and 

Spring Mountain Road, nearly 50 percent of the traffic accidents in between 2003 and 

2006 were rear-end collisions. Congestion can be a key factor in increasing the rate of 

rear-end collisions. On a more lightly traveled freeway, a vehicle would more likely pass 

another rather than follow too closely.13

FHWA identified potential risks to freeway traffic created by locating the Preferred 

Alternative within the I-15 ROW. Existing freeway conditions were considered, as well as 

other planned and programmed transportation improvement projects, and compared to 

the proposed alignment of the high speed passenger railroad. Features of the Preferred 

Alternative would be new obstacles on the roadside and present a potential increase in the 

severity of run-off-road crashes. They may also obstruct drivers’ sight distances, thus 

reducing the amount of time drivers have to perceive and react to changing roadway 

conditions. The presence of trains running in the highway right-of-way, and especially the 

train lights, could also become a visual distraction for motorists where none exist today. 

Mitigation, including the placement of visual barriers, would be implemented to reduce 

adverse effects related to safety risks created by locating the Preferred Alternative within 

the I-15 ROW. 

Operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in increased localized traffic near the 

Victorville and Las Vegas Station sites, as travelers would drive to the stations to drop off 

or pick up passengers or to utilize the long-term parking areas. This would result in 

congestion along local roadways and increased waiting times at local intersections. Near 

Victorville, the increased traffic would also worsen congestion and traffic delays at the I15/Dale Evans Parkway interchange. In Las Vegas, the increase traffic would worsen 

congestion and traffic delays at the nearby I-15 interchanges on West Tropicana and 

Flamingo Road. These intersections and I-15 freeway on- and off-ramps would be 

considered to function at unacceptable levels, whereby the delay and congestion would 

exceed local standards of traffic operations. 

Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final EIS describes these 

environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

 

12 Korve Engineering, 2006. 

13 Korve Engineering, 2006. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-24

Cultural Resources

The cultural resources analysis evaluates the archeological and historic resources in the 

vicinity of the Preferred Alternative, along with associated federal, state, and local 

regulations pertaining to these. Due to its primarily undeveloped nature, the Mojave 

Desert area between Victorville and Las Vegas contains a collection of cultural resources, 

including sensitive archaeological sites and cultural landscape features. Construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would involve extensive ground disturbing activities. These 

activities would directly affect sensitive cultural resource sites since portions of the 

properties would be disturbed. This ground disturbance coupled with the presence of 

high-speed trains would also result in adverse indirect effects related to noise and visual 

effects. These adverse effects to cultural resources would be primarily limited to the 

undeveloped areas between Victorville and Las Vegas. Mitigation, including 

archaeological investigation and monitoring, would be incorporated to reduce all adverse 

effects to cultural resources. 

Section 3.7, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, of this Final EIS describes 

these environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

The hydrology and water quality analysis evaluates the direct, indirect, and residual 

impacts from construction and operation of Preferred Alternative to drainages, including 

the Mojave River, ephemeral washes, ditches, and the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of 

the project area. The Preferred Alternative would cross Bell Mountain Wash, the Mojave 

River, and a number of named and unnamed ephemeral washes along the corridor. A 

subset of the water resources identified above meet the qualifications to be considered 

“waters of the United States”.

14 Construction of Preferred Alternative would directly affect 

waters of the United States. The Preferred Alternative would not permanently affect 

wetlands, as no wetlands were found in the area. Mitigation, including restoring impacted 

ephemeral drainages through the reestablishment of former ephemeral drainages to 

compensate for temporary construction impacts to waters of the United States, would be 

incorporated to reduce or mitigate adverse effects related to hydrology and water quality. 

Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Final EIS describes these 

environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Air Quality

The Preferred Alternative would provide an alternative to automobile travel on the I-15 

corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas. Motorists who would have normally driven 

their automobile along the I-15 corridor would now have the opportunity to ride the highspeed train, resulting in the diversion of vehicles from the I-15 freeway. As compared to 

 

14 This term is defined within the Clean Water Act at 40 CFR 230.3(s).
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-25

the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would result in an overall decrease in 

pollutant emissions in the region. The reduction in automobile pollutant emissions is 

assumed to be greater than the new pollutant emissions associated with the Preferred 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would therefore have a beneficial effect in 

regards to air quality through operation. 

In addition to long-term impacts to regional air quality during operation, the air quality 

analysis considers potential short-term impacts to regional air quality during 

construction. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily generate 

pollutant emissions from dust, construction equipment emissions, and pollutant 

emissions from paving and painting. Nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential 

developments in Barstow, Yermo, and Las Vegas, could be temporarily affected by the 

pollutant emissions during construction of the Preferred Alternative, representing a shortterm adverse effect. Mitigation would be implemented to control construction emissions 

to alleviate the adverse air quality effects during construction. 

Section 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of this Final EIS describes 

these environmental effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 

Noise and Vibration

The noise analysis considers noise levels associated with construction and future 

operation of the Preferred Alternative. The analysis compares the existing noise 

environment in the project area to predicted future noise levels. The Preferred Alternative 

would result in increased noise levels associated with passing trains on the rail alignment 

and increased activity and traffic near the station and maintenance facilities in Victorville 

and Las Vegas. The increased noise levels associated with passing trains on the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would be limited to sensitive noise-receptors, including 

residential uses and hotels/motels, within Barstow, Yermo, and the metropolitan Las 

Vegas area. Implementation of 4-foot high noise barriers along the rail alignment would 

reduce these adverse noise effects associated with train operation and all adverse effects 

would be fully mitigated. No other noise-sensitive receptors outside of these urban areas 

are in close enough proximity to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment to be affected by 

the train noise. 

Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration, of this Final EIS describes these environmental 

effects in and associated mitigation measures detail. 

Energy Consumption

Operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in lower energy consumption when 

compared to the No Action Alternative. The reduction in the number of automobiles 

driving on the I-15 freeway would reduce gasoline consumption and result in a net 

decrease in energy use, as defined by the amount of barrels of oil needed to serve the 

region. 

Section 3.13, Energy, of this Final EIS describes these environmental effects in detail. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-26

Biological Resources

The biological resources analysis examines the sensitive plant and wildlife species and 

associated habitats in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative 

would cross through areas of sensitive biological resources and would result in the 

permanent conversion of lands identified as sensitive habitat area. Specifically, the 

Preferred Alternative would result in the permanent loss of native vegetation 

communities, sensitive plant communities, and special-status plant populations in areas 

where permanent project features would be located. The Preferred Alternative would also 

result in the permanent loss of desert tortoise habitat, suitable habitat for the Mohave 

ground squirrel, and areas defined as special management lands by the BLM. The 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment and facilities would also cross or bisect existing 

washes in the project area, which could be defined as Waters of the US and could support 

special status species habitat. Mitigation would be incorporated to reduce these adverse 

effects or require the relocation or replacement of sensitive species or habitat. 

Section 3.14, Biological Resources, of this Final EIS describes these environmental 

effects and associated mitigation measures in detail. 
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-27

Table 1 Comparative Effects, Preferred Alternative Versus No Action Alternative 

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Land Use and Community Impacts

Compatibility with adjacent land uses Varies from Low to High depending on location High

Compatibility with land use plans Varies from Low to High depending on location High

Number of housing units displaced 0 Unknown

Extent of community disruption/severance None expected None expected

Number of environmental justice (EJ) 

communities crossed by or within one mile 

of facilities

At least 16 EJ census blocks crossed by rail 

alignment and facilities Expected to be similar to Preferred Alternative

Growth

Estimated permanent employment About 722 jobs system-wide None expected

Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected

Extent of effects to TOD potential Beneficial effects at Victorville and LV passenger 

station sites None expected

Extent of effects to economic vitality

Short-term beneficial effects through construction 

employment

Long-term adverse effects to communities with 

economies tied to auto travel, but not at 

substantial level. Voluntary mitigation included.

None expected

Farmlands and Grazing Lands

Acres of directly impacted farmland 0 None to minimal expected

Acres of Indirectly impacted farmland 0.008 Expected to be similar to Preferred Alternative

Potential severance of grazing allotment Yes, but can be mitigated None expected
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-28

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Utilities/Emergency Services

Exceed capacity of utility or service 

systems:

Electricity and gas

Trains would require electrical power for vehicle 

propulsion and energy at facilities, but no 

exceedance of capacity expected

Not expected

Water supply

Stations and maintenance facilities will require 

water, but not in excess of known available 

supply

Not expected

Sewage/wastewater Stations and maintenance facilities would require 

connections and/or new conveyances Not expected

Stormwater

Alignment areas would intertie with existing 

systems. Stations and maintenance facilities 

would require connections and/or new 

conveyances

Not expected

Solid waste

Stations and maintenance facilities would 

generate waste, but not in excess of landfill 

capacities

Not expected

Police services New staff near station locations Not expected

Fire/emergency services New staff, equipment, and/or facilities required Not expected

Potential conflict with existing utility 

distribution systems Yes, but conflicts can be mitigated Similar to Preferred Alternative: assumed that conflicts may occur but mitigation possible.
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-29

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Traffic and Transportation

Result in substantial traffic increases:

Freeway mainlines

Between Victorville and I-40, traffic reduction 

associated of up to 1400 vehicles/hour during 

peak hours by 2030.

LOS would degrade from D to F between 

Victorville and I-40.

LOS would degrade between I-40 and the 

Nevada state line.

LOS would degrade between Primm and Sloan.

LOS would degrade between Sloan and I-215.

Intersections near station areas

Project traffic would contribute to traffic impacts 

at intersections near the Victorville and Las 

Vegas stations, but mitigation incorporated 

improves all to an acceptable Level of Service 

(LOS).

None expected

Visual Resources

Extent of consistency with BLM VRM 

objectives Varies depending on location Consistent if impacts remain in existing corridor

Effect to FHWA visual quality sensitivity 

with project Varies depending on location Consistent if impacts remain in existing corridor

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 165 Assumed to be same as Preferred Alternative

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources Indirectly 

Affected

63 Assumed to be same as Preferred Alternative

Number of Historic Architectural Resources 

Directly/Indirectly Affected 0 Assumed 0
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-30

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Hydrology and Water Quality

Linear feet of permanent impact to water 

resources

20,850.53 Varies depending on location

Acres within a 100-year floodplain

51.68 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern 

Station)

57.48 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station 

B)

Varies depending on location

Result in substantial drainage pattern 

alteration

Yes for Victorville Station and OMSF and 

Autotransformers #7 and #11. Mitigation 

available.

Not expected

Estimated peak stormwater discharge 

(cubic feet/second)

462.5 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern 

Station)

417.5 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station 

B)

n/a

Geology and Soils

Expected Likelihood of Surface Fault 

Rupture

Varies; high in areas near Victorville and Barstow 

and between Yermo and Baker Similar to Preferred Alternative

Expected Likelihood of Ground Shaking Varies depending on location Similar to Preferred Alternative

Expected Difficulty of Excavation Varies from moderate to high depending on 

location Similar to Preferred Alternative

Expected Likelihood of Landslides Varies depending on location Similar to Preferred Alternative

Hazardous Materials

Number of Properties of Environmental 

Concern

21 total with Central Station B; 20 if Southern 

Station selected

Assumed to be same as Preferred Alternative 

with Southern Station – 20
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-31

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Exceed a State or Federal Standard? No Not expected

Result in CO Hotspot? No Not expected

Expected Adverse Construction Period 

Impact? Yes Not expected

Noise and Vibration

Expected Number of Impacts Under FRA 

Criteria 83 Anticipated Noise Increase, Impacts Not Quantified

Expected Number of Severe Impacts Under 

FRA Criteria

45 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station)

46 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B)

Anticipated Noise Increase, Impacts Not 

Quantified

Expected Number of Vibration Impacts 0

Anticipated Construction Vibration, Impacts Not 

Quantified

Energy

Result in Significant Change in Energy 

Consumption?

Diversion to train use would reduce annual 

energy consumption related to No Action 

Alternative by an equivalent of 444,900 barrels of 

oil.

Would result in annual energy consumption of 

449,000 more barrels of oil than the Preferred 

Alternative

Biological Resources

Impose Barrier to wildlife movement Yes, outside I-15 freeway corridor Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Number of stream crossings About 300 Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-32

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Sensitive plant community acreage affected

Permanent

84 (Joshua Tree), 3.9 (Mesquite),

4.6 (Mojave creosote)

Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Temporary 194 (Joshua Tree), 16.1 (Mesquite) Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected

Permanent 1509.8

Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Temporary 4,135.2 Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage 

affected

Permanent 447.38 Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Temporary 562.45 Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-33

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Potential to result in direct 

mortality/loss/disturbance to:

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 3.6 permanent; 8.3 temporary Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes for all rail alignments, Yes at Baker MOW Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Banded Gila Monster Yes for Segment 3B and Segment 4C Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Burrowing Owls 1,509.8 permanent; 4,135.2 temporary Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Roosting Bats Yes for Segment 1, Segment 3B, Segment 4C, 

Segment 5B, and Segment 6B

Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

American Badger 1,509.8 permanent; 4,135.2 temporary Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Desert Bighorn Sheep 57.3 permanent; 239.1 temporary Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 248.4 permanent; 821.4 temporary Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Acres of Special Management Lands 

Converted

249.97 (Superior Cronese)

202.98 (Ivanpah)

208.32 (Superior-Cronese DWMA)

103.02 (Shadow Valley DWMA)

3.6 (Cronese ACEC)

Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative 

rail segments within the I-15 corridor
DesertXpress Project Background and Executive Summary 

March 2011 Final EIS 

ES-34

Environmental Topic Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Section 4(f) Evaluation

Number of Section 4(f) properties used

Park and Recreation 0 0

Cultural Resources 0 0

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 
March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-1 

List of Acronyms 

AAA: Alignment adjustment area 

AADT: Annual average daily traffic 

ACEC: Area of critical environmental concern 

ACHP: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADT: Average Daily Traffic 

APE: Area of Potential Effects 

AQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District 

AREMA: American Railway Engineering Maintenance of Way Association 

AT&SF: Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe 

BA: Biological Assessment 

BFPD: Barstow Fire Protection District 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management 

BMP: Best management practices 

BNSF: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

BO: Biological Opinion 

BTU: British thermal units 

BUR: Bob Hope Airport 

Caltrans: California Department of Transportation 

CARB: California Air Resources Board 

CCDOA: Clark County Department of Aviation 

CCFD: Clark County Fire Department 

CCWRD: Clark County Water Reclamation District 

CDCA: California Desert Conservation Area 

CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-2 

CDWR: California Department of Water Resources 

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4: methane 

CHP: California Highway Patrol 

CHRIS: California Historical Resources Information System 

CHSR: California High-Speed Rail project 

CIWMB: California Integrated Waste Management Board 

CMP: Congestion Management Plan 

CNPS: California Native Plant Society 

CO: carbon monoxide 

CO2: carbon dioxide 

CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalents 

CRF: Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA: Clean Water Act 

DAQEM: Clark County Department of Air Quality & Environmental Management 

dB: decibels 

dBA: A-weighted noise measurement 

DEMU: Diesel electric multiple unit 

DOI: U.S. Department of Interior 

DWMA: Desert wildlife management area 

EB: Eastbound 

EIR: Environmental Impact Report 

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement 

EITP: Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project 

EMM: Electricity Market Modular 

EMU: Electric multiple unit 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-3 

ESA: Endangered Species Act 

ESA: Environmental Site Assessment 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration 

FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 

FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FMMP: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact 

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration 

GHG: greenhouse gas 

GPS: global positioning system 

GW: gigawatt 

HABS/HAERS: Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering 

Record 

HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan 

HEC-RAS: Hydraulic Engineering Centers-River Analysis System 

HMA: Hazardous Material Assessment 

HOT: High occupancy toll lane 

HOV: High-occupancy vehicle lane 

HPTP: Historic Property Treatment Plan 

HSP: Health and Safety Plan 

I-10: Interstate 10 

I-15: Interstate 15 

I-210: Interstate 210 

I-215: Interstate 215 

I-40: Interstate 40 

I-515: Interstate 515 

ICC: Interstate Commerce Commission 

ICCTA: Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-4 

in/sec: inches per second 

ISEGS: Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project 

ITS Project: NDOT’s Intelligent Transportation System Project 

kV: kilovolt 

LADWP: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

LAMP: Landscape and Aesthetics Master Plan 

LAS: McCarran International Airport 

LAWA: Los Angeles World Airports 

LAX: Los Angeles International Airport 

lb/sq. ft.: pounds per square feet 

Ldn: Day-Night Sound Level Equivalent 

Leq: equivalent continuous noise level 

LGB: Long Beach Airport 

LOS: Level of Service 

LRTP: Long Range Transportation Plan 

LUST: leaking underground storage tank 

LVFR: Las Vegas Fire and Rescue 

LVMC: Las Vegas Monorail Company 

LVPWD: Las Vegas Public Works Department 

LVVWD: Las Vegas Valley Water District 

MAGLEV: High-speed magnetic levitation system 

MAX: Metropolitan Area Express 

MDAB: Mojave Desert Air Basin 

MDAQMD: Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District 

METRO: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 

MMBTU: million British thermal units 

MND: Mitigated Negative Declaration 

MOW: Maintenance of Way Facility 

mph: miles per hour 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-5 

mph/s: miles per hour/second 

MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MSF: Maintenance and storage Facility 

MSHCP: Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

MW: megawatt 

N2O: nitrous oxide 

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC: Nevada Administrative Code 

NAGPRA: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NB: Northbound 

NDEP: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOT: Nevada Department of Transportation 

NDOW: Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act 

NHP: Nevada Highway Patrol 

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act 

NO2: nitrogen dioxide 

NOA: Notice of Availability 

NOI: Notice of Intent 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS: National Park Service 

NRS: Nevada Revised Statutes 

O3: Ozone 

OCC: Operations Control Center 

OEA: Surface Transportation Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis

OHV: off-highway vehicle 

OMSF: Operations, maintenance, and storage facility 

OMSF 1: OMSF Site Option 1 

OMSF 2: OMSF Site Option 2 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-6 

ONT: LA/Ontario International Airport 

PA: Programmatic Agreement 

PID: photoionization detectors 

PLSS: Public Lands Survey System 

POA: Plan of Action 

PM10: Particulate matter 10 

ppm: parts per million 

PPV: peak particle velocity 

PRC: Public Resources Code 

RMP: Resource Management Plan 

ROC: reactive organic compounds 

ROD: Record of Decision 

ROW: right-of-way 

RRIF: Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Financing Program 

RSMSF: Relocated Sloan Road MSF 

RTC: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 

RTIP: Regional Transportation Improvement Program 

RTP: Regional Transportation Plan 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act; A Legacy 

for Users 

SAN: San Diego International Airport 

SANBAG: San Bernardino Associated Governments 

SB: Southbound 

SBCFD: San Bernardino County Fire Department 

SBCSD: S an Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

SCAG: Southern California Associated of Governments 

SCE: Southern California Edison 

SGC: Southwest Gas Corporation 

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-7 

SNA: John Wayne Airport 

SNSA: Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport 

SPCCP: Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan 

SR 138: California State Route 138 

SR 14: California State Route 14 

SR 160: Nevada State Route 160 

SR 18: California State Route 18 

SR 210: California State Route 210 

SR 58: California State Route 58 

STB: Surface Transportation Board 

STIP: State Transportation Improvement Plan 

SVP: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

SWPPP: Stormwater pollution prevention plan 

TAC: toxic air contaminant 

TCA: Temporary construction area 

THPO: Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TIA: Traffic Impact Analysis 

TIP: Transportation Improvement Program 

TMT: Train-mile traveled 

TOD: Transit-oriented development 

U.S. 395: U.S. Route 395 

U.S. 95: U.S. Route 95 

U.S.C.: United States Code 

UNLV: University of Nevada Las Vegas 

UPRR: Union Pacific Railroad 

USACE: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDOE: U.S. Department of Energy 

USDOT: U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFWS: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
DesertXpress List of Acronyms 

March 2011 Final EIS 

LA-8 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey 

UST: Underground storage tank 

VdB: vibration decibels 

VMT: vehicle miles travels 

VOC: volatile organic compound 

VV1: Victorville Station Site 1 

VV2: Victorville Station Site 2 

VV3: Victorville Station Site 3 

VV3A: Victorville Station Site 3, Option A 

VV3B: Victorville Station Site 3, Option B 

VVWRA: Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority 

VWD: Victorville Water District 

WB: Westbound 

WSA: Water Supply Assessment