California High-Speed Rail Authority

Bakersfield to

Palmdale Project

Section

 FINAL

General Conformity

Determination

 JULY 2021
C alif or ni a Hi g h -S p e e d R ail S yst e m, B a k ersfi el d t o P al m d al e S e cti o n 

Fi n al G e n er al C o nf or mit y D et er mi n ati o n 

Pr e p ar e d b y: 

U. S. D e p art m e nt of Tr a ns p ort ati o n 

F e d er al R ailr o a d A d mi nistr ati o n 

T his Fi n al G e n er al C o nf or mit y D et er mi n ati o n h as b e e n pr e p ar e d b y t h e F e d er al R ailr o a d A d mi nistr ati o n 

( F R A), p urs u a nt t o S e cti o n 1 7 6( c) of t h e F e d er al Cl e a n Air A ct, 4 2 U. S. C. 7 5 0 6( c)( 1), a n d its 

i m pl e m e nti n g r e g ul ati o ns ( “ G e n er al C o nf or mit y R ul e ”). S p e cific all y, t his Fi n al G e n er al C o nf or mit y 

D et er mi n ati o n d o c u m e nts F R A’s fi n di n g t h at t h e C alif or ni a Hi g h-S p e e d R ail S yst e m, B a k ersfi el d t o 

P al m d al e S e cti o n will c o m pl y wit h t h e G e n er al C o nf or mit y R ul e , pr o vi d e d t h at t h e nitr o g e n o xi d e s 

( N O x) a n d v ol atil e or g a nic c o m p o u n d ( V O C) e missi o ns c a us e d b y t h e c o nstr u cti o n of t h e Pr oj e ct, will b e 

offs et t hr o u g h a V ol u nt ar y E missi o n Offs et A gr e e m e nt ( V E R A) wit h t h e S a n J o a q ui n V all e y U nifi e d Air 

P oll uti o n C o ntr ol Distri ct. 

D at e of A p pr o v al M arl ys Ost er h u es 

 C hi ef of E n vir o n m e nt a n d Pr oj e ct E n gi n e eri n g Di visi o n 

 F e d er al R ailr o a d A d mi nistr ati o n 

F or f urt h er i nf or m ati o n, pl e as e c o nt a ct: 

A n dr é a E. M arti n 

S e ni or E n vir o n m e nt al Pr ot e cti o n S p e ci alist 

U. S. D e p art m e nt of Tr a ns p ort ati o n 

F e d er al R ailr o a d A d mi nistr ati o n 

E n vir o n m e nt & Pr oj e ct E n gi n e eri n g Di visi o n 

1 2 0 0 N e w J ers e y A v e. , S E 

W as hi n gt o n, D . C. 2 0 5 9 0 

( 2 0 2) 4 9 3-6 2 0 1 

M A R L Y S A 

O S T E R H U E S

Di git all y si g n e d b y 

M A R L Y S A O S T E R H U E S 

D at e: 2 0 2 1. 0 7. 1 6 

1 2: 3 3: 4 7 - 0 4' 0 0'

M A R L Y S A 

O S T E R H U E S

Di git all y si g n e d b y 

M A R L Y S A O S T E R H U E S 

D at e: 2 0 2 1. 0 7. 1 6 

1 2: 3 3: 4 7 - 0 4' 0 0'
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1

1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1-1

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

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

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL ACTION REQUIRING CONFORMITY

EVALUATION .........................................................................................................2-1

3 CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT.........................................................3-1

3.1 California High Speed Rail System...............................................................3-1

3.2 California High Speed Rail System – Bakersfield to Palmdale Section ........3-1

4 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA..............................................4-1

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

4.1.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.........................................................4-1

4.1.2 Mojave Desert Air Basin ................................................................4-1

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

4.3 Study Area Emissions...................................................................................4-6

4.3.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District............................4-6

4.3.2 Eastern Kern County Air Pollution Control District .........................4-7

4.3.3 Antelope Valley Air Quality Monitoring District...............................4-8

4.4 Action Study Area Designations ...................................................................4-9

5 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA .....................................................................................5-1

6 AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS

TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE ACTION ............................................................6-1

7 REGULATORY PROCEDURES .............................................................................7-1

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

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

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

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

8 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................8-1

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

8.1.1 Attainment Status: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin...........................8-1

8.1.2 Attainment Status: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management

District............................................................................................8-1

8.1.3 Attainment Status: Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District .......8-1

9 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED......................................................9-1

9.1 Site Preparation............................................................................................9-2

9.1.1 Demolition......................................................................................9-2

9.1.2 Land Grubbing ...............................................................................9-2

9.2 Earth Moving ................................................................................................9-2

9.3 HSR Alignment Construction........................................................................9-2

9.3.1 Rail Type and Alignment Alternatives ............................................9-3

9.3.2 Concrete Batch Plants ...................................................................9-3

9.3.3 Material Hauling .............................................................................9-3

9.4 Train Station Construction ............................................................................9-3
Table of Contents

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

Final General Conformity Determination

9.5 Maintenance Facilities Construction............................................................. 9-4

9.6 Roadway Crossing Construction .................................................................. 9-4

10 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS – BAKERSFIELD-PALMDALE .................................................... 10-1

10.1 Construction Impacts within the SJVAPCD................................................ 10-1

10.2 Construction Impacts within the EKAPCD.................................................. 10-2

10.3 Construction Impacts within the AVAQMD................................................. 10-3

11 REGIONAL EFFECTS.......................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Construction Impacts within the SJVAPCD................................................ 11-1

11.2 Construction Impacts within the EKAPCD.................................................. 11-1

11.3 Construction Impacts within the AVAQMD................................................. 11-1

12 GENERAL CONFORMITY EVALUATION............................................................ 12-1

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

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

12.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP............ 12-2

12.3.1 Applicable Requirements from USEPA ....................................... 12-2

12.3.2 Applicable Requirements from CARB.......................................... 12-2

12.3.3 Applicable Requirements from SJVAPCD ................................... 12-2

12.3.4 Applicable Requirements from EKAPCD..................................... 12-2

12.3.5 Applicable Requirements from AVAQMD .................................... 12-2

12.3.6 Consistency with Applicable Requirements for the Authority....... 12-3

13 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS........................................................ 13-1

14 REPORTING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS............................................................ 14-1

14.1 Final General Conformity Determination .................................................... 14-1

15 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 15-1

16 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 16-1

17 PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................... 17-1

Tables

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to Action’s Study Area...................................... 1-2

Table 2 Ambient Criterial Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring

Stations Closest to the Action .................................................................................. 4-4

Table 3 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the SJVAPCD (tons per day)........... 4-6

Table 4 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the EKAPCD (tons per day) ............ 4-7

Table 5 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the AVAQMD (tons per day)............ 4-8

Table 6 Federal and State Attainment Status ................................................................ 8-2

Table 7 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the SJVAPCD................................ 10-1

Table 8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the EKAPCD ................................. 10-2

Table 9 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the AVAQMD................................. 10-4

Table 10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Merced to Fresno Section ..... 13-2
Table of Contents

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

iii | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Table 11 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Fresno to Bakersfield

Section ...................................................................................................................13-2

Table 12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Merced to Palmdale

Section ...................................................................................................................13-3

Figure

Figure 1 Air Quality Monitoring Stations Closest to Action.............................................4-2

Appendix

Appendix A: Final General Conformity Determination Comments and Responses
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | iv

This page intentionally left blank
Acronyms and Abbreviations

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIA air impact assessment

AQMD Air Quality Management District

Authority California High-Speed Rail Authority

AVAQMD Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District

CAA Clean Air Act

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCNM César E. Chávez National Monument

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EKAPCD Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

EMFAC2014 EMission FACtors 2014

EMMA Environmental Mitigation Management and Assessment

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts

GHG greenhouse gas

HP horsepower

HS hydrogen sulfide

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR high-speed rail

IAMFs Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features

LMF Light Maintenance Facility

MDAB Mojave Desert Air Basin

MOWF Maintenance-of-Way Facility

Mph miles per hour

MPO metropolitan planning organizations

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

O3 ozone

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

RoadMod Road Construction Emissions Model

ROD Record of Decision
Acronyms and Abbreviations

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

vi | Page Final General Conformity Determination

SIP State Implementation Plan

SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

SOx sulfur oxide

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement

VHT vehicle hours traveled

VMT vehicle miles traveled
Executive Summary

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more

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

Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the southern Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR Section (“Project” or

“Action”), which is the focus of this General Conformity Determination, is a critical link connecting

the Merced to Fresno, and Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR sections to the Palmdale to Los Angeles

HSR sections.1

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

Subpart B, establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of

proposed projects that are federally funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality

standards. This determination must demonstrate that a Proposed Action would not cause or

contribute to new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere

with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment. The California

High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), as the Action proponent, is receiving federal grant funds

through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

program. The Action may also receive FRA safety approvals. Because of the federal funding and

potential safety approvals; the Action is subject to the General Conformity Rule; and because

construction-phase emissions (without mitigation) would exceed General Conformity emission

thresholds, the Action is not exempt and must demonstrate conformity.

FRA prepared a Draft General Conformity Determination, pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, 

which establishes the process for complying with the General Conformity requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. FRA published a notice in the Federal Register on May 13, 2021 advising the 

public of the availability of the Draft Conformity Determination for a 30-day review and comment 

period. The Draft Conformity Determination was published at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. FRA-2021-0046. The comment period of the Draft Conformity Determination closed on June 

14, 2021. FRA received one comment regarding Coccidioides immitis, or more commonly known 

as the Valley Fever fungus, and a letter of support from the San Joaquin Valley Air District. Both 

letters were responded to in Appendix A of this Final General Conformity Determination.

This Final General Conformity Determination documents FRA’s finding that the Action complies

with the General Conformity Rule and that it conforms to the purposes of the area’s approved

State Implementation Plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements. The Final General 

Conformity Determination is available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FRA-2021-0046, 

and on FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/clean-airact-california-general-conformity-determinations. This Final General Conformity Determination is 

basedon the Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Mitigation Measures that were

described in Section 3.3.8 of the EIR/EIS and that will be implemented for the Action. This

compliance is demonstrated herein as follows:

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

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

• Whereas emissions generated during the construction of the Action would exceed General

Conformity thresholds for two pollutants, these emission increases would be offset through a

Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District (SJVAPCD), the Air Quality Investment Program in the Antelope Valley Air

Quality Management District (AVAQMD), and the Emission Banking Certificate Program in

the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD).
Executive Summary

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

ES-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

1 As part of its first phase, the California HSR system is currently planned as seven distinct sections from San Francisco in

the north to Los Angeles and Anaheim in the south.
Executive Summary

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | ES-1

This page intentionally left blank

Section 1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

This document is the Final General Conformity Determination for the Bakersfield to Palmdale

Section of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System (“Project” or “Federal Action”) and is

required by the implementing regulations of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section

176(c)(1) of the CAA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in, supporting, or providing

financial assistance for licensing, permitting or approving any activities that do not conform to an

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

implementation plan.

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

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

that each state prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each nonattainment area, and a

maintenance plan be prepared for each former non-attainment area that subsequently

demonstrated compliance with the standards. The SIP is a state’s plan for how it will meet the

NAAQS by the deadlines established by the CAA.

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 93,

Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal

Implementation Plans.” Conformity is defined as “upholding an implementation plan’s purpose of

eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving

expeditious attainment of such standards.” 40 C.F.R. Part 93 also establishes the process by

which federal agencies determine conformance of proposed projects that are federally funded or

require federal approval. This determination must demonstrate that the Proposed Action would

not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations,

or interfere with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment.

Since the Action is receiving federal funds through grants with the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) and may also receive safety approvals from FRA, it is an action that may be

subject to the General Conformity Rule.

This Final General Conformity Determination is being issued after the release of the Bakersfield

to Palmdale Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS),

which was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the analysis used for the EIR/EIS also 

generated the information necessary for the General Conformity Determination, specific analysis 

may be incorporated herein by reference.

1.1 Regulatory Status of Study Area

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

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

transportation conformity regulations to address transportation plans, programs, and projects

developed, funded or approved under title 23 U.S. Code or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S. Code

1601 et seq. (40 C.F.R. Part 93 Subpart A). These regulations have been revised several times

since they were first issued. While the transportation conformity regulations do not apply to this

Action (see Section 1.2), many of the transportation planning documents developed under those

regulations are helpful in understanding the regional air quality and planning status of the study

area.

The Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section passes through three air quality management

districts and two air basins: the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), and the Antelope Valley Air Quality

Management District (AVAQMD). The SJVAPCD and the San Joaquin Air Basin encompass the

same area; the EKAPCD and the AVAQMD are both located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin.

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

nonattainment or maintenance area are developed by the SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, AVAQMD, and

the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and approved by USEPA. Table 1 lists the planning

documents relevant to the proposed Action’s study area.
Section 1 Introduction

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

1-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to Action’s Study Area

Type of Plan Status

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1-Hour Ozone (O3) Attainment Plan On March 8, 2010, the USEPA approved the San Joaquin Valley’s 2004

Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-hour O3 standard. However,

effective June 15, 2005, the USEPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard

for areas, including SJVAB.1 Due to subsequent litigation, the USEPA

withdrew its plan approval in November 2012, and the SJVAPCD and CARB

withdrew this plan from consideration. SJVAPCD adopted a revised plan in

September 2013 and is currently seeking CARB’s approval.

8-Hour O3 Attainment Plan On May 5, 2010, the USEPA reclassified the 8-hour O3 nonattainment status

of San Joaquin Valley from “serious” to “extreme.” The reclassification

requires the state to incorporate more stringent requirements, such as lower

permitting thresholds and implementing reasonably available control

technologies at more sources.1 The 2007 Ozone Plan contained a

comprehensive and exhaustive list of regulatory and incentive-based

measures to reduce emissions of O3 and particulate matter precursors

throughout the San Joaquin Valley. On December 18, 2007, the SJVAPCD

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

adoption schedule for organic waste operations. On January 8, 2009, the

USEPA found that the motor vehicle budgets for the years 2008, 2020, and

2030 from the 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan were not adequate for transportation

conformity purposes.2

Particulate Matter, 10 microns or

less in diameter (PM10)

Maintenance Plan

On September 25, 2008, the USEPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the 2007 PM10Maintenance

Plan.3

Particulate Matter, 2.5 microns or

less in diameter (PM2.5) Attainment

Plan

The 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standard, approved by

the District Governing Board on November 15, 2018, will bring the San

Joaquin Valley into attainment of the USEPA’s 1997 annual PM2.5 standard,

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and 2012 annual PM2.5 standard as

expeditiously as practicable.4 The plan provides measures designed to

reduce emissions such that the valley will attain the federal standards as

soon as possible.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Maintenance Plan

On July 22, 2004, CARB approved an update to the State Implementation

Plan that shows how 10 areas, including the SJVAB, will maintain the CO

standard through 2018. On November 30, 2005, the USEPA approved and

promulgated the implementation plans and designation of areas for air

quality purposes.5

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

2017 Ozone Attainment Plan On July 27, 2017, the EKAPCD adopted the 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan for

the Eastern Kern County nonattainment area. The Plan demonstrates that

the air quality improvement was achieved due to successful implementation

of ozone control strategies contained in the region’s SIP. It also

demonstrates that significant ozone precursor emission reductions that have

been impacted in the region are permanent and enforceable. A maintenance

plan is also included to ensure that the region would not experience

exceedance. The Plan requests a redesignation in accordance with the

Federal Clean Air Act.6
Section 1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 1-3

Type of Plan Status

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District

Western Mojave Desert Ozone

Attainment Plan

The Western Mojave Desert non-attainment area, which includes the

AVAQMD, was designated non-attainment for the NAAQS for ozone by the

USEPA on April 15, 2004. The USEPA designated the Western Mojave

Desert area as non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The

AVAQMD is included in the Western Mojave Desert non-attainment area and

has adopted state and federal attainment plans for the region within its

jurisdiction. The 2007 Western Mojave Desert Ozone Attainment Plan

includes the latest planning assumptions regarding population, vehicle

activity, and industrial activity and addresses all existing and forecasted

ozone precursor-producing activities within the Antelope Valley through the

year 2020. The document includes updates to the necessary information to

allow general and transportation conformity findings to be made within the

Antelope Valley.7

Antelope Valley Ozone Attainment

Plan

The 2004 Antelope Valley Ozone Attainment Plan includes AVAQMD’s

review and update of all elements of the Air Quality Management Plan that

had been previously prepared by the South Coast Air Pollution Control

District, when that District had jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley. The Plan

indicates Antelope Valley will also show significant progress toward

attainment of the CAAQS for the ozone standard. The document also

includes the latest planning assumptions regarding population, vehicle

activity, and industrial activity and addresses all existing and forecasted

ozone precursor- producing activities within the Antelope Valley.8

Sources: 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2004

2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2007a

3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2007b

4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2018

5 California Air Resources Board, 2004

6 Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, 2017

7 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, 2008

8 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, 2004

AVAQMD = Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

CARB = California Air Resources Board PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

CO = carbon monoxide SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

EKAPCD = Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

O3 = ozone

1.2 General Conformity Requirements

On November 30, 1993, USEPA promulgated final General Conformity regulations at 40 C.F.R.

Part 93 Subpart B for all federal activities except highways and transit programs covered by

Transportation Conformity. The regulations in Subpart B were subsequently amended in March of

2010. The Action requires approval by FRA, and because the Action will not be funded or require

approval(s) under Title 23 U.S. Code or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S. Code 1601 et seq., the

General Conformity requirements are applicable, rather than transportation conformity. In general

terms, unless a project is exempt under 40 C.F.R. § 93.153(c) or is not on the agency’s

presumed–to-conform list pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 93.153(f), a General Conformity Determination

is required where a federal action in a nonattainment or maintenance area causes an increase in

the total of direct and indirect emissions of the relevant criteria pollutants and precursor pollutants

that are equal to or exceed certain de minimis rates.

The General Conformity regulations incorporate a stepwise process, beginning with an

applicability analysis. According to USEPA’s General Conformity Guidance: Questions and

Answers (USEPA 1994) (USEPA Guidance), before any approval is given for a federal action to

go forward, the federal agency must apply the applicability requirements found at 40 C.F.R. §
Section 1 Introduction

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

1-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

93.153 to the federal action and/or determine on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, whether a

determination of General Conformity is required. During the applicability analysis, the federal

agency determines the following:

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

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

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

actions;

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

and/or

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

TIP, the federal agency determines that the emissions from the proposed action are within

the budget (USEPA 2010).

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

completed concurrently with any analysis required under NEPA. The applicability analysis for this

Action is described in Section 8.0.

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

General Conformity regulations do not apply to the federal action, no further analysis or

documentation is required. If, however, the General Conformity regulations do apply to the federal

action, the responsible federal agency must conduct a conformity evaluation in accordance with

the criteria and procedures in the implementing regulations; publish a Final determination of

General Conformity for public review; and then publish the final determination of General

Conformity.

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

more of several prescribed methods. These methods include:

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

implementation plan;

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

total indirect and direct emissions from the action, along with other emissions in the area, will

not exceed the total implementation plan emission budget; or

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

pollutant in the same nonattainment or maintenance area.
Section 2 Description of the Federal Action Requiring Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 2-1

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL ACTION REQUIRING CONFORMITY

EVALUATION

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

Conformity Determination is necessary, the FRA conducts a General Conformity evaluation for

the specific federal action associated with the preferred alternative for a project or program

(USEPA 1994), and FRA must issue a positive conformity determination before the federal action

is approved. Each federal agency is responsible for determining conformity of those proposed

actions over which it has jurisdiction. This Final General Conformity Determination is related only

to those activities included in the federal action pertaining to the Action, which is the Action’s

potential approval through a NEPA Record of Decision (ROD). The Action is described further in

Section 3.0 below.

General Conformity requirements only apply to federal actions proposed in nonattainment areas

(i.e., areas where one or more NAAQS are not being achieved at the time of the proposed action

and requiring SIP provisions to demonstrate how attainment will be achieved) and in maintenance

areas (i.e., areas recently reclassified from nonattainment to attainment and requiring SIP

provisions to demonstrate how attainment will be maintained).
Section 2 Description of the Federal Action Requiring Conformity Evaluation

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

2-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 3 California High Speed Rail Project

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 3-1

3 CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT

3.1 California High Speed Rail System

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

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

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

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

urban rail and bus transit lines, highways, and airports.

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

throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco

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

Diego. It will use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail

technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with

trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour (mph) over a fully grade-separated,

dedicated guideway alignment.

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

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

As part of the HSIPR Program, FRA is providing partial funding for the environmental analysis

and documentation required under NEPA, CEQA and other related environmental laws. Pursuant

to U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Title 23 Section 327, under the NEPA Assignment Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between FRA and the State of California, effective July 23, 2019, the

Authority is the federal lead agency for environmental reviews for all Authority Phase 1 and

Phase 2 California HSR System projects. The FRA maintains responsibility to perform Clean Air

Act Conformity determinations under the NEPA Assignment MOU. The Authority and the FRA

have agreed to collaborate on the development of conformity determinations. As part of this

collaboration, the Authority has provided the FRA this Final General Conformity Determination

and supporting information, as well as the Authority’s proposed approach for achieving general

conformity. The FRA will make the ultimate general conformity determination. In addition to its

involvement in the environmental analysis and documentation, FRA is also providing partial

funding for the final design and construction of the initial construction section of the HSR System,

which includes activities analyzed in this Final Conformity Determination.

In April 2012, FRA and the Authority published the Final EIR/EIS for the Merced to Fresno

Section of the HSR System. The Authority certified the EIR and adopted the project in May, while

the FRA issued its ROD in September 2012. The Merced to Fresno Section is within the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and a General Conformity Determination was prepared as part

of the environmental process to comply with the CAA. It is worth noting that the Merced to Fresno

General Conformity Determination includes the Authority’s commitment to offset all emissions to

net zero through a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) between the Authority and

the SJVAPCD.

Although the Authority considers the Bakersfield to Palmdale section of the HSR System

independent of the other HSR System sections for purposes of NEPA and CEQA analysis,

certain construction activities within the Merced to Fresno Section, as well as within the Fresno to

Bakersfield and San Jose to Merced Sections, may occur concurrently with Bakersfield to

Palmdale Section construction activities. Therefore, estimates of these cumulative emissions

within the SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD have been presented in Section 13.0 of this

document. These emissions estimates have been included in this document in the interest of the

full disclosure of construction emissions that may occur in the SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and

AVAQMD from other sections of the HSR Project; each of these sections will undergo separate

conformity determinations at a later date.

3.2 California High Speed Rail System – Bakersfield to Palmdale Section

The purpose of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of the HSR System is to implement the

California HSR System between Bakersfield and Palmdale, providing the public with electric-
Section 3 California High Speed Rail Project

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

powered high-speed rail service that provides predictable and consistent travel times between

major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit systems, and the highway network

in the south San Joaquin Valley and Mojave Desert, and to connect the northern and southern

portions of the HSR System.

The Bakersfield to Palmdale Section would be approximately 80 miles in length and would

traverse valley, mountain, and high desert terrain, as well as urban, rural, and agricultural lands.

From the north, this section would begin at the Bakersfield Station and travel south and southeast

through the Tehachapi Mountains, then descend into the Antelope Valley where it would

terminate at the Palmdale Station in the south. This section includes a potential Light

Maintenance Facility (LMF) and a Maintenance-of -Way Facility (MOWF) in the Lancaster area.

The Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section would include surface, underground, and elevated

track types with varying profiles. Surface tracks would be built on concrete or ballast material (a

thick bed of angular rock) placed on compacted soil. To the extent practicable, fill material for the

rail bed would be obtained from on-site excavations. Underground tracks would be in areas with

cut slopes and retaining walls or tunnels. Although tunnels are underground and hidden from

sight, their approaches have deep open excavations and extensive portal facilities necessary for

maintenance and safety. Elevated tracks would be on retained fill (earth), embankments, or

structures and would consist of cast-in-place, reinforced-concrete columns supporting the box

girders and bridge deck.

The EIR/EIS for the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section examines alignment alternatives,

stations, LMF, and MOWF sites within the general Railway corridor. The following alternatives are

considered: Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 5. The following stations are

considered: the Bakersfield Station and the Palmdale Station. The EIR/EIS also considers the

César E. Chávez National Monument Design Option (CCNM Design Option), which would result

in only a minimal change in construction emissions due to the additional 124 feet of track required

for the design, and the Refined CCNM Design Option, which would be anticipated to result in

slightly higher emissions due to the additional 2,006 feet of track required for the design. Total

emissions would be 0.028 percent higher with the CCNM Design Option. The Refined CCNM

option would increase the length of the line by 0.45 percent and would require additional off-haul

associated with additional earthwork activities. Emission estimates presented in this Final

GeneralConformity Determination for each Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section (B-P) Build 

Alternativewould be applicable with or without the CCNM Design Option, due to rounding, and the 

differencewould be within the margin of error of the model estimates. Emission estimates for each 

B-P Alternative with the Refined CCNM Design Option are identified in this Final General 

Conformity Determination.
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 4-1

4 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA

4.1 Meteorology and Climate

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

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

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

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

and topography can affect localized air quality.

The Action traverses two air basins. The northern section of the Action is in the SJVAB, which

encompasses the southern third of California’s Central Valley. The southern section of the Action

is on the western edge of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB).

4.1.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and is shaped like a narrow bowl. The sides and

southern boundary of the bowl are bordered by mountain ranges. The valley’s weather conditions

include frequent temperature inversions; long, hot summers; and stagnant, foggy winters, all of

which are conducive to the formation and retention of air pollutants (SJVAPCD 2011).

The SJVAB is typically arid in the summer months with cool temperatures and prevalent tule fog

(i.e., a dense ground fog) in the winter and fall. The average high temperature in the summer

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

the wettest month of the year with an average of about 2 inches of rain. Wind direction is typically

from the northwest with speeds around 30 mph (Western Regional Climate Center 2011).

4.1.2 Mojave Desert Air Basin

The MDAB is separated from populated valleys and coastal areas to the west by several

mountain ranges. These valleys and coastal areas are the major source of ozone precursor

emissions affecting ozone exceedances within the Kern County part of the Mojave Desert.

Surrounding mountain ranges contain a limited number of passes serving as “transportation

corridors.” Air quality in Kern County is primarily influenced by the Tehachapi Pass corridor with

some influence through Soledad Canyon (EKAPCD 2003).

During the summer the MDAB is generally influenced by a Pacific Subtropical High cell that sits

off the coast, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. Most desert

moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist, and unstable air masses from the south. The

MDAB averages between 3 and 7 inches of precipitation per year (from 16 to 30 days with at

least 0.01 inch of precipitation). The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate, with portions

classified as dry-very hot desert, to indicate at least 3 months have maximum average

temperatures over 100.4-degrees Fahrenheit (AVAQMD 2011). Predominant surface wind flow

patterns are southerly and westerly, transporting air pollution from the SJVAB through the

Tehachapi Mountains and over the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (CARB 2015).

4.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Study Area

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

stations closest to the B-P Build Alternative alignments are the 43301 Division Street station in

the City of Lancaster; the 923 Poole Street station in Mojave; and the 5558 California Avenue

station in Bakersfield. These stations monitor NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and CO. The land uses in the

region range from urban and residential to rural and agricultural, and these stations represent

these land use types. Air quality standards, primarily for O3 and particulate matter, have been

exceeded in the SJVAPCD, the EKAPCD, and the AVAQMD because of existing industrial,

mobile, and agricultural sources. The four monitoring station locations are shown on Figure 1.
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Figure 1 Air Quality Monitoring Stations Closest to Action 
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 4-3

A brief summary of the monitoring data includes the following:

• Monitored data from 2017 through 2019 do not exceed either the state or federal standards

for CO. The Mojave and Bakersfield stations were not monitored for CO during 2017 through

2019; therefore, CO data from the 2000 S Union Avenue, Bakersfield, monitoring site is

included.

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

stations for years 2017 through 2019. O3 values for the region also exceed the state 1-hour

O3 standard for all stations for every year from 2017 through 2019 except in 2019 at the 923

Poole Street station in Mojave.

• The PM10 values for the region exceed the national 24-hour PM10 standard for the Lancaster

and Mojave stations for the year 2019. The state 24-hour PM10 concentrations were

exceeded at all stations for all years. However, the number of days over the state standard

was not available.

• The PM2.5 values for the region exceed the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard for the Lancaster

station for 2018, the Bakersfield station for 2018, and the Bakersfield station for 2017 through

2019.

• SO2 values were not monitored at any of the three stations or the additional station at 2000 S

Union Avenue in Bakersfield between 2017 and 2019.

Table 2 lists the three monitoring stations nearest to the Action and ambient criteria pollutant

concentrations for 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Table 2 Ambient Criterial Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring Stations Closest to the Action

Air

43301 Division Street,

Lancaster

923 Poole Street,

Mojave

5558 California Avenue,

Bakersfield

Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)1

Year Coverage NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.2

Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.0

Number of Days>Federal 1-hour Std of >35

ppm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Days>Federal 8-hour Std of >9

ppm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Days>California 8-hour Std of >9

ppm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ozone (O3) Year Coverage2 98% 96% 91% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 98%

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.125 0.096 0.097 0.111 0.085 0.122 0.107 0.097

Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.087 0.105 0.081 0.086 0.095 0.077 0.104 0.098 0.088

Number of Days>Federal 8-hour Std of

>0.070 ppm

43 48 13 35 53 10 85 60 24

Number of Days>California 1-hour Std of

>0.09 ppm

10 5 N/A 1 8 0 11 8 N/A

Number of Days>California 8-hour Std of

>0.07 ppm

43 49 N/A 37 56 N/A 87 34 N/A

Nitrogen

Dioxide

(NO2)

Year Coverage 87% 97% N/A NM NM NM 97% 97% N/A

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 46.5 47.6 50.0 NM NM NM 66.0 61.5 67.0

Annual Average (ppm) N/A 8 8 NM NM NM 12 12 12

Number of Days>Federal 1-hour Std of >100

ppm

0 0 0 NM NM NM 97% 97% N/A

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area
Air

43301 Division Street,

Lancaster

923 Poole Street,

Mojave

5558 California Avenue,

Bakersfield

Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019

Sulfur

Dioxide

(SO2)

Year Coverage NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Max. 24-hour Concentration (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Annual Average (ppm) NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Number of Days>California 24-hour Std of

>0.04 ppm

NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM

Respirable

Particulate

Matter

(PM10)

Year Coverage NM NM NM NM NM NM 98% 95% NM

Max. 24-hour Concentration (μg/m3)

3 82.4 89.3 165.0 93.4 93.1 248.0 143.6 142.0 116.0

Number of Days>Federal 24-hour Std of

>150 μg/m3

0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

Number of Days>California 24-hour Std of

>50 μg/m3

NM NM NM 10 19 N/A 16 13 N/A

Annual Average3(μg/m3) 26.3 25.2 NA 25.3 26.7 N/A 42.6 42.1 N/A

Fine

Particulate

Matter

(PM2.5)

Year Coverage 97% 99% N/A 95% 94% N/A 94% 93% N/A

Max. 24-hour Concentration (μg/m3) 26.6 40.4 13.6 26.9 39.0 19.8 101.8 95.8 59.1

State Annual Average (μg/m3) 7.3 7.2 N/A NM NM NM 15.9 15.7 N/A

Number of Days>Federal 24-hour Std of >35

μg/m3

0 1 0 0 2 0 28 36 N/A

Annual Average3(μg/m3) 7.2 7.2 6.1 5.5 7.1 6.5 15.6 17.6 11.9

Sources: California Air Resources Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2020

1 CO data for the 923 Poole Street, Mojave, and 5558 California Avenue, Bakersfield, monitoring sites are from the 2000 S Union Avenue, Bakersfield, monitoring site.

2 Coverage is for the 8-hour standard.

3 Coverage is for the national standard.

> = greater than

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

N/A = not available ppm = parts per million

NM = not monitored Std = standard

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 4-5

Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-6 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

4.3 Study Area Emissions

4.3.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

CARB maintains an annual emission inventory for select counties and air basins in the state. The

inventory for the SJVAB comprises of data submitted to CARB by the SJVAPCD plus estimates

for certain source categories, which are provided by CARB staff. The 2012 inventory data (the

most recent data provided by the CARB) for the SJVAB is summarized in Table 3. Note that

Table 3 shows tons per day, while the emissions estimates for the Proposed Action are shown in

tons per year.

Table 3 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the SJVAPCD (tons per day)

Source Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX

Particulate

Matter PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 18.82 3.60 23.76 29.17 4.30 6.0 5.53 5.31

Waste Disposal 457.38 20.98 0.5 0.29 0.12 0.56 0.15 0.11

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 23.34 20.31 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Petroleum Production and

Marketing

130.88 33.59 0.61 0.27 0.14 0.23 0.16 0.15

Total Industrial Processes 16.72 15.68 0.83 6.71 3.36 16.54 8.03 3.16

Total Stationary Sources 647.15 94.16 25.70 36.44 7.92 23.44 13.97 8.82

Stationary Sources Percentage

of Total

36.7 26.3 2.8 11.2 76.2 4.4 5.0 11.7

Areawide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 53.11 47.59 -- -- -- -- -- --

Miscellaneous Processes 969.01 128.58 186.76 13.25 1.27 488.35 250.24 59.99

Total Areawide Sources 1,022.12 176.16 186.76 13.25 1.27 488.35 250.24 59.99

Areawide Sources Percentage

of Total

57.9 49.2 20.6 4.0 12.2 92.4 88.9 71.4

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor Vehicles 53.22 48.51 437.65 177.87 0.67 10.78 10.77 6.73

Other Mobile Sources 41.62 39.02 252.45 97.60 0.53 5.89 6.61 6.09

Total Mobile Sources 94.84 87.53 690.10 275.47 1.20 16.66 17.38 12.81

Mobile Sources Percentage of

Total

5.4 24.4 76.5 84.7 11.5 3.2 6.2 16.9

Grand Total 1,764.1 357.9 902.6 325.2 10.4 528.5 281.6 75.6

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015

CO = carbon monoxide ROG = reactive organic gas

NOX = nitrogen oxides SOX = sulfur oxides

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter TOG = total organic gas

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

In the SJVAPCD, mobile source emissions account for over 65 percent of the basin's ROG and

NOx emission inventory. Area sources account for over 90 percent and over 50 percent of the

basin’s particulate and total VOC emissions, respectively, and stationary sources account for over

75 percent of the basin’s sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions.
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 4-7

4.3.2 Eastern Kern County Air Pollution Control District

Emission inventory data for the EKAPCD for 2012 (the most recent data the CARB provides) is

summarized in Table 4. In the EKAPCD, mobile source emissions account for more than 74

percent of the ROG and 56 percent of the NOx emission inventory. Area sources made up more

than 64 percent of the particulate emissions, where stationary sources made up 88 percent of

SOx emissions. Note that Table 4 shows tons per day, whereas the emissions estimates for the

Proposed Action are shown in tons per year.

Table 4 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the EKAPCD (tons per day)

Source Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX

Particulate

Matter PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 0.52 0.12 0.56 2.46 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.36

Waste Disposal 7.30 0.05 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 0.85 0.77 -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00

Petroleum Production and

Marketing

0.20 0.20 -- -- -- -- -- --

Industrial Processes 0.11 0.09 6.79 15.43 2.25 5.69 3.67 1.55

Total Stationary Sources 8.98 1.22 7.35 17.89 2.48 6.09 4.04 1.91

Stationary Sources Percentage

of Total

44 12 13 50 88 23 25 29

Areawide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 1.14 1.21 -- -- -- -- -- --

Miscellaneous Processes 1.85 0.30 1.37 0.26 0.01 17.09 8.26 1.40

Total Areawide Sources 3.26 1.51 1.37 0.26 0.01 17.09 8.26 1.40

Areawide Sources Percentage

of Total

16 14 2 1 0 64 52 21

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor Vehicles 2.59 2.37 23.53 9.70 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.35

Other Mobile Sources 5.71 5.48 24.90 7.85 0.31 3.13 3.06 3.02

Total Mobile Sources 8.30 7.85 48.44 17.55 0.34 3.67 3.06 3.37

Mobile Sources Percentage of

Total

40 74 85 49 12 14 19 50

Grand Total 20.54 10.59 57.15 35.70 2.83 26.85 15.90 6.68

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015

CO = carbon dioxide ROG = reactive organic gas

NOX = nitrogen oxides SOX = sulfur oxides

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter TOG = total organic gas

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-8 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

4.3.3 Antelope Valley Air Quality Monitoring District

Emission inventory data for the AVAQMD for 2012 (the most recent data the CARB provides) is

summarized in Table 5. In the AVAQMD, mobile source emissions account for more than 91

percent and 69 percent of the CO and NOx emission inventory, respectively. Area sources made

up more than 55 percent of the particulate emissions, whereas stationary sources made up 45

percent of particulate emissions. Mobile sources were 64 percent of the SOx emissions.

Stationary sources made up 43 percent of the area-wide ROG emissions. Note that Table 5

shows tons per day, whereas the emissions estimates for the Proposed Action are shown in tons

per year.

Table 5 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the AVAQMD (tons per day)

Source Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX

Particulate

Matter PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 0.36 0.17 1.35 5.09 0.02 3.24 1.36 0.57

Waste Disposal 2.88 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.16 0.02

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 5.21 3.36 -- -- -- 0.21 0.20 0.19

Petroleum Production and

Marketing

13.82 3.11 -- -- -- -- -- --

Industrial Processes 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 17.57 8.46 2.00

Total Stationary Sources 22.46 6.82 1.36 5.09 0.03 21.56 10.81 2.79

Stationary Sources

Percentage of Total

63 43 2 28 21 45 43 49

Areawide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 3.89 3.39 -- -- -- -- -- --

Miscellaneous Processes 3.78 0.74 3.67 0.50 0.02 26.43 13.52 2.28

Total Areawide Sources 7.67 4.13 3.67 0.50 0.02 26.43 13.52 2.28

Areawide Sources Percentage

of Total

21 26 6 3 14 55 53 40

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor Vehicles 3.19 2.84 41.25 9.54 0.05 -- 0.65 0.33

Other Mobile Sources 2.36 2.22 11.57 2.84 0.04 0.32 0.31 0.30

Total Mobile Sources 5.54 5.06 52.81 12.37 0.09 0.32 0.97 0.63

Mobile Sources Percentage of

Total

16 32 91 69 64 1 4 11

Grand Total 35.68 16.01 57.84 17.97 0.14 48.31 24.66 5.70

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015

CO = carbon dioxide ROG = reactive organic gas

NOX = nitrogen oxides SOX = sulfur oxides

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter TOG = total organic gas

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 4-9

4.4 Action Study Area Designations

The study area defined in the EIR/EIS for the Action and for this Final General Conformity

Determination includes the SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD. Under the federal criteria, the

SJVAPCD is currently designated as nonattainment for 8-hour O3, the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard (annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]) and 24-hour standard (65

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

for PM10, and the Bakersfield urbanized area is a maintenance area for CO. The SJVAPCD is in

attainment for the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The SJVAPCD is unclassified for the lead NAAQS. The

EKAPCD is currently designated nonattainment for federal 8-hour O3. The western portion of the

district is currently designated nonattainment for PM10. The EKAPCD is an attainment/

unclassifiable area for the PM2.5, CO, and lead NAAQS. The EKAPCD is unclassified for the

federal NO2 and SO2 standards. Under the federal criteria, the AVAQMD is currently designated

as nonattainment for 8-hour O3. The AVAQMD is an attainment/unclassified area under the

NAAQS for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead. The AVAQMD is unclassified for the PM10 and PM2.5

NAAQS.
Section 4 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-10 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 5 Relationship to NEPA

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 5-1

5 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA

The Final Bakersfield to Palmdale EIR/EIS identifies reasonable foreseeable environmental

impacts of the Action, both adverse and beneficial, identifies appropriate measures to mitigate

adverse impacts, and identifies the agencies’ preferred alternative. The EIR/EIS was prepared to

comply with both NEPA and CEQA.

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be

followed when preparing a General Conformity evaluation and are similar but not identical to

those for conducting an air quality impact analysis under NEPA regulations. NEPA requires that

the air quality impacts of the proposed Action’s implementation be analyzed and disclosed. For

purposes of NEPA, the air quality impacts of the Action were determined by identifying the

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

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

quality impacts of the Action under future Build conditions were also compared in the EIR/EIS to

the future No-Build conditions for NEPA purposes (they were also compared to existing

conditions). The General Conformity Determination process and general findings are discussed in

Sections 3.3.2.1, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.3, 3.3.7.1, and 3.3.9.2 of the EIR/EIS.

In order to appropriately identify and offset, where necessary, the emissions resulting from the

Bakersfield to Palmdale section of the HSR system, the FRA is issuing this Final General

Conformity Determination. The Authority shall enter into agreements with the SJVAPCD (VERA),

EKAPCD (Emission Banking Certificate Program), and the AVAQMD (Air Quality Investment

Program) to offset emissions, as necessary, resulting from the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section as

described in Section 12.2.
Section 5 Relationship to NEPA

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

5-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 6 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Emissions

to be Incorporated in the Action

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 6-1

6 AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS

TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE ACTION

In order to reduce impacts on the environment, the construction of the Action will include impact

avoidance and minimization features and mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of

the Action to minimize, avoid, and mitigate air quality impacts. These Impact Avoidance and

Minimization Features (IAMF) and mitigation measures will be included components of the Action.

The IAMFs and mitigation measures required by the ROD will be included in the Mitigation

Monitoring and Enforcement Program that will be issued concurrently with the Authority’s ROD

and that would be enforceable commitments undertaken by the Authority. Construction of the

Action is anticipated to occur through a design/build contract. The Authority will include all of the

IAMFs and required mitigation measures in the construction contract, which will create a binding

and enforceable contractual commitment to implement these design features and mitigation

measures.

The Authority will be responsible for implementing and overseeing a mitigation monitoring

program to ensure that the contractor meets all air quality IAMFs and mitigation measures.

• AQ-IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions—During construction, the Contractor shall employ

the following measures to minimize and control fugitive dust emissions. The Contractor shall

prepare a fugitive dust control plan for each distinct construction segment. At a minimum, the

plan shall describe how each measure would be employed and identify an individual

responsible for ensuring implementation. At a minimum, the plan shall address the following

components unless alternative measures are approved by the applicable air quality

management district.

− Cover all vehicle loads transported on public roads to limit visible dust emissions, and

maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container or truck bed.

− Clean all trucks and equipment before exiting the construction site using an appropriate

cleaning station that does not allow runoff to leave the site or mud to be carried on tires

off the site.

− Water exposed surfaces and unpaved roads at a minimum three times daily with

adequate volume to result in wetting of the top 1 inch of soil but avoiding overland flow.

Rain events may result in adequate wetting of top 1 inch of soil thereby alleviating the

need to manually apply water.

− Limit vehicle travel speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).

− Suspend any dust-generating activities when average wind speed exceeds 25 mph.

− Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles that are not being used on a daily

basis for construction purposes, by using water, a chemical stabilizer/suppressant, hydro

mulch or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover, to

control fugitive dust emissions effectively. In areas adjacent to organic farms, the

Authority would use non-chemical means of dust suppression.

− Stabilize all on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads, using water or a

chemical stabilizer/suppressant, to effectively control fugitive dust emissions. In areas

adjacent to organic farms, the Authority would use non-chemical means of dust

suppression.

− Carry out watering or presoaking for all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation,

land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities.

− For buildings up to 6 stories in height, wet all exterior surfaces of buildings during

demolition.

− Limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets

at a minimum of once daily, using a vacuum type sweeper.
Section 6 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Emissions

to be Incorporated in the Action

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

6-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

− After the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from surface or outdoor

storage piles, apply sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

• AQ-IAMF#2: Selection of Coatings—During construction, the Contractor shall use:

− Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) paint that contains less than 10 percent of VOC

contents (VOC, 10%).

− Super-compliant or Clean Air paint that has a lower VOC content than that required by

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4601, Eastern Kern Air

Pollution Control District Rule 410, and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District

Rule 1113, when available. If not available, the Contractor shall document the lack of

availability; recommend alternative measure(s) to comply with by San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4601, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

Rule 410, and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Rule 1113; or disclose

absence of measure(s) for full compliance and obtain concurrence from the Authority.

• AQ-IAMF#3: Renewable Diesel—During construction, the Contractor would use renewable

diesel fuel to minimize and control exhaust emissions from all heavy-duty diesel-fueled

construction diesel equipment and on-road diesel trucks. Renewable diesel must meet the

most recent ASTM D975 specification for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and have a carbon intensity

no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum fuels sold in

California. The Contractor would provide the Authority with monthly and annual reports,

through the Environmental Mitigation Management and Application (EMMA) system, of

renewable diesel purchase records and equipment and vehicle fuel consumption. Exemptions

to use traditional diesel can be made where renewable diesel is not available from suppliers

within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify the quantity of

traditional diesel purchased and fully document the availability and price of renewable diesel

to meet project demand.

• AQ-IAMF#4: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment—Prior

to issuance of construction contracts, the Authority would incorporate the following

construction equipment exhaust emissions requirements into the contract specifications:

1. All heavy-duty off-road construction diesel equipment used during the construction phase

would meet Tier 4 engine requirements.

2. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification and any required CARB or air pollution

control district operating permit would be made available to the Authority at the time of

mobilization of each piece of equipment.

3. The contractor would keep a written record (supported by equipment-hour meters where

available) of equipment usage during project construction for each piece of equipment.

4. The contractor would provide the Authority with monthly reports of equipment operating

hours (through the Environmental Mitigation Management and Assessment [EMMA]

system) and annual reports documenting compliance.

• AQ-IAMF#5: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from ON-Road Construction

Equipment—Prior to issuance of construction contracts, the Authority would incorporate the

following material-hauling truck fleet mix requirements into the contract specifications:

1. All on-road trucks used to haul construction materials, including fill, ballast, rail ties, and

steel, would consist of a fleet mix of equipment model year 2010 or newer, but no less

than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year as set forth in the CARB's

EMFAC 2014 database.

2. The contractor would provide documentation to the Authority of efforts to secure such a

fleet mix.
Section 6 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Emissions

to be Incorporated in the Action

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 6-3

3. The contractor would keep a written record of equipment usage during project

construction for each piece of equipment and provide the Authority with monthly reports

of VMT (through EMMA) and annual reports documenting compliance.

• AQ-IAMF#6: Reduce the Potential Impact of Concrete Batch Plants—Prior to

construction of any concrete batch plant, the contractor would provide the Authority with a

technical memorandum documenting consistency with the Authority’s concrete batch plant

siting criteria and utilization of typical control measures. Concrete batch plants would be sited

at least 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors, including places such as daycare centers,

hospitals, senior care facilities, residences, parks, and other areas where people may

congregate. The concrete batch plant would implement typical control measures to reduce

fugitive dust such as water sprays, enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds, movable and

telescoping chutes, central dust collection systems, and other suitable technology, to reduce

emissions to be equivalent to the USEPA AP-42 controlled emission factors for concrete

batch plants. The contractor would provide to the Authority documentation that each batch

plant meets this standard during operation.

• AQ-MM#1: Offset Project Construction Emissions through Off-Site Emission Reduction

Programs—The Authority and SJVAPCD have entered into a contractual agreement to

mitigate (by offsetting) to net zero the project’s actual emissions from construction equipment

and vehicle exhaust emissions of volatile organic compound (VOC), NOX, particulate matter

(PM10), and PM2.5. The agreement will provide funds for the SJVAPCD’s Emission Reduction

Incentive Program [1] (SJVAPCD 2011) to fund grants for projects that achieve emission

reductions, with preference given to highly affected communities, thus offsetting project-related

impacts on air quality. To lower overall cost, funding for the VERA program to cover estimated

construction emissions for any funded construction phase will be provided at the beginning of the

construction phase. At a minimum, mitigation/offsets will occur in the year of impact, or as

otherwise permitted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 93 Section 93.163.

The Authority shall also enter into an agreement with the Antelope Valley Air Quality

Management District (AVAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) to

mitigate (by offsetting) to net zero the project’s actual emissions from construction equipment

and vehicle exhaust emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. In the AVAQMD, the Authority

shall participate in the Air Quality Investment Program, which funds stationary- and mobilesource emission reduction strategies. In the EKAPCD, the Authority shall provide an

application for the Emission Banking Certificate Program.
Section 6 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Emissions

to be Incorporated in the Action

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

6-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 7 Regulatory Procedures

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 7-1

7 REGULATORY PROCEDURES

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be

followed when preparing a General Conformity evaluation. This section addresses the major

applicable procedural issues and specifies how these requirements are met for the evaluation of

the Federal Action. The procedures required for the General Conformity evaluation are similar but

not identical to those for conducting an air quality impact analysis pursuant to NEPA regulations.

It is anticipated, however, that the Final General Conformity Determination will be published

concurrent with the Authority’s ROD for the Federal Action. This Final General Conformity

Determination is being released for public and agency review pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 93.156.

The Authority identified the appropriate emission estimation techniques and planning

assumptions in close consultation with the state entities charged with regulating air pollution in

the SJVAB and MDAB.

7.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions

The General Conformity regulations require the use of the latest planning assumptions for the

area encompassing the Federal Action, derived from the estimates of population, employment,

travel, and congestion most recently approved by the area’s metropolitan planning organization

(MPO) (40 C.F.R. § 93.159(a)).

The traffic data used in the air quality analysis (see EIR/EIS, Section 3.2) are consistent with the

most recent estimates made by the MPOs for traffic volume growth rates, including forecast

changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT). The Authority

developed these estimates based on the MPO’s traffic assignment models using the baseline and

future population, employment, and travel and congestion information available at the time the

analysis was prepared. These assumptions are consistent with those in the current conformity

determinations for the region’s Transportation Plan and TIP.

7.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques

The General Conformity regulations require the use of the latest and most accurate emission

estimation techniques available, unless such techniques are inappropriate (40 C.F.R. §

93.159(b)). Operational phase vehicular emission factors were estimated by using the CARB

emission factor program, EMission FACtors 2014 (EMFAC2014). Parameters were set in

EMFAC2014 for each individual county to reflect conditions within each county, and statewide

parameters were used to reflect statewide conditions. Operational phase aircraft emissions were

estimated using the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool. In

addition, electrical demands caused by propulsion of the trains, and of the trains at terminal

stations and in storage depots and maintenance facilities were estimated using average emission

factors for each kilowatt-hour required from CARB statewide emission inventories of electrical

and cogeneration facilities data along with USEPA eGRID2012 (released October 20, 2015)

electrical generation data. The energy estimates used for the propulsion of the HSR system

include the use of regenerative braking power. Operation of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project

Section HSR stations and the LMF and co-located MOWF were determined using the California

Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

Emissions from regional building demolition and construction of the at-grade rail segments,

elevated rail segments, retained-fill rail segments, electrical substations, train stations,

LMF/MOWF, and roadways and roadway overpasses were calculated using emission factors

from CalEEMod. CalEEMod uses emission factors from the OFFROAD 2011 model. The

OFFROAD 2011 model provides the latest emission factors for off-road construction equipment

and accounts for lower fleet population and growth factors as a result of the economic recession

and updated load factors based on feedback from engine manufacturers. The use of emission

rates from the OFFROAD models reflects the recommendation of CARB to capture the latest offroad construction assumptions. OFFROAD 2011 default load factors (the ratio of average

equipment horsepower utilized to maximum equipment horsepower) and useful life parameters
Section 7 Regulatory Procedures

March 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

7-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

were used for emission estimates. Mobile-source emission burdens from worker vehicle trips and

truck trips were also calculated using CalEEMod.

Construction exhaust emissions from equipment, fugitive dust emissions from earthmoving

activities, and emissions from worker vehicle trips, deliveries, and material hauling were

calculated and compiled in CalEEMod for each year of construction.

Action-specific data, including construction equipment lists and the construction schedule, were

used for construction associated with the alignment/guideway. Action-specific data were not

available for the nonlinear construction associated with the stations and LMF/MOWF buildings.

Therefore, the CalEEMod default settings were used in these instances only.

Mobile-source emission burdens from worker trips and truck trips were estimated using

CalEEMod.

7.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities

Action-specific data, including construction equipment lists and the construction schedule, were

used for construction associated with the alignment/guideway. Calculations were performed for

each year of construction.

Major activities were grouped into the following categories (described in more detail in Section 9.0

of this report):

• Mobilization

• Site preparation including demolition, land clearing, and grubbing

• Earthmoving

• Roadway crossings

• Elevated structures

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

• Traction power supply station

• Switching station

• Paralleling station

• LMF/MOWF

• Bakersfield Station

• Palmdale Station

• Hauling emissions, including truck and rail

• Demobilization

7.4 Emission Scenarios

The General Conformity regulations require that the evaluation reflect certain emission scenarios

(40 C.F.R. §93.159(d)). Specifically, these scenarios generally include the evaluation of the direct

and indirect emissions from a proposed Action for the following years: (1) for nonattainment

areas, the attainment year specified in the SIP or if the SIP does not specify an attainment year,

the latest attainment year possible under the CAA, and for maintenance areas, the farthest year

for which emissions are projected in the approved maintenance plan; (2) the year during which

the total of direct and indirect emissions for the Federal Action are projected to be the greatest on

an annual basis; and (3) any year for which the applicable SIP specifies an emissions budget.

Both the operational and construction phases of the Action have to be analyzed, and the following

applies to the proposed Action.

Emissions generated during the operational phase of the HSR would meet the emission

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

during the operational phase of the proposed Action would be less than those emitted in the NoBuild scenario. In addition, microscale analyses conducted for the EIR/EIS demonstrate that the

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

applicable pollutants. The microscale CO modeling results for 2016 and 2040 are presented in

the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section Final Air Quality and Global Climate Change
Section 7 Regulatory Procedures

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 7-3

Technical Report (Authority 2018b). Bakersfield Station data are included in the Fresno to

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) and technical reports.

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

greatest amount of total direct and indirect emissions, may be subject to General Conformity

regulations because regional emissions would increase and, as such, have the potential to

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

estimate the amounts of emissions that would be generated during the construction phase

(for comparison with the General Conformity applicability rates) and the potential impacts of

these emissions on local air quality levels. Emissions generated at the construction sites

(e.g., tailpipe emissions from the on-site heavy-duty diesel equipment and fugitive dust

emissions generated by vehicles traveling within the construction sites) and on the area’s

roadways by vehicles traveling to and from these sites (by vehicles transporting materials and

the workers traveling to and from work) were considered.

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

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

pollutants generated during construction were to exceed the General Conformity de minimis

thresholds.

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

These emissions, which are the maximum values for the Action, are described in more detail in

Section 10.0 of this report.
Section 7 Regulatory Procedures

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

7-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 8 Applicability Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 8-1

8 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS

The first step in a General Conformity evaluation is an analysis of whether the requirements apply

to a proposed federal action in a nonattainment or a maintenance area. Unless exempted by the

regulations or otherwise presumed to conform, a federal (non-Transportation) action requires a

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

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

rate.

8.1 Attainment Status of Action Area

USEPA and CARB designate each county (or portions of counties) within California as

attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment based on the area's ability to meet ambient air quality

standards. Regions are designated as attainment for a criteria pollutant when the concentration of

that pollutant is below the ambient air standard. If a criteria pollutant concentration is above the

ambient air standard, the area is in nonattainment for that pollutant. Areas previously designated

as nonattainment that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the ambient air quality

standards are designated as a maintenance area. Table 6 summarizes the federal (under

NAAQS) and state (under CAAQS) attainment status for each of the air basins for which the

Action would be located.

8.1.1 Attainment Status: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

Under the federal criteria, the SJVAPCD is currently designated as nonattainment for 8-hour O3,

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (annual standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]) and

24-hour standard (65 μg/m3), and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 μg/m3). The SJVAPCD is

a maintenance area for PM10, and the Bakersfield urbanized area is a maintenance area for CO.

The SJVAPCD is in attainment for the NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The SJVAB is unclassified for the

lead NAAQS.

Under the state criteria, the SJVAPCD is currently designated as nonattainment for 1-hour O3,

8-hour O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD is an attainment/unclassified area for the state CO

standard and an attainment area for the state NO2, SO2, and lead standards. The SJVAPCD is an

unclassified area for the state hydrogen sulfide standard and visibility-reducing particle standard,

and is classified as an attainment area for sulfates and vinyl chloride (SJVAPCD 2013a).

8.1.2 Attainment Status: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District

Under the federal criteria, the AVAQMD is currently designated as nonattainment for 8-hour O3.

The AVAQMD is an attainment/unclassified area under the NAAQS for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead.

The AVAQMD is unclassified for the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS.

Under the state criteria, the AVAQMD is currently designated as nonattainment for O3 (classified

as extreme nonattainment) and PM10. The AVAQMD is an attainment/unclassified area for state

PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, and lead standards. The AVAQMD is an unclassified area for the state

hydrogen sulfide standard, visibility-reducing particle standard, and particulate sulfate standard

(AVAQMD 2014).

8.1.3 Attainment Status: Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

The EKAPCD is currently designated nonattainment for federal 8-hour O3. The western portion of

the district is currently designated nonattainment for PM10. The EKAPCD is an attainment/

unclassifiable area for the PM2.5, CO, and lead NAAQS. The EKAPCD is unclassified for the

federal NO2 and SO2 standards.

Under the state criteria, the EKAPCD is currently designated as nonattainment for 1-hour O3,

8-hour O3, and PM10. The EKAPCD is in attainment for the state NO2, SO2, and lead standards,

and is an unclassified area for the PM2.5 and CO state standards (EKAPCD 2012).
Section 8 Applicability Analysis

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Table 6 Federal and State Attainment Status

Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

O3: 1-Hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment (Severe)

O3: 8-Hour Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment

PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Nonattainment

PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment

CO Urban portion of Fresno County and Kern County:

Maintenance

Remaining basin: Attainment

Attainment/Unclassified

NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

Lead No Designation/Classification Attainment

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District

O3: 1-Hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment (Extreme)

O3: 8-Hour Nonattainment (Severe) Nonattainment (Extreme)

PM10 Attainment/Unclassified Nonattainment

PM2.5 Attainment/Unclassified Unclassified

CO Attainment Attainment

NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified

SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified

Lead Attainment Attainment

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

O3: 1-Hour No Federal Standard Moderate Nonattainment

O3: 8-Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM10 Attainment/Unclassified (EKAPCD)

Nonattainment (Kern River/Cummings Valleys),

Attainment Maintenance (Indian Wells Valley)

Nonattainment

PM2.5 Attainment/Unclassified Unclassified

CO Attainment/Unclassified Unclassified

NO2 Unclassified Attainment

SO2 Unclassified Attainment

Lead Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2013a; Antelope Valley Air Quality

Management District, 2016; Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, 2012c

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

EKAPCD = Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

NOX = nitrogen oxides SO2 = sulfur dioxide

O3 = ozone
Section 9 Construction Activities Considered

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 9-1

9 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED

As shown in Section 3.3.6.3 of the EIR/EIS, the results of the regional analyses conducted for the

proposed Action demonstrate that emissions generated during the operational phase would be

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

analyses demonstrate that the Action would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS for

these pollutants. As such, no further analysis of the operational period emissions is necessary for

this General Conformity determination. Section 9.0 will focus on the emissions generated from

the construction period emissions for the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project.

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

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

(e.g., motor vehicle traffic effects due to truck trips) construction-phase activities included the

following:

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

concrete and steel construction), including fugitive dust emissions and emissions released

from diesel-powered equipment and trucks based on the hours of operation of each piece of

equipment;

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

construction activity emissions and off-site traffic emissions;

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

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

to the construction areas using traffic data that include construction-related vehicles and

background traffic; and

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

applicable pollutants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

supply materials to each site.

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

the procedures used to estimate emission rates.

A full description of construction analysis methodology can be found in Section 6.9 of the

Bakersfield to Palmdale Section Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report for this

Action (Authority 2018b).

Construction activities associated with proposed Action would result in criteria pollutant and

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Construction emissions for the proposed Action are quantified

and analyzed in Section 3.3.6.3 of the EIR/EIS. The analysis assumed that project construction

would occur from 2018 to 2026. The construction schedule has since been revised. See Section

2.8 in Chapter 2 of the EIR/EIS for additional details on the revised construction schedule.

Although the schedule has been updated, the analysis is still valid as the equipment quantities

and annual emission rates would remain unchanged. While separate projects for purposes of

planning the HSR system, construction of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section would overlap with

the construction period for the Merced to Fresno Project Section and Fresno to Bakersfield

Project Section, thereby adding to the cumulative air quality impacts within the SJVAB. In

addition, construction of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section would overlap with the
Section 9 Construction Activities Considered

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

9-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

construction period for the Palmdale to Burbank Project Section, thereby adding to the cumulative

air quality impacts within the MDAB. The cumulative emissions that could result from potential

concurrent construction activities are presented in Section 13 of the General Conformity Report.

9.1 Site Preparation

9.1.1 Demolition

This analysis assumed that demolition of existing structures along the HSR alignment and near

HSR stations would take place from December 2020 through August 2021. Demolition emissions

were calculated with CalEEMod using the project-specific equipment list. In addition to the fugitive

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

worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust.

9.1.2 Land Grubbing

Land grubbing refers to the site preparation activities for HSR alignment construction. Emissions

from land grubbing were estimated using the OFFROAD 2011 emission factors as well as a sitespecific equipment list. This analysis assumed that land grubbing would take place at four staging

areas from December 2020 to August 2021. Fugitive dust from land-grubbing activities includes

that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust.

9.2 Earth Moving

The earthmoving activities include grading, trenching, and cut/fill activities for the HSR alignment

construction. This analysis assumed that earthmoving would occur at four locations from March

2018 to October 2020. The emissions associated with the earthmoving activities were estimated

using CalEEMod with OFFROAD 2011 emission factors, in conjunction with the site-specific

equipment list. Fugitive dust from land-grubbing activities includes that from worker trips,

construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust.

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

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

that a width of 120 feet would be graded along the entire length of the alignment. This width

accounts for the widest portion of the alignment (four tracks wide) plus a buffer on each side.

Earthwork is the disturbance of soil or earth by any means, including excavation (including

subsurface), tunneling, drilling, infilling, stockpiling, dumping of soil or sand, and construction/

reconstruction of any track, embankment, or drainage channel. Earthwork would be performed in

such a manner as to achieve a balanced condition where the quantity of soil or earthen materials

removed through excavation would be roughly equal to the quantity of material being placed in

embankments. The adjustment of the ratio of excavation to embankment to achieve this balance

would be performed by variations in cut-slope ratios, embankment widths, and embankment

slope ratios during construction as existing ground conditions are revealed. It is intended that cut

material and tunnel spoils would be stored and processed on-site and used as fill materials if

deemed suitable by the site geotechnical engineer. It is not anticipated that any excavated

materials would need to be exported to off-site locations for the B-P Build Alternatives.

9.3 HSR Alignment Construction

This analysis assumed that the HSR alignment construction would occur from 2020 to 2026, and

includes the following construction phases and operation of a concrete batch plant:

• Constructing structures for the elevated rail

• Laying elevated rail and at-grade rail

• Constructing the retaining wall for the retained-fill rail

• Laying retained-fill rail
Section 9 Construction Activities Considered

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 9-3

9.3.1 Rail Type and Alignment Alternatives

The four B-P Build Alternatives differ in total length, location, width, and percentage of at-grade/

elevated/retained fill. Table 3.3-5 of the EIR/EIS summarizes the total length of at-grade rail,

elevated rail, and retained-fill rail for each B-P Build Alternative. The CCNM Design Option would

add 124 feet to the length of each B-P Build Alternative and the Refined CCNM Design Option

would add 2,006 feet to the length of each B-P Build Alternative. Due to rounding, the total length

in miles would not change with the CCNM Design Option. Emissions from construction of the

track were determined using CalEEMod. Equipment counts, horsepower, hours of operation, and

load factors used in CalEEMod are included in the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section Air

Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report (Authority 2018b).

9.3.2 Concrete Batch Plants

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

of the HSR alignment, for construction of the station platform, and for construction of the retaining

wall used to support the retained-fill sections of the alignment. To provide enough concrete

on-site, it is estimated that batch plants would operate in the Action vicinity (i.e., within 0.5 mile)

during construction of the Action. Because the locations of the concrete batch plants are

unknown, fugitive dust emissions associated with the plants were estimated based on the total

amount of concrete required and on emission factors from Chapter 11.12 of AP-42 (USEPA

2006). Emissions from on-road truck trips associated with transporting material to and from the

concrete batch plants were included in materials-hauling emissions calculations.

9.3.3 Material Hauling

Emissions from the exhaust of trucks used to haul materials (including concrete slabs) to the

construction site were calculated using heavy-duty truck emission factors from EMFAC2014 and

anticipated travel distances of haul trucks within the SJVAB and MDAB. Ballast materials could

potentially be hauled by rail within the air basins. Locomotive emission factors from Emission

Factors for Locomotives (USEPA 2009b) and the travel distance by rail to the Action site were

used to estimate rail emissions.

Based on active permitted quarry locations, ballast materials are expected to be available within

the SJVAB and MDAB (California Department of Conservation 2016). Therefore, for the regional

emission analysis, emissions from ballast materials-hauling were calculated using the distance

traveled within the Action air districts. Emissions from ballast materials hauling by trucks and

locomotives outside the Action air districts were estimated based on the travel distances and

transportation method (by rail or by truck) from the locations where ballast materials would be

available. Rail emission factors using the USEPA guidance (USEPA 2009b) were used to

estimate the locomotive emissions. Construction materials would likely be delivered from supply

facilities within the SJVAB and the MDAB.

9.4 Train Station Construction

Emissions from HSR station construction would be the result of mass site grading, building

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

vendor trips, and construction equipment exhaust were included. Paving activities associated with

surface parking lots were included. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that

construction of the Palmdale Station would begin in 20182 and be completed by 2021. CalEEMod

was used to estimate emissions from construction phases of the Palmdale Station.

2 This schedule is presented for analysis purposes only; the resulting data remains valid because the equipment

quantities and annual emission rates would remain unchanged.
Section 9 Construction Activities Considered

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

9-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

9.5 Maintenance Facilities Construction

Emissions associated with construction of the LMF and MOWF are expected as a result of mass

site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. These activities

would occur during maintenance activities.

Fugitive dust from construction of the maintenance-of-way facility includes that from worker trips,

construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust. Emissions from track construction

were estimated using CalEEMod.

9.6 Roadway Crossing Construction

The B-P Build Alternatives would include the relocation and expansion of freeway segments, local

roads, and overpasses, as well as reconstruction of several intersections. Fugitive dust and

exhaust emissions from these construction activities were estimated using the Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emissions Model. Roadway

demolition emissions are included in the CalEEMod analysis using the Action-specific equipment

list.

For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that roadway Action construction would begin in

January 20203 and be completed by June 2022 (a total of 28 months), and that each type of

roadway Action would be constructed independently at staggered intervals during the 28-month

period.

Based on Action-specific data, a simplified construction schedule was used to estimate

construction emissions. The representative Action roadway length for each scenario was

estimated by averaging all anticipated Action roadway lengths within that designated scenario.

3 This schedule is presented for analysis purposes only; the resulting data remains valid because the equipment quantities

and annual emission rates would remain unchanged.
Section 10 Estimated Emissions Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Bakersfield-Palmdale

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 10-1

10 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS – BAKERSFIELD-PALMDALE

Construction activities associated with the HSR alternatives would result in criteria pollutant

emissions. Construction emissions for the four Bakersfield to Palmdale alternatives are quantified

and analyzed in this section.

10.1 Construction Impacts within the SJVAPCD

Total annual estimated emissions generated within the SJVAPCD during the proposed Action’s

construction period, as presented in the HSR EIR/EIS, are provided in Table 7. As shown in the

table, direct emissions from the construction phase of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section

within the SJVAPCD would exceed the GC applicability thresholds for VOC and NOx in certain

calendar years in which construction would take place. The maximum estimated annual values of

each pollutant, by non-attainment or maintenance area, and the percentage of the 2012

estimated emission rates in the SJVAPCD (see Table 3) for the Bakersfield to Palmdale

construction are as follows:

• NOx: 177 tons per year (tpy)(0.15%)

• VOCs: 17 tpy (0.01%)

• PM2.5: 9 tpy (0.03%)

• PM10: 15 tpy (0.02%)

• CO: 90 tpy (0.03%)

Table 7 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the SJVAPCD

Emissions (Tons/Year)

Pollutants 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2023

2023

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2024 2025 2026

Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

Alternative 1

NOx 55* 2 104* 156* 133* 142* 107* 110* 51* 25* 15* 10

VOCs 5 1 11* 16* 14* 14* 11* 11* 7 4 2 10

PM2.5 3 1 5 8 7 7 6 6 3 2 1 100

PM10 4 1 7 13 12 12 11 11 6 2 1 100

CO1 7 1 25 69 68 68 60 60 12 5 3 100

Alternative 2

NOx 0 0 134* 151* 121* 136* 76* 78* 31* 15* 15* 10

VOCs 0 0 13* 15* 13* 13* 8 8 4 2 2 10

PM2.5 0 0 6 8 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 100

PM10 0 0 10 15 13 13 10 10 6 1 1 100

CO1 0 0 29 86 83 84 48 48 7 3 3 100

Alternative 3

NOx 0 0 145* 168* 151* 160* 84* 87* 51* 15* 15* 10

VOCs 0 0 15* 17* 16* 16* 9 9 7 2 2 10

PM2.5 0 0 6 9 8 8 4 4 3 1 1 100

PM10 0 0 8 11 11 11 6 6 4 1 1 100

CO1 0 0 31 90 89 89 22 22 12 3 3 100
Section 10 Estimated Emissions Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Bakersfield-Palmdale

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

10-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Emissions (Tons/Year)

Pollutants 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2023

2023

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2024 2025 2026

Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

Alternative 5

NOx 0 0 155* 177* 161* 170* 128* 131* 50* 32* 13* 10

VOCs 0 0 15* 17* 16* 16* 13* 13* 6 5 2 10

PM2.5 0 0 7 9 8 8 7 7 3 2 1 100

PM10 0 0 10 11 11 11 9 9 4 2 1 100

CO1 0 0 42 90 90 90 85 85 12 7 3 100

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2020

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 Bakersfield urbanized maintenance area only

2 The emissions presented in this table reflect the impact of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, per the California Air

Resource Board’s “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One” issued on November 20, 2019.

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_Final.pdf.

CCNM = César E. Chávez National Monument

CO = carbon monoxide

NOx = nitrogen oxide

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

VOC = volatile organic compound

10.2 Construction Impacts within the EKAPCD

Total annual estimated emissions generated within the EKAPCD during the proposed Action’s

construction period, as presented in the HSR EIR/EIS, are provided in Table 8. As shown in the

table, construction emissions for Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section within the EKAPCD

would exceed the GC applicability thresholds for NOx in some construction years. The maximum

estimated annual values of each pollutant, by non-attainment or maintenance area, and the

percentage of the 2012 estimated emission rates in the EKAPCD (see Table 4) for the

Bakersfield to Palmdale construction are as follows:

• NOx: 279 tpy (2.14%)

• VOCs: 27 tpy (0.70%)

• PM2.5: 14 tpy (0.57%)

• PM10: 22 tpy (0.38%)

• CO: 540 tpy (2.591%)

Table 8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the EKAPCD

Emissions (Tons/Year)

Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

Pollutants 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (tons/year)

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2023

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2024 2025 2026

Alternative 1

NOx 33 60* 172* 207* 177* 213* 121* 131* 56* 32 20 50

VOCs 3 6 17 20 18 18 15 16 7 5 3 50

PM2.5 2 3 8 11 10 10 9 9 3 2 1 N/A

PM10 4 5 13 18 16 16 15 15 7 2 1 70
Section 10 Estimated Emissions Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Bakersfield-Palmdale

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 10-3

Emissions (Tons/Year)

Pollutants 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2023

2022

with

Refined

CCNM

Option 2024 2025 2026

Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

CO 18 35 161 392 381 384 346 346 155 29 17 N/A

Alternative 2

NOx 0 0 152* 254* 185* 222* 114* 124* 33 20 20 50

VOCs 0 0 15 25 19 19 12 12 4 2 2 50

PM2.5 0 0 7 13 10 10 7 7 3 1 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 14 22 18 18 14 14 7 1 1 70

CO 0 0 149 521 486 489 287 288 33 16 16 N/A

Alternative 3

NOx 0 0 184* 277* 233* 269* 132* 142* 57* 20 20 50

VOCs 0 0 17 27 24 24 13 13 7 3 2 50

PM2.5 0 0 7 13 12 12 7 7 3 1 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 10 17 16 16 10 10 5 1 1 70

CO 0 0 161 534 521 524 137 138 57 17 17 N/A

Alternative 5

NOx 0 0 187* 279* 232* 268* 183* 193* 54* 41 17 50

VOCs 0 0 18 27 24 24 19 19 7 6 2 50

PM2.5 0 0 9 14 12 12 10 10 3 3 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 12 18 15 15 12 12 4 3 1 70

CO 0 0 127 540 522 525 491 492 54 37 14 N/A

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2020

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 The emissions presented in this table reflect the impact of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, per the California Air

Resource Board’s “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One” issued on November 20, 2019.

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_Final.pdf.

CCNM = César E. Chávez National Monument

CO = carbon monoxide

NOx = nitrogen oxide

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

VOC = volatile organic compound

10.3 Construction Impacts within the AVAQMD

Total annual estimated emissions generated within the AVAQMD during the proposed Action’s

construction period, as presented in the HSR EIR/EIS, are provided in Table 9. As shown in the

table, emissions from the construction phase of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section within

the AVAQMD would exceed the GC applicability thresholds for NOx in certain construction years.

The maximum estimated annual values of each pollutant, by non-attainment or maintenance

area, and the percent of the 2012 estimated emission rates in the AVAQMD (see Table 5) for the

Bakersfield to Palmdale construction are as follows:

• NOx: 177 tpy (2.70%)

• VOCs: 17 tpy (0.29%)

• PM2.5: 9 tpy (0.43%)

• PM10: 11 tpy (0.12%)

• CO: 380 tpy (1.80%)
Section 10 Estimated Emissions Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Bakersfield-Palmdale

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

10-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Table 9 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the AVAQMD

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

Pollutants 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 (tons/year)

Alternative 1

NOx 0 12 69* 72* 63* 50* 17 12 10 25

VOCs 0 2 7 7 6 5 2 2 1 25

PM2.5 0 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 N/A

PM10 0 1 5 5 4 4 2 2 1 N/A

CO 0 7 68 175 169 150 17 11 8 N/A

Alternative 2

NOx 0 0 95* 132* 122* 81* 56* 38* 10 25

VOCs 0 0 9 12 12 9 7 5 1 25

PM2.5 0 0 4 6 6 4 3 2 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 6 8 7 5 4 3 1 N/A

CO 0 0 96 132 122 81 56 38 10 N/A

Alternative 3

NOx 0 0 46* 84* 88* 35* 17 10 10 25

VOCs 0 0 3 8 9 3 2 1 1 25

PM2.5 0 0 2 4 5 1 1 1 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 3 6 6 2 1 1 1 N/A

CO 0 0 53 232 239 39 17 8 8 N/A

Alternative 5

NOx 0 0 155* 177* 161* 128* 50* 32* 13 25

VOCs 0 0 16 17 16 13 6 5 2 25

PM2.5 0 0 7 9 8 7 3 1 1 N/A

PM10 0 0 10 11 11 9 4 1 1 N/A

CO 0 0 177 380 378 357 50 29 11 N/A

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2020

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 The emissions presented in this table reflect the impact of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, per the California Air

Resource Board’s “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One” issued on November 20, 2019.

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_Final.pdf.

CCNM = César E. Chávez National Monument

CO = carbon monoxide

NOx = nitrogen oxide

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

VOC = volatile organic compound
Section 11 Regional Effects

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 11-1

11 REGIONAL EFFECTS

As shown in Section 3.3-6.3 of the EIR/EIS, the total regional emissions for all of the applicable

pollutants are lower during the operations phase of the Action than under No-Build conditions

(and will therefore not exceed the de minimis emission thresholds). As such, only emissions

generated during the construction phase were compared to the conformity threshold levels to

determine conformity compliance. Based on the results shown in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9,

regional construction-phase emissions, compared to the General Conformity applicability rates,

are summarized below.

11.1 Construction Impacts within the SJVAPCD

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

years 2020 through 2023 for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 5 and in years 2020

through 2022 for Alternative 3.

• Annual estimated CO emissions are less than the applicability rate of 100 tons per year in all

years for all Action Alternatives.

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

years 2018 and 2020 through 2026 for Alternative 1, and 2020 through 2026 for Alternative 2,

Alternative 3, and Alternative 5.

• Annual estimated PM10 emissions are less than the applicability rate of 100 tons per year in

all years for all Action Alternatives.

• Annual estimated PM2.5 emissions are less than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year in all

years for all Action Alternatives.

• There are no applicable thresholds for SO2 annual emissions.

11.2 Construction Impacts within the EKAPCD

• Annual estimated VOC emissions are less than the applicability rate of 50 tons per year in all

years for all Action Alternatives.

• Annual estimated NOx emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 50 tons per year in

years 2019 through 2025 for Alternative 1 and in years 2020 through 2024 for Alternative 2,

Alternative 3, and Alternative 5.

• Annual estimated PM10 emissions are less than the applicability rate of 70 tons per year in all

years for all Action Alternatives.

• There are no applicable thresholds for CO, SO2, and PM2.5 annual emissions.

11.3 Construction Impacts within the AVAQMD

• Annual estimated VOC emissions are less than the applicability rate of 25 tons per year in all

years for all Action Alternatives.

• Annual estimated NOx emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 25 tons per year in

years 2020 through 2023 for Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 and in years 2020 through 2025

for Alternative 2 and Alternative 5.

• There are no applicable thresholds for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 annual emissions.

As such, a General Conformity Determination is required for this Action for VOC, and NOx for the

years during construction where the emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds and do

not meet any of the exceptions cited in 40 C.F.R. § 93.154(c). This Final Conformity

Determination identified the Authority’s commitment to reduce VOC and NOx emissions through

emissions offsets using a VERA with the SJVAPCD, the Air Quality Investment Program with the

AVAQMD, and the Emission Banking Certificate Program in the EKAPCD, explained in Section

12.2 below.
Section 11 Regional Effects

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

11-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 12-1

12 GENERAL CONFORMITY EVALUATION

For federal actions subject to a General Conformity evaluation, the regulations delineate several

ways an agency can demonstrate conformity (40 C.F.R. § 93.158). This section summarizes the

findings that were used to make the determination for the Action.

12.1 Conformity Requirements of Proposed Action

Based on the results shown in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9, conformity determinations are

required for construction-phase emissions for:

• VOC—Because annual estimated emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 10 tons

per year in years 2020 through 2023 for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 5 and in

years 2020 through 2022 for Alternative 3 in the SJVAPCD

• NOx—Because annual estimated emissions are greater than the applicability rate of 10 tons

per year in years 2018 and 2020 through 2026 for Alternative 1, and 2020 through 2026 for

Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 5 in the SJVAPCD; greater than the applicability

rate of 50 tons per year in years 2019 through 2025 for Alternative 1 and in years 2020

through 2024 for Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 5 in the EKAPCD; and greater

than the applicability rate of 25 tons per year in years 2020 through 2023 for Alternative 1 and

Alternative 3 and in years 2020 through 2025 for Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 in the

AVAQMD

12.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements

To support this General Conformity Determination, the FRA demonstrates herein that the VOC

and NOx emissions caused by the construction of the proposed Action will not result in an

increase in regional VOC and NOx emissions. This will be achieved by offsetting the VOC and

NOx emissions generated by construction of the HSR in a manner consistent with the General

Conformity regulations.

The offsets are anticipated to be accomplished through a VERA between the Authority and the

SJVAPCD, the Air Quality Investment Program with the AVAQMD, and the Emission Banking

Certificate Program in the EKAPCD. The requirements for the VERA, the Air Quality Investment

Program, and the Emission Banking Certificate Program would be implemented as part of the

Action as described in the mitigation measure from the EIR/EIS:

AQ-MM#1: Offset Project Construction Emissions through Off-Site Emission Reduction

Programs

In 2014, the Authority and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) entered into

a contractual agreement through a Memorandum of Understanding and a Voluntary Emission

Reduction Agreement (VERA). The VERA mitigates (by offsetting) to net zero the project’s actual

emissions from construction equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions of volatile organic

compound (VOC), NOX, particulate matter (PM10), and PM2.5. The agreement will provide funds

for the SJVAPCD’s Emission Reduction Incentive Program (SJVAPCD 2011) to fund grants for

projects that achieve emission reductions, with preference given to highly affected communities,

thus offsetting project-related impacts on air quality. To lower overall cost, funding for the VERA

program to cover estimated construction emissions for any funded construction phase will be

provided at the beginning of the construction phase. At a minimum, mitigation/offsets will occur in

the year of impact, or as otherwise permitted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 93

Section 93.163.

The Authority shall also enter into an agreement with the Antelope Valley Air Quality

Management District (AVAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) to

mitigate (by offsetting) to net zero the project’s actual emissions from construction equipment and

vehicle exhaust emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. In the AVAQMD, the Authority shall

participate in the Air Quality Investment Program, which funds stationary- and mobile-source
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

12-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

emission reduction strategies. In the EKAPCD, the Authority shall provide an application for the

Emission Banking Certificate Program.

12.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP

The general conformity regulations state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rule, a

federal action may not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions

from the federal action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and

milestones in the applicable SIP (40 C.F.R. § 93.158(c)). This includes but is not limited to such

issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions specified in the attainment or

maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission limits, and work practice standards.

This section briefly addresses how the construction emissions for the Action were assessed for

SIP consistency for this evaluation.

12.3.1 Applicable Requirements from USEPA

The USEPA has already promulgated requirements to support the goals of the Clean Air Act with

respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions

from significant new sources, including emission standards for major stationary point sources and

classes of mobile sources as well as permitting requirements for new major stationary point

sources. Since states have the primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of

requirements under the Clean Air Act and can impose stricter limitations than the USEPA, the

USEPA requirements often serve as guidance to the states in formulating their air quality

management strategies.

12.3.2 Applicable Requirements from CARB

In California, to support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, CARB is primarily

responsible for regulating emissions from mobile sources. In fact, the USEPA has delegated

authority to the CARB to establish emission standards for on-road and some non-road vehicles

separate from the USEPA vehicle emission standards, although the CARB is preempted by the

Clean Air Act from regulating emissions from many non-road mobile sources, including marine

craft. Emission standards for preempted equipment can only be set by the USEPA.

12.3.3 Applicable Requirements from SJVAPCD

To support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the SJVAB, the SJVAPCD is

primarily responsible for regulating emissions from stationary sources. As noted above,

SJVAPCD develops and updates its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) regularly to support

the California SIP. While the AQMP contains rules and regulations geared to attain and maintain

the NAAQS, these rules and regulations also have the much more difficult goal of attaining and

maintaining the California ambient air quality standards.

12.3.4 Applicable Requirements from EKAPCD

On July 27, 2017, the EKAPCD adopted the 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan for the East Kern

County nonattainment area. The Plan demonstrates that the air quality improvement was

achieved due to successful implementation of ozone control strategies contained in the region’s

SIP. It also demonstrates that significant ozone precursor emission reductions that have been

impacted in the region are permanent and enforceable. A maintenance plan is also included to

ensure that the region would not experience exceedance. The Plan requests a redesignation in

accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act (EKAPCD 2017).

12.3.5 Applicable Requirements from AVAQMD

Under CEQA, the AVAQMD is a commenting agency on air quality within its jurisdiction. The

CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, released in 2011, are intended to assist persons

preparing environmental analysis or review documents for any project within the jurisdiction of the

District by providing background information and guidance on the preferred analysis approach.

The guidelines include annual and daily GHG emission thresholds of significance for projectgenerated GHGs and criteria pollutants within the jurisdiction of the AVAQMD (AVAQMD 2011).
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 12-3

12.3.6 Consistency with Applicable Requirements for the Authority

The Authority already complies with, and will continue to comply with, a myriad of rules and

regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to protect

and enhance ambient air quality in the SJVAB and MDAB.

In particular, due to the long persistence of challenges to attain the ambient air quality standards

in the SJVAB and MDAB, the rules and regulations promulgated by CARB and SJVAPCD are

among the most stringent in the U.S.

The Authority will continue to comply with all existing applicable air quality regulatory

requirements for activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely manner all

regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future.

These are appropriate USEPA, CARB, and SJVAPCD rules that are standard practice and BMPs

for construction in the SJVAPCD and include control of emissions, exhaust---such as:

• SJVAPCD Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source Review: Rule 2201 applies to

new or modified stationary sources and requires that sources not increase emissions above

the specified thresholds. If the post-Action stationary source has the potential to emit equal

emissions or exceed the offset threshold levels, offsets will be required (SJVAPCD 2006).

Stationary sources at the station (such as natural gas heaters) would need to be permitted by

the SJVAPCD and would have to comply with best available control technology requirements.

Stationary sources such as exterior washing, welding, material storage, cleaning solvents,

abrasive blasting, painting, oil/water separation, and wastewater treatment and combustion

would require permits. Permits would need to be obtained for equipment associated with

these activities from the SJVAPCD and would need to comply with best available control

technology requirements.

• SJVAPCD Rule 2280, Portable Equipment Registration requires portable equipment used at

project sites for less than 6 consecutive months must be registered with SJVAPCD. The

district will issue the registrations 30 days after the receipt of the application (SJVAPCD

1996).

• SJVAPCD Rule 2303, Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits: The Action may qualify for

SJVAPCD vehicle emission reduction credits if it meets the specific requirements of Rule

2303 for any of the following categories (SJVAPCD 1994):

− Zero-Emission Transit Buses

− Zero-Emission Vehicles.

− Retrofit Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles.

− Retrofit Heavy-Duty Vehicles

• SJVAPCD Rule 4201 and Rule 4202, Particulate Matter Concentration and Emission Rates

apply to operations that emit or may emit dust, fumes, or total suspended particulate matter.

Particulate emissions from the Action must be less than the specified emissions limit

(SJVAPCD 1992a, 1992b).

• SJVAPCD Rule 4301, Fuel Burning Equipment limits the emissions from fuel-burning

equipment whose primary purpose is to produce heat or power by indirect heat transfer. The

Action will comply with the emission limits (SJVAPCD 1992c).

• Fugitive dust regulations are applicable to outdoor fugitive dust sources. Operations,

including construction operations, must control fugitive dust emissions in accordance with

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (SJVAPCD 2004). According to Rule 8011, the SJVAPCD requires

the implementation of control measures for fugitive dust emission sources. The Action would

also implement the mandatory control measures listed on pages 77 and 78 of the Guide for

Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) to reduce fugitive

dust emissions. These measures are not considered mitigation measures because they are

required by the regulation.
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

12-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Many of the control measures required by the SJVAPCD are the same or similar to the

control measures listed in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. The SJVAPCD Rule 8011

requirements are listed below:

− All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively used for

construction purposes, will be effectively stabilized for dust emissions using water or a

chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or

vegetative ground cover.

− All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved access roads will be effectively stabilized

for dust emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

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

demolition activities will be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions by utilizing an

application of water or by presoaking.

− With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the

building will be wetted during demolition.

− All materials transported offsite will be covered or effectively wetted to limit visible dust

emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container will be

maintained.

− All operations will limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from

adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is

expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit

the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

− Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of

outdoor storage piles, piles will be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing

sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

− Within urban areas, trackout will be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more

feet from the site and at the end of each workday.

− Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will prevent carryout and trackout.

For projects in which construction related activities would disturb equal to or greater than one

acre of surface area, the District recommends a demonstration of receipt of a District

approved Dust Control Plan or Construction Notification form, before issuance of the first

grading permit, be made a condition of approval.

• SJVAPCD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review: In December 2005, the SJVAPCD adopted

the Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510) to meet the SJVAPCD’s emission reduction

commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans (SJVAPCD 2005). Indirect Source

Review regulation applies to any transportation project in which construction emissions equal

or exceed two tons of NOx or PM10 per year. Construction of the HSR alignment (specifically,

onsite off-road construction exhaust emissions) would be subject to Indirect Source Review.

Accordingly, the Authority would have to submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application

to the SJVAPCD with commitments to reduce construction exhaust NOx and PM10 emissions

by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Operation of the HSR would be exempt under

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of Rule 9510.

• SJVAPCD CEQA Guidelines: The SJVAPCD prepared the GAMAQI to assist lead agencies

and project applicants in evaluating the potential air quality impacts of projects in the SJVAB

(SJVAPCD 2015). The GAMAQI provides SJVAPCD-recommended procedures for

evaluating potential air quality impacts during the CEQA environmental review process. The

GAMAQI provides guidance on evaluating short-term (construction) and long-term

(operational) air emissions (Appendix F). The most recent version of the GAMAQI was

adopted March 2015 and was used in this evaluation and contains guidance on the following:
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 12-5

− Criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse

air quality impact.

− Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing air quality

impacts.

− Methods to mitigate air quality impacts.

− Information for use in air quality assessments and environmental documents that will be

updated more frequently, such as air quality data, regulatory setting, climate, and

topography.

• EKAPCD Rule 402, Fugitive Dust: The purpose of Rule 402 is to prevent, reduce, and

mitigate ambient concentrations of anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions to an amount

sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS and CAAQS. Controlling fugitive dust when

visible emissions are detected may not prevent all PM10 emissions, but will substantially

reduce ambient concentrations (EKAPCD 2014).

• EKAPCD CEQA Guidelines: The EKAPCD adopted the Guidelines for Implementation of the

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, As Amended, in 1996 (EKAPCD 2012b). The

guidelines include thresholds for criteria air pollutants and guidance on implementation of

mitigation measures.

• AVAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust: The provisions of this rule include actions to prevent,

reduce or mitigate fugitive dust particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of

man-made sources. The rule limits actions that would result in a source of dust that causes

20 percent opacity or greater during an observation of three minutes or more in any one hour.

It also limits PM10 concentrations to under 50 micrograms per cubic meter.

• AVAQMD Rule 109, Recordkeeping for VOC Emissions: The provisions of this rule shall

apply to an owner or operator of a stationary source within the District conducting operations,

which include the use of adhesives, coatings, solvents, and/or graphic arts materials, when

records are required to determine a District rule's applicability or source's exemption from a

rule, rule compliance, or specifically as a Permit to Operate or Permit to Construct condition

(AVAQMD 2010).
Section 12 General Conformity Evaluation

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

12-6 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 13 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Cumulative Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 13-1

13 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS – CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

The study area for cumulative air quality impacts is the SJVAB and the MDAB. While separate

projects for purposes of planning the HSR System, construction of the Bakersfield to Palmdale

Section would overlap with the construction period for the Merced to Fresno Section and Fresno

to Bakersfield Section, thereby adding to the cumulative air quality impacts within the SJVAB. In

addition, construction of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section would overlap with the construction

period for the Palmdale to Burbank Section, thereby adding to the cumulative air quality impacts

within the MDAB.

For purposes of full disclosure of the potential impacts, the cumulative emissions that could result

from potential concurrent construction activities are presented here. As the analysis

demonstrates, even where concurrent construction will take place, there would be no new

pollutants exceeding the de minimis thresholds. In addition, construction period emissions would

be offset as a result of the VERA between the Authority and the SJVAPCD, the Air Quality

Investment Program with the AVAQMD, and the Emission Banking Certificate Program in the

EKAPCD.

The total annual estimated emissions generated within the SJVAB during construction of the

Merced to Fresno Section are provided in Table 10 and the total annual estimated emissions

generated within the SJVAB during construction of the Merced to Fresno Section are provided in

Table 11. The total annual estimated emissions generated within the SJVAB during the

construction of the combined Merced to Palmdale sections (Merced to Fresno, Fresno to

Bakersfield, plus Bakersfield to Palmdale) are provided in Table 12. As shown in this table, the

combined annual construction emissions of the three sections would exceed the thresholds for

NOx in the years 2014 through 2026, VOCs in the years 2014 through 2023, and PM10 in the year

2015.

These values are the peak on-site emissions during each analysis year plus maximum annual offsite emissions. The maximum estimated annual values of each pollutant, by non-attainment or

maintenance area, and the percent of the 2012 estimated emission rates in the SJVAB (see

Table 3) for the combined (Merced to Palmdale) construction are as follows:

• NOx: 928 tpy (0.78%)

• VOCs: 54 tpy (0.04%)

• PM2.5: 42 tpy (0.15%)

• PM10: 84 tpy (0.08%)

• CO: 99 tpy (0.03%)

For the Merced to Fresno segment of the HSR system, construction emission rates were

estimated in the EIR/EIS for each of the six alternatives/options previously under consideration

for the Merced to Fresno Section. However, only those values associated with the Preferred

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

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

emissions. If the Avenue 24 wye option is selected, the estimated emission rates will be lower

than those presented in this determination.

Portions of the San Jose to Merced and Sacramento to Merced sections of the HSR would also

be constructed within the SJVAB. It is possible that the schedule for construction of these

sections could overlap with construction of the Merced to Fresno, Fresno to Bakersfield, and

Bakersfield to Palmdale sections, contributing to the cumulative annual emissions totals of HSR

construction in the SJVAB. Portions of the Palmdale to Burbank sections of the HSR would also

be constructed within the MDAB. It is possible that the schedule for construction of this section

could overlap with construction of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section, contributing to the

cumulative annual emissions totals of HSR construction in the MDAB.
Section 13 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Cumulative Analysis

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

13-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

Table 10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Merced to Fresno Section

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

NOx 169* 110* 115* 32* 13* 49* 15* 7 4 0 0 0 10

VOCs 15* 11* 8 2 2 11* 2 1 5 0 0 0 10

PM2.5 8 6 4 2 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 100

PM10 13 9 6 4 1 6 2 1 9 0 0 0 100

CO1 29 22 11 4 2 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 100

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2014

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 Fresno urbanized maintenance area only

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

NOx = nitrogen oxide VOC = volatile organic compound

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

Table 11 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

NOx 622* 818* 549* 161* 71* 4 2 80* 1 0 0 0 10

VOCs 24* 43* 34* 9 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10

PM2.51 20 36 29 12 10 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 100

PM10 51 75* 62 16 15 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 100

CO: Fresno1 31 75 66 12 4 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 100

CO:

Bakersfield1

30 65 58 15 4 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 100

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2014

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized maintenance areas only

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

NOx = nitrogen oxide VOC = volatile organic compound

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
Section 13 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Cumulative Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 13-3

Table 12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for the Merced to Palmdale Section

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year)

NOx 791* 928* 664* 193* 139* 113* 204* 366* 274* 193* 57* 41* 20* 10

VOCs 39* 54* 42* 11* 11* 17* 20* 32* 29* 19* 7 6 2 10

PM2.5 28 42 33 14 14 13 10 16 14 10 3 3 1 100

PM10 64 84* 68 20 20 20 19 27 27 15 7 3 1 100

CO:

Fresno1

60 97 78 16 6 6 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 100

CO:

Bakersfield1

30 65 58 15 11 2 44 99 90 85 12 7 3 100

Sources: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2014, 2020

Values marked with an asterisk (*) exceed applicability thresholds

1 Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized maintenance areas only

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

NOx = nitrogen oxide VOC = volatile organic compound

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
Section 13 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis

Thresholds – Cumulative Analysis

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

13-4 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 14 Reporting and Public Comments

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 14-1

14 REPORTING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

To support a decision concerning the Federal Action, the FRA issued a Draft General Conformity

Determination for public and agency review for a 30-day period as required by 40

C.F.R §§93.155 and 93.156. In developing the analysis underlying this general conformity

determination, the Authority has consulted with the SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD on a

variety of technical and modeling issues. The Authority has also consulted with USEPA and

CARB on the overall approach to general conformity.

14.1 Availability of Final General Conformity Determination

FRA will provide copies of this Final General Conformity Determination to the appropriate regional

offices of USEPA, CARB, SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD. The Final General Conformity 

Determination is available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FRA-2021-0046, and on 

FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/clean-air-actcalifornia-general-conformity-determinations.
Section 14 Reporting and Public Comments

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

14-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 15 Findings and Conclusions

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 15-1

15 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

As part of the environmental review of the proposed Action, FRA conducted a General Conformity

evaluation pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 93 Subpart B. The General Conformity regulations apply at

this time to this Federal Action because the Action is located in an area that is designated as an

extreme nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for PM2.5, and a

(partial) maintenance area for PM10 and CO. The FRA conducted the General Conformity

evaluation following all regulatory criteria and procedures and in coordination with USEPA,

SJVPCD, EKAPCD, AVAQMD, and CARB. As a result of this review, the FRA concluded, based

on the fact that Action-generated emissions will either be fully offset (for construction phase) or

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

accommodated in the SIP for the SJVAB. FRA has determined that the proposed Action as

designed will conform to the approved SIP, based on:

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

offset consistent with the applicable federal regulations through a VERA with the SJVAPCD,

the Air Quality Investment Program in the AVAQMD, and the Emission Banking Certificate

Program in the EKAPCD.

• The SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD will seek and implement the necessary emission

reduction measures, using Authority funds.

• The SJVAPCD, EKAPCD, and AVAQMD will serve in the role of administrator of the

emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort.

Therefore, FRA concludes that the proposed Action, as designed, conforms to thepurpose of the

approved SIP and is consistent with all applicable requirements.
Section 15 Findings and Conclusions

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

15-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Section 16 References

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 16-1

16 REFERENCES

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD). 2004. 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan.

April 20, 2004.

———. 2008. Western Mojave Desert Ozone Attainment Plan. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/

planarea/mojavesedsip.htm (accessed May 14, 2015).

———. 2010. AVAQMD Rule 109 – Recordkeeping for VOC Emissions. April 20, 2010.

www.avaqmd.ca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=906 (accessed June 4,

2015).

———. 2011. CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines. www.avaqmd.ca.gov/Modules/

ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2908 (accessed April 2015).

———. 2014. Attainment Status: AVAQMD Designations and Classifications.

www.avaqmd.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=289 (accessed May 2015).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004. California State Implementation Plan (SIP): 2004

Revisions to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. July 2004.

———. 2015. California Air Basins. www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/basin/basin.swf (accessed May

14, 2015).

———. 2020. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics Top 4 Summary. Website:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed January 2020).

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). 2018a. Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section:

Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report. January 2018.

———. 2018b. Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section Final Air Quality and Global Climate

Change Technical Report.

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

2014. Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental

Impact Statement.

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD). 2012a. Attainment Status. July 31.

www.kernair.org/Documents/EKAPCD%20Attainment%20Info%207-31-12.pdf (accessed

May 14, 2015).

———. 2012b. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

of 1970, As Amended. Amended July 8, 2012. www.kernair.org/Documents/CEQA/

CEQA_Guidelines%20&%20Charts.pdf (accessed October 2016).

———. 2014. Rule 402 Fugitive Dust. September 10, 2014. www.kernair.org/Documents/Rules/

Rules%20Sept%202014/402%20Fugitive%20Dust%20Staff%20Report%209-10-14.pdf

(accessed June 4, 2014).

———. 2017. 2017 Ozone Attainment Plan For 2008 Federal 75 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

July 27. www.kernair.org/Documents/Announcements/Attainment/2017%20Ozone%

20Plan_EKAPCD_Adopted_7-27-17.pdf (accessed June 2019).

Federal Railroad Administration and State of California, 2019. Memorandum of Understanding

between the Federal Railroad Administration and the State of California Acting Through

Its California State Transportation Agency and Its California High-Speed Rail Authority,

for the State of California’s Participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery

Program Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. July 23.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 1992a. Rule 4201 Particulate Matter

Concentration. Amended December 17, 1992.

———. 1992b. Rule 4202 Particulate Matter – Emission Rate. Amended December 17, 1992.

———. 1992c. Rule 4301 Fuel Burning Equipment. Amended December 17, 1992.
Section 16 References

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

16-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

———. 1994. Rule 2303 Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits. Adopted May 19, 1994.

———. 1996. Rule 2280 Portable Equipment Registration. Amended May 16, 1996.

———. 2004. 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan: San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin Plan Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour Ozone Standards. October 2004.

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2004.htm (accessed

May 14, 2015).

———. 2005. Rule 95410 Indirect Source Review. Adopted December 15, 2005.

———. 2006. Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule. Amended

September 21, 2006.

———. 2007a. 2007 Ozone Plan. April 2007. www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_

Adopted_Ozone2007.htm (accessed May 14, 2015).

———. 2007b. PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. September 30, 2007

———. 2009. District Policy-Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects

Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-

17-09/2%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-

%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf (accessed April 2015).

———. 2011. Frequently Asked Questions. www.valleyair.org/General_info/Frequently_

Asked_Questions.htm#About%20The%20Air%20Pollution%20Problem (accessed

May 24, 2011).

———. 2013a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. www.valleyair.org/

aqinfo/attainment.htm (accessed May 14, 2015).

———. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015.

www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf (accessed June 9, 2015).

———. 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. November 15, 2018.

http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-

2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf (accessed June 2019).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).1994. General Conformity Guidance: Questions

and Answers. July 13, 1994. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2016-03/documents/gcgqa_940713.pdf (accessed April 4, 2017).

———. 2006. Emission Factors & AP 42. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ (accessed July

2016).

———. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. April 2009. https://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/

locomotv/420f09025.pdf (accessed July 2016).

———. 2010. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 209, Friday, October 30, 2009, 40 C.F.R. Parts 86,

87, 89 et al. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-30/pdf/E9-23315.pdf (accessed July 2016).

———. 2020. Outdoor Air Quality Data Monitor Values Report. Website: https://www.epa.gov/

outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report (accessed January 2020).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2011. Historical Climate Information, Bakersfield, California,

Normals, Means, and Extremes. www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/lcd.html (accessed May 14,

2015).
Section 17 Preparer Qualifications

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | 17-1

17 PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS

Amy Fischer, Senior Air Quality Scientist, Ms. Fischer has a B.S. in Environmental Policy

Analysis from the University of Nevada, Reno. With 20 years of experience, Amy Fischer serves

as a senior air quality and greenhouse gas emissions specialist qualified to conduct analyses for

a variety of infrastructure projects. Ms. Fischer is the technical lead on air quality and climate

change impact analyses documents and oversees the research, and preparation of technical

reports. She is skilled in air quality assessment models including: The California Emissions

Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Emission Factor models (EMFAC/OFFROAD), Road Construction

Estimator Model (RoadMod) and Line Dispersion Models (CALINE).

Tin Cheung, Senior Air Quality Scientist, Mr. Cheung graduated with a bachelor’s degree in

Environmental Studies and Geography from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He is a

Senior Air Quality Scientist with 23 years of experience in the preparation of air quality and noise

studies. He has worked on a multitude of small and large projects and is extremely proficient in

quantitative computer models which include USEPA’s AERMOD air pollutant dispersion model,

the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), CARB’s EMFAC emission factor model,

SMAQMD’s Road Construction Emissions Model, Caline4 roadway air pollutant dispersion model

and numerous other air quality and noise models.

Matthew Long, MESc, MPP, Senior Environmental Scientist, prepared the greenhouse gas

analyses for this project. Matthew holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Science from the

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from

the Luskin School of Public Affairs at UCLA. He also has over 9 years of professional consulting

experience providing CEQA/NEPA analysis for large infrastructure projects, including electrical

transmission projects, flood control projects, and commercial-scale renewable energy

development projects. Recently, Mr. Long provided management support and revised the

Geology and Soils and Noise analyses for the BLM’s LUPA and Final EIS for the Desert

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

Cara Carlucci, Planner, Ms. Carlucci holds a B.S. in City & Regional Planning with a minor in

Real Property Development from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. At

LSA, she provides planning and technical assistance to project managers on a variety of planning

and environmental documents including environmental assessments, initial studies, and environmental impact reports. She has contributed to the CEQA air quality analysis for residential,

commercial, and infrastructure projects, as well as stand-alone air quality impact studies.
Section 17 Preparer Qualifications

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

17-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A Final General Conformity Determination Comments and Responses

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021

Final General Conformity Determination Page | A-1

APPENDIX A: FINAL GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Appendix A Final General Conformity Determination Comments and Responses

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

A-2 | Page Final General Conformity Determination

This page intentionally left blank
An official website of the United States Government. 

Welcome to the new Regulations.gov. Check out the latest video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 290 -

jouzwDc). 

Docket (/docket/FRA-2021-0046) / Document (FRA-2021-0046-0002) (/document/FRA-2021-0046-0002) 

I Comment 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

Share ,.. J 

Comment 

Have you considered testing the soil that you disturb for the presence of Coccidioides immitis, the Valley 

fever fungus? Graded soil left behind after construction is completed bears a risk for the public to contract 

coccidioidomycosis when fugitive dust emerges from these sites during the dry season or when the trains 

rush by. We have seen the spike in Valley fever incidence in the Lancaster area (Northern Los Angeles 

County), after numerous large scale solar plants were built, and the soil was left bare of any protection. 

Bakersfield is in the highly endemic area of the pathogen. Just educating the workers about the risk of 

contracting Valley fever (as required by law) and moistening the soil during construction is only a short term 

strategy to reduce the risk of contracting coccidioidomycosis on site during the construction process. Dust 

emerging from these disturbed sites can be carried by the wind to places far away and poses a risk for the 

general public living close by and further away that should not be underestimated. There are labs that 

perform soil testing for Coccidioides. If the pathogen is detected, the soil should be revegetated to reduce 

the risk of dust emerging from these sites. You can contact me if you like to learn more. 

Thanks for reading my comment. 

Sincerely, 

Antje Lauer (Professor and Microbiologist, CSU Bakersfield) 

Attachments 1 

PlosOne 2014 Valley fever 

Comment from Antje Lauer 

Posted by the Federal Railroad Administration on May 21, 2021 
Download (https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2021-0046-0003/attachment_ 1.pdf) -

Comment ID 

FRA-2021-0046-0003 

Tracking Number

koo-I81w-0rnu 

Comment Details 

Document Subtype 

Comment(s) 

Received Date 

May 14, 2021 

Submitter Info 

About Agencies Learn 

(/about) (/agencies) (/learn) 

Reports FAQ 

(https://resources.regulations.gov/public/component/main?main = Reports) (/faq) 

Privacy & Security Notice (/privacy-notice) I User Notice (/user-notice) I 

Accessibility Statement (/accessibility) I Developers (https://open.gsa.gov/api/regulationsgov/) 

Support (/support) Provide Site Feedback 
Combining Forces - The Use of Landsat TM Satellite

Imagery, Soil Parameter Information, and Multiplex PCR

to Detect Coccidioides immitis Growth Sites in Kern

County, California

Antje Lauer1*, Jorge Talamantes2, Laura Rosı ́o Castan ̃o ́n Olivares3, Luis Jaime Medina2,

Joe Daryl Hugo Baal1

, Kayla Casimiro1, Natasha Shroff1, Kirt W. Emery4

1 Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield, California, United States of America, 2Department of Physics & Engineering, California State University,

Bakersfield, California, United States of America, 3 Laboratorio de Micologı ́a Me ́dica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Auto ́noma de Me ́xico, Mexico City,

Mexico, 4 County of Kern Public Health Services Department, Bakersfield, California, United States of America

Abstract

Coccidioidomycosis is a fungal disease acquired through the inhalation of spores of Coccidioides spp., which afflicts primarily

humans and other mammals. It is endemic to areas in the southwestern United States, including the San Joaquin Valley

portion of Kern County, California, our region of interest (ROI). Recently, incidence of coccidioidomycosis, also known as

valley fever, has increased significantly, and several factors including climate change have been suggested as possible

drivers for this observation. Up to date details about the ecological niche of C. immitis have escaped full characterization. In

our project, we chose a three-step approach to investigate this niche: 1) We examined Landsat-5-Thematic-Mapper

multispectral images of our ROI by using training pixels at a 750 m6750 m section of Sharktooth Hill, a site confirmed to be

a C. immitis growth site, to implement a Maximum Likelihood Classification scheme to map out the locations that could be

suitable to support the growth of the pathogen; 2) We used the websoilsurvey database of the US Department of

Agriculture to obtain soil parameter data; and 3) We investigated soil samples from 23 sites around Bakersfield, California

using a multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) based method to detect the pathogen. Our results indicated that a

combination of satellite imagery, soil type information, and multiplex PCR are powerful tools to predict and identify growth

sites of C. immitis. This approach can be used as a basis for systematic sampling and investigation of soils to detect

Coccidioides spp.

Citation: Lauer A, Talamantes J, Castan ̃o ́n Olivares LR, Medina LJ, Baal JDH, et al. (2014) Combining Forces - The Use of Landsat TM Satellite Imagery, Soil

Parameter Information, and Multiplex PCR to Detect Coccidioides immitis Growth Sites in Kern County, California. PLoS ONE 9(11): e111921. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0111921

Editor: Vishnu Chaturvedi, California Department of Public Health, United States of America

Received November 27, 2013; Accepted October 8, 2014; Published November 7, 2014

Copyright: 2014 Lauer et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits

unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The work was supported by National Science Foundation grant HRD-0331537, and support from Chevron (Research Experience Vitalizing Science

Undergraduate Program (REVS-UP) at CSUB. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the

manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have the following interest: This study was partly funded by Chevron (Research Experience Vitalizing Science Undergraduate

Program [REVS-UP]) at CSUB. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the

PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

* Email: alauer@csub.edu

Introduction

Valley fever research has predominantly focused on the medical

and epidemiological aspects of Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii, the fungi that cause coccidioidomycosis ([1,2], and

references therein). Coccidioides spp. can have a complete life cycle

as soil dwelling organisms but if the soil is disturbed, their

arthroconidia can become air-borne and are able to infect a host

via the respiratory tract. About 60% of infected patients report no

symptoms [3]; about 25% exhibit severe flu-like symptoms, such as

cough, sputum, fever, and muscle aches; the remaining 15%

become very ill with pneumonia-like symptoms (e.g. pleurisy and

heavier sputum) requiring medication and bed rest. In a small

number of cases (about 0.5–1%), the disease disseminates beyond

the lungs to e.g. the skin, bones, and/or meninges of the brain, and

the disease can be fatal. Certain sectors of the population seem to

be more susceptible to infection, such as the very young, persons

newly arrived to the endemic areas (since immunity develops with

infection), field-, and construction workers, and those with

impaired immune systems [4].

Coccidioides spp. are endemic in the southern part of the San

Joaquin Valley in California, southern California, the southern

part of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, most of northern

Mexico, and some areas in Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela,

northeastern Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay [5,6]. Given its

geographic distribution, it is evident that C. posadasii is able to

flourish in desert regions of the Americas (besides California), in

contrast to its close relative C. immitis which seems to be restricted

to areas in California. Of the two fungal species, it is C. immitis

which afflicts the San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County,

California [7,8] which is the Region of Interest (ROI) of this study.

However, population genomic sequencing of Coccidioides spp.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

revealed recent hybridization between both species [9], and

nothing is known about the distribution and ecology of these

hybrids.

It is reasonable to expect that climatic fluctuations might affect

the rate at which humans become infected [4]. For example, an

extended drought might decimate less heat tolerant, nonsporeforming soil microorganisms that had acted as natural

antagonists to the pathogen in its natural environment. A wetter

than-normal rainy season could help Coccidioides spp. bloom, and

windy spells might facilitate the dispersal of its arthroconidia. The

‘‘grow and blow’’ hypothesis has first been introduced by Comrie

and Glueck [10]. It has long been surmised that Coccidioides spp.

are generally poor competitors [11], but that they are more heatresistant than competing microorganisms – thus, it can be

expected that hot summers might favor its presence or dominance.

Indeed, anecdotal evidence to these effects is well documented in

the literature [12–20]. There have been a number of attempts at

demonstrating this connection quantitatively with various degrees

of success [10,11,21–25]. Yet, despite extensive study, there is

currently no ecologically consistent link identified between the

environment and coccidioidomycosis rates [26]. The predicted

warming of the climate in California will add another piece of the

puzzle in the already complicated interrelationships of environmental factors that might support or suppress the growth of

pathogens with environmental reservoirs [27,28]. However,

occasionally, the pathogen was detected in other regions, such as

the recent detection of Coccidioides immitis in soils of Eastern WA

[29].

There also have been several attempts to characterize the

ecological niche of Coccidioides spp. in more detail [4,31–33], but

we still do not have a complete description of this niche. To date,

Fisher et al. [31] present the most comprehensive review of this

subject. We need to direct attention to a few fundamental points

about what is known in regards to this niche. First, it is important

to realize that C. immitis and C. posadasii do not grow in disturbed

soils [4,30,31] such as cultivated fields, gardens, etc. Second,

whereas it was initially thought that Coccidioides spp. ecological

niche corresponds to the Lower Sonoran Life Zone (as defined and

described by Merriam [34]), or similar environments [14,35,36].

Later research [30] showed that this is not quite correct, and

indeed more recent works [31,32,37,38] suggested that the

fungus’s niche corresponds more closely with thermic and

hyperthermic soils in which temperatures can reach or exceed

22uC in 50 cm depth. Fisher et al. [31] described sites where

Coccidioides spp. were suspected to have been present because

humans or animals were reported to have been infected at these

sites. Fisher et al. [31] also made the general observations that the

vegetation at those sites ranged from sparse to relatively thick

cover in lower Sonoran Deserts, Chaparral-upper Sonoran brush

and grasslands, as well as Mediterranean savannas and forested

foothills. Furthermore, they stated that the temperature regimes,

climate conditions in general, and soil textures are the only

indicative variables of the presence of Coccidioides spp. Microbial

diversity in soils is highly influenced by the habitat’s chemical and

physical parameters. But biotic soil factors such as plant and

microeukaryote diversity influence fungal and bacterial soil

communities as well through root exudation (additional available

nutrients), microbial antagonism (antibiotic production) and

synergism, as well as through selective grazing by microeukaryotes

[32,39–40]. It is currently being discussed that the pathogen is in

fact not very competitive as a soil saprophyte because it has lost the

ability to produce a variety of enzymes that are involved in

important biodegradation processes of soil organic matter, which

might explain the difficulty to detect it in bulk soil [41].

There are few published data available about the distribution of

C. immitis growth sites in Kern County, California [42] most

probably because it has been very difficult in the past to isolate and

identify Coccidioides spp. from soil and dust samples [4,14,30].

Recently, first attempts using molecular biological techniques to

identify C. immitis in bulk soil samples from Kern County,

predominantly around Bakersfield, have been performed [32].

Based on that study, it appeared that C. immitis is likely to be

found in the Bakersfield area at locations that are non-agricultural

and have about equal parts of sand, clay, and silt (clay loam), a pH

between 7.8 and 8.5, an available water capacity of about 0.15–

0.2 cm/cm, a water content of about 30% (1/3 bar), an available

water supply (0–25 cm) of 4–5 cm, and a Cation Exchange

Capacity (CEC7) of over 20 milliequivalents per 100 grams.

The idea of using remote sensing (RS) techniques to piece

together environmental characteristics, environmental change,

and their relationship to disease transmission has been used

extensively in connection with other diseases such as malaria [43],

cholera [44], and African trypanosomiases [45]. Even though the

ecological niche of C. immitis is not well characterized, we present

here a RS technique that allows the mapping of sites around

Bakersfield, California, where the pathogen is suspected to grow

based on data obtained in a previous study by Lauer et al. [32].

Our method utilized a location well-known for being a C. immitis

growth site (Sharktooth hill [STH], Bakersfield, California) as a

basis, and then examined satellite images of the ROI to find all

locations with similar spectral signatures. This is similar to

characterizing the growth sites by the vegetation that tends to

grow in the same environment as C. immitis, using the vegetation

type as a marker. This is reasonable because the vegetation type

closely reflects the co-variation of the relevant physical and

chemical parameters such as clay and sand content, temperature,

pH, nutrients, water content, etc., and also affects the development

of the microbial diversity in the soils [46].

To validate our approach, we investigated if a combination of

remote sensing and soil parameter information can predict

locations which might be suitable to support the growth of C.

immitis, followed by a molecular biological approach to detect the

fungus in these soils with a culture independent polymerase chain

reaction (PCR) based method [32,47].

Material and Methods

No specific permissions were required for the soil sampling. Our

field study did also not involve endangered or protected species.

Multispectral image analysis

Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper (TM) L1G corrected multispectral

images were downloaded from the United States Geological

Survey archive (http://EarthExplorer.usgs.gov). The satellite

relayed a continuous data stream which was then framed into

individual scenes each 23.92 sec (see, e.g., http://landsat.gsfc.

nasa.gov/about/wrs.html). The images for path 42, rows 35 and

36: Worldwide Reference System to cover our ROI were

downloaded, and then the two images were mosaicked. Most of

the analysis that is presented here was performed on a spatial

subset of this mosaicked image. This subset corresponds to an area

approximately one million hectares that covers the San Joaquin

Valley portion of Kern County. Our work mainly focused on a

multispectral image taken on April 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM local

time. This image was chosen because it was obtained at a date

(during spring) were microbial activity and biomass in the soil is

generally considered high, because of supportive environmental

parameters, such as moderate temperatures and increased water

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
" # X{1 1 T { ðx{mÞ ððx{mÞÞ 1 2

p(x)~ e N= D

1=2

ð Þ 2p 2D

X

Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Table 1. Location and description of sampling sites used as test data for the remote sensing approach.

sampling sites GS or AS of rodent

and year sampled coordinates soil type (map unit symbol) the pathogen activity*

Bakersfield city

1. CSUB Children Center (908, 909) 119u 069 29.099 W, 35u 209 57.099 N Wasco sandy loam (243) AS yes

3. Belle Terrace/Gay Str. (‘11) 118u 599 22.799 W, 35u 209 40.0999 N Kimberlina Urban land, Cajon-complex (180) GS yes

5. Flood Plain CSUB (908, 909) 119u 069 05.099 W, 35u 219 16.099 N River Wash (229) AS no

6. Bike Path West (908, 909) 119u 159 06.099 W, 35u 189 20.099 N Cajon sandy loam (125) NS yes

8. Cole’s Levee Rd. I (908, 909, ‘11) 119u 139 60.099 W, 35u 149 08.099 N Garces loam (180) GS yes

10. Olen Avenue (‘11) 119u 149 50.099 W, 35u 149 72.099 N Garces loam (180) GS yes

2. Belle Terrace/P Str. (‘11) 119u 009 37.299 W, 35u 209 49.8999 N Kimberlina Urban land, Cajon-complex (180) GS no

4. Marella Way (‘11) 118u 639 15.099 W, 35u 219 40.0999 N Kimberlina Urban land, Cajon-complex (180) NS no

SW Bakersfield

7. Lake Webb (908, 909) 119u 169 27.099 W, 35u 139 53.099 N Zalvidea sandy loam (240) AS no

9. Cole’s Levee Rd. II (‘11) 119u 139 65.399 W, 35u 149 09.799 N Garces loam (180) GS yes

11. Valley Street Field (908, 909) 118u 529 18.099 W, 35u 249 29.099 N Delano sandy loam (139) AS no

NE Bakersfield

12. Across CALM (‘11) 118u 539 14.199 W, 35u 259 50.399 N Chanac Clay Loam (130) GS yes

13. Ant Hill Oil Field (908, 909, 911) 118u 519 25.099 W, 35u 239 50.099 N Chanac Clay Loam (131) GS yes

15. Round Mt. Rd. II (908, 909) 118u 539 30.099 W, 35u 289 42.099 N Xeric Torriorthents-Calcic Haploxerept association (174) NS yes

17. Sharktooth hill 2 118u 549 37.099 W, 35u 289 20.099 N Pleito Trigo Chanac Complex (205) GS yes

14. Round Mt. Rd. I (908, 909) 118u 529 20.099 W, 35u 279 10.099 N Xeric Torriorthents-Calcic Haploxerept association (174) AS yes

16. Sharktooth hill I 118u 559 03.499 W, 35u 279 44.599 N Chanac Pleito Premier Association (305) nd yes

18. Sharktooth hill 3 118u 549 33.099 W, 35u 289 21.39 N Pleito Trigo Chanac Complex (205) GS yes

NW Bakersfield

19. Acari Rd. (‘11) 119u 159 26.899 W, 35u 239 16.199 N Garces silt loam (156) NS no

20. Elementary Lne. (‘11) 119u 159 16.199 W, 35u 259 20.599 N Panoche clay loam (211) GS no

21. Beech Str. (‘11) 119u 159 43.599 W, 35u 269 39.699 N Garces silt loam (156) GS yes

Wasco

22. Gun Club Rd.(‘11) 119u 299 54.099 W, 35u 399 34.999 N Garces silt loam (156) NS yes

23. McCoy Rd. (‘11) 119u 319 34.399 W, 35u 379 24.899 N Garces silt loam (156) NS yes

Arvin

24. Di Giorgio Rd. (‘11) 118u 579 28.799 W, 35u 159 06.699 N Garces loam (180) GS yes

25. Bear Mt. Rd. (‘11) 118u 579 05.999 W, 35u 129 30.099 N Garces loam (180) GS yes

Growth sites (GS), accumulation sites (AS) and negative sites (NS) were determined by multiplex PCR results, nd: not determined.

* Proof of rodent activity was observed in the immediate neighborhood of the sampling site. Soil disturbing activity was also observed by burrowing owls, coyotes, kit

foxes, spiders or large ants at some locations. The dominant rodents observed were ground squirrels, kangaroo rats and hares.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.t001

content. Furthermore, this image had 0% cloud cover. Our

analysis started by defining a 25 pixel 625 pixel area centered at

latitude 35u 289 20.2999 N, and longitude 118u 549 37.0499 W. This

location is at STH, an area where C. immitis has been repeatedly

detected ([30,31,48], this study). These 625 pixels were used to

train the algorithm, and thus, they define a spectral class which is

referred to in what follows as the ‘‘STH-vegetation class’’. To

implement the Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC) method

distributed (Richards & Jia, 2006), TM bands 1 (0.45–0.52 mm,

blue-green), 2 (0.52–0.60 mm, green), 3 (0.63–0.69 mm, red), 4

(0.76–0.90 mm, near infrared), 5 (1.55–1.75 mm, mid infrared),

and 7 (2.08–2.35 mm, mid infrared) were used. Band 6 (10.40–

12.50 mm, thermal infrared) was not used in our MLC scheme

because the resolution was 60 m instead of the 30 m (as it is for the

other bands). However, this band was used to compute surface

temperatures as described in more detail below. Our MLC scheme

then entailed computing, for each of the pixels in the ROI, the

probability that it belonged to the STH-vegetation class. This

probability was assumed to be normally distributed [49], and thus

is given by

where x is a vector location in pixel space, N=6 is the

dimensionality of pixel space, S the covariance matrix of the

distribution, and m is the mean position of the spectral class. (m

and S are computed from the training pixels). A threshold value

was set at p0, meaning that if a pixel had a probability p§p0 of

being in the STH-vegetation class, then the pixel was put into this

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 1. False color image of the ROI on April 20, 2008. Yellow pixels indicate locations in the STH-vegetation class, p0~0:95 and f ~0:32.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g001

spectral class. Otherwise ðpvp0Þ the pixel was simply left

unclassified. Clearly, as the parameter p0 decreased, the fraction

f of pixels in the ROI which belong to the STH-vegetation class

increased. This is because pixels which are less and less like the

training pixels get included into this class.

However, if our C. immitis-positive sites remain unclassified until

p0w*0, then our spectral class is poorly defined.

Lastly, we determined the area (km2

) that was characterized by

vegetation that belonged into the STH-vegetation class over the

sampling period and until early 2014 using landsat images and the

software ENVI 5.1+IDL 8.3.

 

It was also investigated how much p0 needed to be reduced from

1 until the sites which tested positive for C. immitis came into the

STH-vegetation class. This served to calibrate the method and as a

validation step. Clearly, if the C. immitis-positive sites get included

in the STH-vegetation class for p0v*1, then our method is robust.

Surface temperatures

Surface temperature variations across the ROI were of interest

as well. In addition to utilizing a vegetation class to assess potential

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
x

Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 2. False color image of two San Joaquin Valley prisons.

STH-vegetation class pixels are shown in yellow. The circles indicate the

location of the prisons. Upper left: Pleasant Valley State Prison in Fresno

County, California. Lower right: Avenal State Prison in Kings County,

California. Images were taken on April 20, 2008. Maximum Likelihood

Classification scheme was used with p0~0:95.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g002

sites for C. immitis growth, surface temperature variations across

the ROI may also help to characterize the niche of this fungus.

Landsat-5 TM-6 is an infrared band. This band (from the same

April 20, 2008 image) was used as follows to examine the thermal

landscape of our ROI. The same area in STH was taken as

training pixels, and their average xand standard deviation s were

computed. Then, a simple parallelepiped method [49] was used to

find other locations in the ROI with similar values. Thus, all pixels

whose value was in the rangesðx{ns,xznsÞ, n = 1,2,3 were put

into this spectral class, and we referred to this as the ‘‘STHthermal’’ class. All other pixels were left unclassified. The image’s

digital numbers were converted to temperatures by applying the

procedure described in the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook

(http://landsathandbook.gsfc.nasa.gov/). See also Chander &

Markham [50] for details. As a result, a map was obtained where

the surface temperature was close to STH at the time the image

was taken.

Weather data

Precipitation data for the Southern San Joaquin Valley was

obtained from the California Data Exchange Center (http://cdec.

water.ca.gov/snow_rain.html). The cumulative monthly precipitation (inches) over time was assembled from 5 stations (Calaveras

Big Trees [CVT], Hetch Hetchy [HTH], Yosemite HQ [YSV],

North Fork RS (NFR), and Huntington Lake (HNT]). A more

detailed analysis of the weather data for Bakersfield in particular

was not the focus of this study.

Physical and chemical soil parameters

To determine physical and chemical soil parameters of all soil

samples, the websoilsurvey database of the United States

Department of Agriculture (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/)

was used. Furthermore, all sampling sites were characterized by

using the soil series extent mapping tool from the website of the

Center of Environmental Informatics (CEI) (http://www.cei.psu.

edu/cei_wp/). Thus, through agricultural and environmental

support tools available from the USDA and CEI websites, our

sampling sites were further characterized in regard to land use and

vegetation. Additional geological information was obtained as

well, such as the distribution of certain soil types and series in

California. By using the soil series extent mapping tool, our soil

samples were linked to known soil series and soil groups that are

characteristic for the Southern San Joaquin Valley and beyond.

Soil sampling sites

Soil physical and chemical parameters that could likely support

the growth of the pathogen based on results of the study by Lauer

et al. [32] were used to choose 13 new sites that were investigated

in winter and spring 2011 (Jan–Apr). Additionally, two sites that

were found to be strong growth sites of the pathogen in 2008/2009

were also investigated again in 2011. Six sites were the pathogen

was not detected were included in this study as well. Sampling sites

included in this study were all non-agricultural silt, clay or sandy

loams that differed in regard to physical and chemical parameters.

All sites were located within the Central Valley Portion of Kern

County. Overall, 23 sites were investigated in this study by satellite

imagery and multiplex PCR. Two additional sites from STH were

investigated by satellite imagery only (reference sites). Based on

information from the USDA websoilsurvey database, the soils

belonged to 13 different soil map units. Samples were taken each

month in 2008, 2009 and 2011 (some sites were not sampled in

2011) from three different depths (0–2 cm, 5–7 cm, and 18–

20 cm), placed on ice during transport to the lab, and frozen at 2

80uC when not processed immediately. See table 1 for detailed

information about all sites, including exact location, soil type,

observed rodent activity and indication of the presence or absence

of C. immitis. Also see the first column of table two for the year

they were investigated. Our sampling sites were not chosen based

on Landsat imagery. They were chosen mainly based on the

percentage of clay in the soil as indicated by the USDA

websoilsurvey database. About 30% of clay had been indicative

of a potential C. immitis positive site based on previous research

[32]. After results from the multiplex PCR approach became

available, we evaluated if sites where C. immitis was detected

correlate with sites indicated by Landsat imagery to fall into STH

vegetation sites.

DNA extraction and multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction

(PCR)

DNA was extracted from well-mixed soil samples (two

replicates) using the MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio

Laboratories, Solana Beach, CA) following the manufacturer’s

protocol. The multiplex PCR approach developed by Greene et

al. [47] and optimized for the detection of C. immitis from soil

DNA by Lauer et al. [32] was used to determine the presence of

fungi in general and specifically C. immitis in all soil samples with

two primer pairs. Primer pair ITSC1A/ITS C2 (18S ribosomal

intertranscribed spacer [ITS] region, 223 bp), which is specific for

C. immitis, was used in combination with primer pair RDS478/

RDS482 (18S ribosomal gene, 650 bp) which amplifies 18S rDNA

from all fungi. The ITS region was chosen due to its high

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Table 2. Probability that the sites fall in the STH-vegetation class, as predicted by Landsat data.

sampling sites and year sampled p0= 0.90 C. immitis growth site (multiplex PCR) p0= 0.95

Bakersfield city 4/20/08 4/23/09 4/26/10 4/29/11 4/20/08 4/23/09 4/26/10 4/29/11

Detection of Coccidioides immitis

PLOS ONE| www.plosone.org6 November 2014| Volume9| Issue 11

| e111921

1. CSUB Children Center (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site* N N N N

2. Belle Terrace/P Str. (‘11) Y N N N growth site* N N N N

3. Belle Terrace/Gay Str. (‘11) N N Y N growth site N N Y N

4. Marella Way (‘11) N N N N negative site* N N N N

5. Flood Plain CSUB (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

SW Bakersfield

6. Bike Path West (908, 909) N N N N negative site N N N N

7. Lake Webb (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

8. Cole’s Levee Rd. I (908, 909, ‘11) Y Y Y Y growth site Y N N N

9. Cole’s Levee Rd. II (‘11) Y Y Y Y growth site Y Y Y N

10. Olen Avenue (‘11) N N N N growth site N N N N

11. Valley Street Field (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

NE Bakersfield12. Across CALM (‘11) Y Y N N growth site Y Y N N

13. Ant Hill Oil Field (908, 909, 911) Y Y Y N growth site Y Y Y N14. Round Mt. Rd. I (908, 909) Y Y Y N accumulation site Y Y Y N15. Round Mt. Rd. II (908, 909) Y Y N N negative site Y Y N N

16. Sharktooth hill I Y Y Y Y nd* Y Y Y Y

17. Sharktooth hill 2 Y Y Y Y nd** Y Y Y Y

18. Sharktooth hill 3 (911) Y Y Y Y growth site Y Y Y Y

NW Bakersfield19. Acari Rd. (‘11) N N N N negative site N N N N

20. Elementary Lne. (‘11) N N N N growth site N N N N

21. Beech Str. (‘11) N Y N Y growth site N Y N Y

Wasco22. Gun Club Rd.(‘11) Y Y Y Y negative site Y Y N Y

23. McCoy Rd. (‘11) Y Y Y Y negative site Y N Y Y

Arvin24. Di Giorgio Rd. (‘11) N Y N N growth site N Y N N

25. Bear Mt. Rd. (‘11) Y N N N growth site Y N N N

Fraction of area covered by class (%) 35 42 24 28 32 39 22 26

(Y= in class [indicated in bold], N = not in class).

nd* = not determined in this study.

nd** = not determined in this study, but confirmed as growth site by Swatek (1970).

growth site* = sites were C. immitis was detected at least twice in a deeper soil layer during the late winter/spring (February-May).

accumulation site* = the pathogen could only be detected on the surface of the sampling site and never in a deeper soil layer over a several year period.

negative site* = the pathogen could not be detected in any of the soil samples using the multiplex PCR method as described in this study.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.t002
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 3. Plot of the fraction f of pixels in the STH-vegetation class vs. the threshold value p0. Pixels whose probability of being in the

STH-vegetation class is pvp0 are left unclassified. Pixels with p§p0 are put in the class. In this plot, f ~0:51 for p0~10{4, and f ~1:0 for p0~10{5.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g003

nucleotide variability. Amplified ITS fragments were extracted

from the 2% Agarose Gel, extracted with the Zymo Clean Gel

DNA Recovery kit (ZymoResearch, Irvine, CA), and subsequently

sequenced to confirm the presence of C. immitis. Extracted DNA

from a C. immitis isolate (M39), obtained from the Laboratory of

Medical Mycology at the Universidad Nacional Auto ́noma de

Me ́xico was used as positive control. Negative controls and

positive controls were included in all PCR’s to detect contamination and to verify the amplification of a PCR product of the

desired size.

Sites were C. immitis was detected at least twice in a deeper soil

layer during the late winter/spring (February–May) when the soil

is moist and the soil temperature increased were referred to as

‘growth sites’ of the pathogen in this study, assuming that the soil

parameters likely supported the growth of the fungus and thus, the

pathogen could be detected consecutively over a several year

period in the same location, over several growth seasons. Based on

the definition provided by Fisher et al. [31], growth sites are sites

where physical, chemical, and biological conditions are suitable for

completion of the entire growth cycle required by the organism.

Thus, it could be assumed that if the pathogen finds supportive

environmental conditions, it would likely expand into deeper soil

layers, and not just remain on the surface which can be more

hostile due to desiccation and increased uv-radiation. In fact, the

majority of the soil samples that contained the pathogen in deeper

soil layers also contained the pathogen in surface layers. To the

contrary, sites were termed ‘accumulation sites’ in this study when

the pathogen could only be detected occasionally on the surface of

the sampling site and never in a deeper soil layer over a several

year period. This made it likely that arthroconidia had been

transported to this location by the wind, but the pathogen was

never able to complete its life cycle because of non-supportive

environmental conditions. ‘Accumulation sites’ were also never

positive in consecutive years in contrast to ‘growth sites’. Fisher et

al. [31] defined ‘accumulation sites’ as sites where arthroconidia of

Coccidioides may have been deposited on or near the soil surface

after being transported from growth sites by wind, water,

organisms, or anthropogenic means. We are aware that we did

not investigate the activity of the pathogen in the soil or verify its

growth, and that finding the pathogen in the surface layer of the

soil does not mean that it cannot grow there at all. Therefore, we

have to consider that some of our results might have been false

negatives.

Results

Remote Sensing Approach

A false color map of our ROI for April 28, 2008 was generated

and is presented in figure 1, with indication of all sampling sites.

Sites which were similar in vegetation to site STH, a confirmed

growth site of C. immitis, were indicated in yellow, whereas sites

that are characterized by different vegetation types appeared in

various shades of green and red (agricultural fields, housing

developments with gardens, higher elevated mountain slopes etc.).

Results by Landsat imagery indicated large areas west of

Bakersfield as potential growth sites of the pathogen, in addition

to the STH area east of Bakersfield. The city of Taft southwest of

Bakersfield was completely surrounded by vegetation that is

similar to the vegetation type that characterizes STH. Landsat

imagery furthermore indicated small pockets of potential growth

sites of C. immitis scattered throughout the Southern San Joaquin

Valley and around and within the city of Bakersfield. Overall, the

yellow colors indicate that about 15% of the landscape visible in

the satellite image was covered with vegetation that has the same

reflection pattern as the STH vegetation.

We also applied Landsat imagery to an area northwest of

Bakersfield where two prisons are located near the cities of Avenal

and Coalinga (Kings County and Fresno County) (Fig. 2). In this

area, the incidence of coccidioidomycosis has been observed to be

large among prison inmates, so one might hypothesize that C.

immitis could be present in the neighboring environments. And

indeed, yellow areas in the immediate neighborhood of the

prisons, as presented by Landsat imagery, indicated the presence

of potential growth sites of the pathogen.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Table 3. Probability that the sites fall in the STH-thermal class, as predicted by Landsat data.

sampling sites and year sampled n=3 C. immitis growth site (multiplex PCR) n = 2

Bakersfield city 4/20/08 4/23/09 4/26/10 4/29/11 4/20/08 4/23/09 4/26/10 4/29/11

1. CSUB Children Center (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

2. Belle Terrace/P Str. (‘11) N N Y Y growth site N N N Y

3. Belle Terrace/Gay Str. (‘11) N Y Y N growth site N Y Y N

4. Marella Way (‘11) N N N N negative site N N N N

5. Flood Plain CSUB (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

SW Bakersfield6. Bike Path West (908, 909) N Y Y Y negative site N N N N

7. Lake Webb (908, 909) N N N N accumulation site N N N N

8. Cole’s Levee Rd. I (908, 909, ‘11) N Y Y Y growth site N Y N Y

9. Cole’s Levee Rd. II (‘11) N Y Y N growth site N Y Y N

10. Olen Avenue (‘11) N N N N growth site N N N N

11. Valley Street Field (908, 909) N N Y N accumulation site N N N N

NE Bakersfield12. Across CALM (‘11) Y N Y N growth site Y N N N

13. Ant Hill Oil Field (908, 909, 911) Y Y Y N growth site Y Y N N

14. Round Mt. Rd. I (908, 909) Y Y Y N accumulation site Y Y Y N

15. Round Mt. Rd. II (908, 909) Y Y Y N negative site Y Y N N

16. Sharktooth hill I Y Y Y Y nd* Y Y Y Y

17. Sharktooth hill 2 Y Y Y N nd** Y Y N N

18. Sharktooth hill 3 (911) Y Y Y N growth site Y Y N N

NW Bakersfield19. Acari Rd. (‘11) N N N N negative site N N N N

20. Elementary Lne. (‘11) N N N N growth site N N N N

21. Beech Str. (‘11) N Y Y N growth site N Y Y N

Wasco22. Gun Club Rd.(‘11) N N Y Y negative site N N Y Y23. McCoy Rd. (‘11) Y Y Y Y negative site Y N Y YArvin24. Di Giorgio Rd. (‘11) Y Y Y Y growth site N Y Y Y

25. Bear Mt. Rd. (‘11) N N N N growth site N N N N

Detection of Coccidioides immitis

PLOS ONE| www.plosone.org8 November 2014| Volume

9| Issue 11| e111921

Fraction of area covered by class (%) 35 42 24 28 32 39 22 26

(Y= in class [indicated in bold], N = not in class).

nd* = not determined in this study.

nd** = not determined in this study, but confirmed as growth site by Swatek (1970).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.t003
x x

Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 4. Left: False color image of the ROI on April 20, 2008. Yellow pixels indicate locations in the STH-vegetation class. p0~0:95 and

f ~0:32. The square denotes the location of the city of Bakersfield, the circle on the top indicates the city of Delano, the circle on the right indicates

the location of STH, and the circle on the left indicates the location of the city of Taft. Right: Spectral class comparison. STH-thermal class is shown in

yellow for the same April 20, 2008 image. Parallelepiped scheme was used with thresholds x+20, with xð~36:40

CÞ the average surface temperature

on the STH training pixels, and sð~1:90

CÞ the corresponding standard deviation.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g004

Overall, 4 false color maps were generated for our ROI showing

results for April 2008 to April 2011 (one for each April, see

Table 2). For each satellite picture we obtained one STH

vegetation profile. Therefore, it did not matter if variation in the

vegetation occurred. The April profiles were considered the most

definitive for our work, because in early spring, the climate (soil

and air temperature and humidity) still support the growth of the

vegetation, and grasses and herbs which are characteristic for the

STH- vegetation profile have not dried up yet, compared to the

summer months. A validation of our approach is shown in

figure 3. In this figure, the corresponding plot of e vs. p0 is

presented. This figure also presents the dependence of the fraction

e on p0. It can be pointed out that when p0 drops from 1, e

changes from zero to 0.36 at p0~0:90, but then increases slowly

with decreasing p0 until p&0:04, where f &0:50, and jumps to

f ~1 for p0~10{5. Most likely, this is due to the STH-vegetation

class being quite distinct from all other possible spectral classes in

the ROI, with a large distance (in pixel space) from those classes.

Otherwise, discrete increases in e with decreasing p0 would be

expected as other surface types get merged into the STHvegetation class.

As a further consistency check, we also wanted to examine the

extent to which the STH-vegetation and STH-thermal classes

overlapped and if growth sites of the pathogen could be predicted

by soil thermal data (tables 2 and 3, figure 4). Thus, we obtained

the STH-thermal class by implementing a parallelepiped scheme

as described before (see methods). For n~1, only sites 13, 14, 16

and 21 were included in the STH-thermal class (April 2008, data

not shown). Sites 8, 9, 12–18, 21, and 22–24 were added when

n~2. Site 11 was included when n~3. Site 25 (one of the

strongest growth sites of the pathogen) was never included.

Figure 4 (right) shows our results for n~2. We present this figure

here because site 8, which we identified as a strong growth site of

the pathogen, came into the STH-thermal class for this value of n

(but site 8 was not in the class for n~1). By evaluating the

agreement between satellite imagery (STH-vegetation class and

STH-thermal class, data from 4 consecutive years), we found that

both data sets disagreed in 12% (sites 6, 11 and 25). Almost all sites

that fell into the STH-vegetation class also fell into the STHthermal class (see tables 2 and 3).

Soil series and soil parameters

By using the soil series extent mapping tool, we found that the

soil series and soil groups in which the pathogen was detected

around Bakersfield, California, belonged to the Garces (Natragid,

sites CLR, Bear Mt. Rd.), Chanac (Haploxerept, site AHOF), and

Pleito (Haploxeroll, sites STH1 and 2 and 3) series. These soil

series are not restricted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley. See

figure 5 for a distribution of these soil series in California. Soils

that belonged to the Chanac soil series can also be found in

western Arizona and southern Nevada. All soils were of mixed

mineralogy, had a superactive cation exchange capacity, and were

thermic soils with predominantly fine loamy particles. Soils that

belonged to these soil series are among the dominant soils in the

Southern San Joaquin Valley, especially Kern County and Kings

County, but can also be found in northern and western California.

The use of software such as the USDA websoilsurvey database, as

well as tools available at the Center of Environmental Informatics

(CEI) have been found to be very valuable in obtaining

information about physical and chemical parameters of soils that

could support the growth of C. immitis. Detailed information

about soil type, landform, dominant parent material of the soil, as

well as soil physical and chemical parameters are listed for all

sampling sites in table 4. Using these tools, information about land

use, vegetation, mean annual soil temperatures, and geographic

setting was accessed as well and is summarized in table S1 in file

S1.

Detection of C. immitis by multiplex PCR

In addition to the two growth sites of the pathogen that were

detected in 2008 and 2009 (Cole’s Levee Rd. [CLR], Ant Hill Oil

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 5. Extend of soil series in the San Joaquin Valley, CA,

which can support the growth of C. immitis. A: Pleito (brown: SE

and NE Kern County, dark orange: W Fresno County, light orange: W

Merced County, tan: San Joaquin County) B: Chanac (brown: SE, NE and

NW Kern County, dark orange: San Louis Obispo County [Paso Robles

area], light orange: San Luis Obispo County, [Carrizo Plains]), and C:

Garces soil series (brown: NW Kern County, dark orange: Kings County,

light orange: W Tulare County, tan: E Fresno Area), Center for

Environmental Informatics at Pennsylvania State University (CEI),

http://www.cei.psu.edu/soiltool/semtool.html.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g005

Field [AHOF], see [32]), we were able to detect additional ‘‘hot

spots’’ of the pathogen in 2011. These sites were located within

Bakersfield city, in the southwest, northeast and northwest of

Bakersfield, and near Arvin, California (see table 1). Sites where

the pathogen was detected more than once in a deeper soil layer

were considered growth sites, whereas sites where the pathogen

was detected occasionally in the surface layer only were considered

accumulation sites. Sites were C. immitis was never detected were

considered negative sites and included areas within Bakersfield

city, an area northwest of Bakersfield, and 2 sites near Wasco,

California. Fungal DNA could be detected in all soil samples. Of

all sites investigated in 2011 (two growth sites investigated in

2008/09 [CLR and AHOF], and 14 new sites, out of 16 sites

altogether for 2011), 4 sites (25%) were found negative, and 12

sites (75%) were confirmed as growth sites of the pathogen. No

new accumulation sites were discovered in 2011. The site at Bear

Mt. Road was the strongest growth site of C. immitis for the 2011

sampling set (positive for C. immitis from Jan–Apr). For an

example of multiplex PCR results, see figure 6.

Correlation between Landsat imagery and multiplex PCR

results

By comparing results obtained by satellite imagery (STHvegetation class) and multiplex PCR, we found that in ,74% (17

out of 23 tested sites) the satellite imagery results and the results

obtained by multiplex PCR agreed at least in one year out of four

years ðp0~0:90Þ. When p0~0:95, the agreement was ,70% (16

sites). When satellite imagery based on STH-thermal class was

compared with multiplex PCR results, we found that both

methods agreed only in 61% ðn~3Þ or 65% ðn~2Þ (table 5).

Tables 2 and 3 show the probability that the sites fall in the ‘C.

immitis growth area’ based on Landsat data in comparison to

results obtained by multiplex PCR. We set Red, Green and Blue

(RGB) to TM bands 4, 3, and 2 respectively. With this choice, the

different depths of red indicated different plant associations. These

maps were the result of implementing the MLC method with

p0~0:90andp0~0:95. Two of the three sites at STH listed in

table 1 were confirmed growth sites of C. immitis. STH site 2 was

confirmed as a growth site by Frank Swatek (Fisher FS, personal

communication based on [30]), and STH site 3 was confirmed as a

growth site by multiplex PCR in this study. Sampling site 8 (Cole’s

Levee Rd. I), which was determined as a strong growth site of the

pathogen by multiplex PCR in every year, became included in the

‘C. immitis growth area’ based on Landsat data when p0 was

reduced to 0.95. Sampling site 7 (Lake Webb, accumulation site,

located less than 1 mile west of CLR) was added when p0 was

reduced to 0.10. Sampling sites 1, 5, 6, and 11, (near Children

Center, Flood Plain, Bike Path West, and Valley Street Field)

never got added for p0w10{5. This was consistent with results

obtained by multiplex which confirmed the absence of the

pathogen (site 6, negative site), or which detected the pathogen

occasionally in surface samples only (sites 1, 5 and 11). Sites, 1, 5

and 11 were termed accumulation sites, where the arthroconidia

had been likely transported to by the wind, and where the

presence of the pathogen could not be detected in deeper layers by

multiplex PCR. We interpret this to mean that STH was quite

representative of the C. immitis ecological niche within our ROI.

However, in some occasions the prediction made by satellite

imagery to indicate soils that could potentially harbor the

pathogen could not be confirmed by multiplex PCR. Of all 25

sites included in this study, only sites 8 and 9 (Cole’s Levee Rd. I

and II) fell in the STH-vegetation class in each year

whenp0~0:90. These sites were confirmed as positive for C.

immitis by multiplex PCR. Other sites that were confirmed as

growth sites of the fungus by our culture independent approach fell

in this class at least on one occasion out of four when

p0~0:90(sites 2, 3 [Belle Terrace/P Str. and Belle Terrace/Gay

Str.], 12 [Across CALM], 13 [AHOF], 21 [Beech Str.], 24 [Di

Giorgio Rd.], and 25 [Bear Mt. Rd.]). These sites were still

included in the STH-vegetation site when p0 was increased

top0~0:95, with the exception of site 25. Of all sites that were

found to be C. immitis growth sites by multiplex PCR, two sites

were never indicated as a potential growth site by the MLC

method (site 10 [Olen Ave.] and site 20 [Elementary Lne.]), but

the pathogen was present in soil samples from both sites as

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Table 4. Detailed physical and chemical information obtained from the USDA websoilsurvey database for all sites included in this

study.

soil sampling sites

parameters soil

parameters Elementary Lne.

across CALM

Ant Hill Oil

Field

Bear Mt. Rd. Di

Georgio Rd.

Olen Ave. Cole’s

Levee Rd. Sharktooth hill

Belle Terrace/Gay Str.

Belle Terrace/P Str.

Marella Way

McCoy Rd. Gun

Club Rd. Acari

Rd. Beech Str.

soil type Panoche clay loam Chanac clay

loam

Garces loam Pleito-Trigo-Chanac

complex

Kimberlina-Urban land

Cajon complex

Garces silt loam

parent material alluvium derived

from igneous and

sedimentary rock

alluvium derived

from mixed

alluvium derived

from granitoid

Alluvium derived

from mixed

alluvium derived

from igneous and

sedimentary rock

alluvium derived

from granite

landform alluvial fans fan remnants Alluvium derived

from granitoid

Fan remnants, stream

terraces

alluvial fans rims on basin

floors

(map unit symbols) 211 130/131 180 205 180 156

Physical parameters

Surface texture clay loam clay loam clay loam clay loam loamy sand silt loam

% clay 31 31 25.5 30 12 26.8

% silt 33.6 33.6 36.5 36.5 16.7 39.1

Available water supply 4.25 4.25 5.04 3.69 2.64 2.7

(0–25 cm)

Water content (15 bar) 18.9 18.2 16.7 17.2 8.7 16.2

% sand 35.4 35.4 38 33.5 71.3 34.2

Available water capacity

(cm/cm)

0.17 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.12 0.11

Organic matter 0.25 0.75 0.98 1.5 0.75 0.06

Water content (1/3 bar) 32 30.1 30.9 27.8 17.7 30.2

Sat. hydraulic conductivity 9 9 8.37 2.82 28 0.8362

(Ksat) (micrometers/s)

Chemical parameters

pH 7.9 7.9 8.5 7.8 7.5 8.9

Cation Exchange Capacity 15 24.4 20.6 24.3 7.5 13.1

(CEC7)

Sodium adsorption

ratio (SAR)

CaCO3 3 3 3 0 3 3

Gypsum 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

Electrical conductivity (EC)

Indicated in cursive are the parameters which seemed to be most important to distinguish C. immitis growth sites from negative sites.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.t004

confirmed by multiplex PCR (see Discussion). Furthermore, two

sites that were indicated as potential growth sites of the pathogen

by Landsat imagery at all times when p0~0:90, could not be

confirmed by multiplex PCR to harbor the pathogen. These sites

were located near Wasco, California (NW of Bakersfield), (sites 22

[Gun Club Rd.] and 23 [McCoy Rd.]).

Changes in extend of areas (km2

) that fell into the STHvegetation class were observed for the sampling period until early

2014 and are displayed in table S2 in file S1. The year with the

highest precipitation (2011) had the lowest area of vegetation that

belonged into the STH-vegetation class in comparison to the years

2008 and 2009 which were characterized by a significantly

reduced amount of precipitation and showed an increased area of

vegetation that belonged into the STH-vegetation class (see figure

S1).

Discussion

The purpose of our study was to identify soil types in Kern

County that could support the growth of C. immitis by combining

Landsat imagery (based on vegetation and soil temperature), and

soil parameter information (from 25 sites) with a culture

independent PCR-based method to detect the pathogen. We

showed that satellite imagery, combined with soil parameter

information, can provide a map of locations within our ROI,

where C. immitis might reasonably be expected to be found. We

were able to verify the presence of the pathogen by a multiplex

PCR method in about 74%ðp~0:90Þ, when soil samples were

investigated over a 4 year period. However, for about a quarter of

our sites (26%), results obtained by Landsat imagery and multiplex

PCR did not correlate. The reasons for this observation could be

multifold. Some main factors to be considered are: 1) The amount

of Coccidioides DNA extracted from the soil might have been

under the detection limit of our PCR based methods (sites 22 and

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 11 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921

0 2 0 0 14

1 0 5 0.5 1 10.2
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

Figure 6. Example of multiplex PCR results. White arrows point on

a 223 bp fragment that represents C. immitis. Site Bear Mt. Rd. shows

the strongest ITS amplicons in all soil layers, whereas sites Cole’s Levee

Rd. and site Across CALM gave a weaker signal in some soil layers, and

site Beech Str. was negative. NC = negative control. Bands that indicate

the presence of the pathogen in the 2% Agarose gel were confirmed to

origin from C. immitis by sequencing.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.g006

23), or 2) the resolution of the satellite imagery might not have

been detailed enough (site 10, a small site of only 10 m2

), and 3)

the distribution of Coccidioides in the soil might have been spotty,

and the positive site was missed (sites that were not positive for the

pathogen in all sampling years). A closer look at sites where

satellite imagery and soil parameter data indicated potential

growth sites for C. immitis also revealed that these sites were not

uniform in regard to plant coverage, distribution, and diversity,

thus, generating microhabitats for soil microorganisms that most

likely would be quiet distinct, especially in and around the

rhizosphere [32]. Other factors, such as fluctuation in climate and

pollution of the soil might have had an impact on our analyses as

well. Furthermore, it has to be considered that C. immitis might be

able to persist in soils that have been converted to agricultural

fields for an unknown amount of time, but its arthroconidia might

never germinate and grow into vegetative hyphae. These sites

could be termed dormant sites (e.g. site 20, an orchard with young

almond trees). To assess these impacts on our results was not the

focus of our work, but we are aware of these limitations. In

previous research we have investigated the limitation of the

multiplex PCR approach to detect C. immitis, (see [33] for results

of primer efficiency). Briefly, we found that the sensitivity of the

diagnostic PCR (ITS primer pair) was reduced compared to the

primer pair that amplifies 18S rDNA fragments of all fungi (RDS

primer pair).

In previous work [23–25], it was suggested that some

environmental fluctuations are a fundamental link missing from

coccidioidomycosis incidence statistical modeling schemes. One

important aspect to investigate is whether fluctuations in the STHvegetation class can provide this connection, and be statistically

linked to the observed variations in incidence of valley fever. In

this regard, one effect to consider is the extent to which this RS

approach continues to be valid through the seasons. In the spring,

when plants are blooming, the different vegetation types have

different spectral signatures. As the weather dries and plants

wither, the spectral signatures of the relevant vegetation types may

become less distinct. Thus, the vegetation on STH may not be as

good a marker for C. immitis in the fall, as it is in the spring. The

implicit assumption in this study is that the STH environment is

the only type of environment which harbors C. immitis within the

San Joaquin Valley area of Kern County. We presented in this

paper arguments to support this assumption; nevertheless, it would

be useful to find more similarly suitable test sites to further

corroborate our findings, or to find slightly different ecotypes that

support C. immitis, beside of those detected in this study.

Table 5. Agreement between multiplex PCR and MLC for the STH vegetation class and the STH-thermal class to predict growth

sites of C. immitis (to agree a prediction by either multiplex PCR or MLC must be confirmed at least once for the four years by the

other method).

STH-vegetation class

p0= 0.90 p0= 0.95

multiplex PCR and MLC agree 17 (74%) 16 (70%)

multiplex PCR predicts growth site and MLC disagrees 2 (9%) 3 (13%)

MLC predicts growth site and multiplex PCR disagrees 4 (17%) 4 (17%)

STH-thermal class

n = 3 n = 2

multiplex PCR and MLC agree 14 (61%) 15 (65%)

multiplex PCR predicts growth site and MLC disagrees 3 (13%) 4 (17.5%)

MLC predicts growth site and multiplex PCR disagrees 6 (26%) 4 (17.5%)

From altogether 25 sites, only 23 were considered, because no multiplex PCR results were obtained for STH sites I and II.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111921.t005

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 12 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

We also observed changes in the extent of the STH-vegetation

class over time. A comparative analysis of precipitation between

2008 and 2011 (up to early 2014) suggest that years with a reduced

precipitation (drought) favor plants of the STH-vegetation class,

but other factors likely play a role as well, such as development and

changes in land use (see figure S1 and table S1 in File S1), which

was not assessed in this study.

Compared to the STH-vegetation class data, the STH-thermal

data showed considerably more variation for the four different

years, as expected. The vegetation on a certain day in each year

may be very similar, but soil temperatures might be more variable

in different years (data for n~2 and n~3 can be seen in table 3,

no data is shown forn~1). Other strong growth sites of the

pathogen (sites 8, 9, and 13) were also not consistently included in

all years, not even withn~3. It should also be noted that sites 6

(negative site) and 11 (accumulation site) were never included into

the STH-vegetation class by satellite imagery, but were included in

the STH-thermal class whenn~3. We concluded therefore, that

the STH-thermal classes alone might not be sensitive enough to

predict growth sites of C. immits. Site 25 was never included

(thermal class) maybe because of the limited resolution of the

satellite imagery, as discussed earlier. It is important to keep in

mind that the TM-6 image tells us surface temperatures. It may

very well be that what matters is the temperature below the surface

[31]. For our ROI, all landcovers were similar on the macroscale;

therefore, apparent temperatures were appropriate for comparison

purposes.

To improve the value of satellite imagery data, the actual

spectral reflectance profiles of various soil components could be

included to complement the satellite data (for details see http://

www.africasoils.net/data/ldsf-description) in future studies. A time

series analysis could also be considered, if feasible. Phenology

development throughout the year can make the analysis more

specific to a particular vegetation type. Niche modeling rather

than automated classification could be considered as well to obtain

a richer output that indicates variables of importance. However, a

large dataset would be necessary that would include presence and

also absence data of the pathogen in a certain type of soil at a

certain time with presence or absence of a certain type of

vegetation. Furthermore, it should be considered that broad band

signatures over larger geographic areas and ecotones might not be

precise enough to be useful in predicting growth sites of a

pathogen, especially when the pathogen could be adapted to grow

in a variety of different ecosystems.

Our results indicated that strong growth sites of the pathogen

were likely associated with 3 different USDA soil map units (180,

131, and 205), which were all loamy sands. Several sites around

Bakersfield, California, that fell into one of these map units were

indeed growth sites of C. immitis, as confirmed by multiplex PCR,

and were similar in vegetation compared to the STH area. These

types of soils are not restricted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley,

but can be found in other areas of California as well. One could

hypothesize that with a drier and warmer climate, as it is predicted

for California in the near future [51,52], C. immitis might be able

to expand its current range. In our study, we focused on soil

samples from only one County, the above mentioned Kern

County in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, a highly

endemic area for C. immitis. The soil types investigated here did

not comprise all types that can be found in our ROI. Even though

Kern County is a hot spot of C. immitis with the highest incidence

of coccidioidomycosis documented for as long as incidence data is

recorded in California, we cannot conclude that soils that

predominate in this area are the ones that also predominantly

support the growth of the pathogen. A more rigorous sampling

framework should be attempted in the future that would include

locations beyond Kern County covering as wide a range of

habitats as possible to correctly determine growth sites of C.

immitis, as well as determining sites that are not supporting the

growth of the pathogen. Developing such a sampling plan should

include stratification, replicate sampling, and determination of

important chemical and physical soil parameters, including

investigations in other countries where coccidioidomycosis occurs

would be of value as well. The ultimate goal would then be to

generate a U.S. or America-wide database of occurrence and

absence of Coccidioides spp. Such a database could be useful for

characterizing the ecological niche for both Coccidioides species,

and could indicate a variety of supporting ecosystems, as well as

being an advisory public health tool, to reduce incidence of

coccidioidomycosis in Kern County and elsewhere.

In conclusion, the combination of the methods used in our

research can be used to generate maps that indicate potential

growth sites of C. immitis, and thus serve as a tool to further

investigate the ecological niche occupied by the pathogen in the

Southern San Joaquin Valley and beyond in more detail. Recent

advances in computer processing and geographic information

system and global positioning system technologies facilitate

integration of remote sensing data, such as environmental

parameters with disease incidence data, so that models for disease

surveillance and control can be developed [53,54].

Supporting Information

Figure S1 Cumulative monthly precipitation (inches)

over time for the Southern San Joaquin Valley, assembled from 5 stations (Calaveras Big Trees [CVT], Hetch

Hetchy [HTH], Yosemite HQ [YSV], North Fork RS

(NFR), and Huntington Lake (HNT]) obtained from the

California Data Exchange Center at http://cdec.water.

ca.gov/snow_rain.html).

(TIF)

File S1 Supporting tables. Table S1. Detailed soil series

descriptions of sites which were found to be growth sites of C.

immitis. Table S2. Extend of STH-vegetation class in our ROI

between 2008 and 2011 based on satellite imagery.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Tom Mace, retired Senior Science

Advisor at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (Science Mission

Directorate, Airborne Sciences), and to Ned Horning of the Biodiversity

Informatics Facility at the American Museum of Natural History’s Center

for Biodiversity and Conservation (New York, NY) for valuable technical

advice on satellite image analysis. The authors also thank Kathleen Szick

(CSUB) for helpful discussions and comments to improve this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: AL JT. Performed the

experiments: AL JT LM JB KC NS. Analyzed the data: AL JT.

Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LC KE. Wrote the paper:

AL JT LC KE.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 13 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
Detection of Coccidioides immitis

References

1. Hector RF, Rutherford GW III, Tsang CA, Erhart LM, McCotter O et al.

(2011) The public health impact of coccidioidomycosis in Arizona and

California. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8: 1150–1173.

2. Nguyen C, Barker M, Hoover S, Nix DE, Ampel NM et al. (2013) Recent

advances in our understanding of the environmental, epidemiological,

immunological, and clinical dimensions of coccidioidomycosis, Clin Microbiol

Rev 26: 505–525.

3. Lee RV (1944) Coccidioidomycosis: In the western flying training command.

Cal West Med 61: 133–134.

4. Pappagianis D (1988) Epidemiology of coccidioidomycosis. Current Topics in

Mycology 2: 199–238.

5. Pappagianis D (1994) Marked increase in cases of coccidioidomycosis in

California: 1991, 1992, and 1993. Clin Infect Dis 19 (Suppl 1), S14–S18.

6. Negroni R (2008) Evolucio ́n de los conocimientos sobre aspectos clinic

epidemiolo ́gicos de la coccidioidomycosis en las Ame ́ricas. Rev Argent

Microbiol 40: 246–256.

7. Fisher MC, Koenig GL, White TJ, San-Blas G, Negroni R et al. (2001)

Biogeographic range expansion into South America by Coccidioides immitis

mirrors new world patterns of human migration. Proc Nat Acad Sci 98: 4558–

4562.

8. Fisher MC, Koenig GL, White TJ, Taylor JW (2002) Molecular and phenotypic

description of Coccidioides posadasii sp. nov., previously recognized as the nonCalifornia population of Coccidioides immitis. Mycologia 94: 73–84.

9. Neafsey DE, Barker BM, Sharpton TJ, Stajich JE, Park DJ et al. (2010)

Population genomic sequencing of Coccidioides fungi reveals recent hybridization and transposon control. Genome Res 20: 938–946.

10. Comrie AC, Glueck MF (2007) Assessment of climate coccidioidomycosis model:

Model sensitivity for assessing climatologic effects on the risk of acquiring

coccidioidomycosis. Ann NY Acad Sci 1111: 83–95.

11. Kolivras KM, Johnson PS, Comrie AC, Yool SR (2001) Environmental

variability and coccidioidomycosis (valley fever). Aerobiologia 17: 31–42.

12. Smith CE, Beard RR, Rosenberger HG, Whiting EG (1946) Effect of season and

dust control on coccidioidomycosis. J Am Med Assoc 132: 833–838.

13. Hugenholtz PG (1957) Climate and coccidioidomycosis. In: Proceedings of

symposium on coccidioidomycosis, Phoenix, AZ. Public Health Service,

Publication no. 575. Atlanta: US Public Health Service, pp. 136–43.

14. Maddy KT (1957) Ecological factors possibly relating to the geographic

distribution of Coccidioides immitis. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on

Coccidioidomycosis (pp. 144–157). Comunicable Disease Center, Atlanta, GA.

PHS Pub. No. 575.

15. Pappagianis D, Einstein H (1978) Tempest from Tehachapi takes toll or

Coccidioides conveyed aloft and afar. West J Med 129: 527–530.

16. Jinadu BA, Welch G, Talbot R, Caldwell J, Johnson R et al. (1994) Update:

coccidioidomycosis in California 1991–1993. MMWR 43: 421–423.

17. Mosley D, Komatsu K, Vaz V, Vertz D, England B et al. (1996)

Coccidioidomycosis in Arizona 1990–1995. MMWR 45: 1069–1073.

18. Kirkland TN, Fierer J (1996) Coccidioidomycosis: A reemerging infectious

disease. Emerg Infect Dis 2: 192–199.

19. Schneider E, Hajjeh RA, Spiegel RA, Jibson RW, Harp EL et al. (1997) A

coccidioidomycosis outbreak following the Northridge, Calif. earthquake. J Am

Med Assoc 277: 904–908.

20. Komatsu K, Vaz V, McRill C, Colman T, Comrie A et al. (2003) Increase in

coccidioidomycosis in Arizona 1998–2001. MMWR 52: 109–112.

21. Kolivras KM, Comrie AC (2003) Modeling valley fever (coccidioidomycosis)

incidence on the basis of climate conditions. Int J Biometeor 47: 87–101.

22. Comrie AC (2005) Climate factors influencing coccidioidomycosis seasonality

and outbreaks. Environ Health Perspect 113: 688–692.

23. Zender CS, Talamantes J (2006) Climate controls on valley fever incidence in

Kern County, California. Int J Biometeorol 50: 174–182.

24. Talamantes J, Behseta S, Zender CS (2007a) Fluctuations in climate and

incidence of coccidioidomycosis in Kern County, California: a review. Ann NY

Acad Sci 1111: 73–82.

25. Talamantes J, Behseta S, Zender CS (2007b) Statistical modeling of valley fever

data in Kern County, California. Int J Biometeorol 51: 301–315.

26. Tamerius JD and Comrie AC (2011) Coccidioidomycosis incidence in Arizona

predicted by seasonal precipitation. PLOS One 6: 1–7.

27. Cayan D, Maurer E, Dettinger M, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change

scenarios for the California region. Climate Change 87: 21–42.

28. Greer A, Ng V, Fisman D (2008). Climate change and infectious diseases in

North America: the road ahead. CMAJ 11: 178–186.

29. Marsden-Haug N, Goldoft M, Ralston C, Limaye AP, Chua J et al. (2013)

BRIEFREPORT - Coccidioidomycosis acquired in Washington State. CID

2013: 56.

30. Swatek FE (1970) Ecology of Coccidioides immitis. Mycopath Mycol Applic 40:

3–12.

31. Fisher FS, Bultman MW, Johnson SM, Pappagianis D, Zaborsky E (2007)

Coccidioides niches and habitat parameters in the southwestern United States: a

matter of scale. Ann NYAcad Sci 1111: 47–72.

32. De Boer, Folman LB, Summerbell RC, Boddy L (2005) Living in a fungal world:

impact of fungi on soil bacterial niche development. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:

795–811.

33. Lauer A, Baal JCH, Baal JDH, Verma M, Chen JM (2011). Detection of

Coccidioides immitis in Kern County, California, by multiplex PCR. Mycologia.

doi:10.3852/11–127.

34. Merriam CH (1898) Life zones and crop zones of the United States. Bulletin 10

Division of Biological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture.

Washington, DC.

35. Maddy KT (1958) The geographic distribution of Coccidioides immitis and

possible ecologic implications. Ariz Med 15: 178–188.

36. Maddy KT (1959) Coccidioidomycosis in animals. Vet Med 54: 233–242.

37. Baptista-Rosas RC, Catalan-Dibene J, Romero-Olivares AL, Hinojosa A,

Cavazos T et al. (2012) Molecular detection of Coccidioides spp. form

environmental samples in Baja California: linking Valley Fever to soil and

climate conditions. Fung Ecol 5: 177–190.

38. Barker BM, Tabor JA, Shubitz L, Perrill R, Orbach MJ (2012) Detection and

phylogenetic analysis of Coccidioides posadasii in Arizona soil samples, Fungal

Ecol. 5: 163–176.

39. Zak DR, Holmes WE, White DC, Peacock AD, Tilman D (2003) Plant diversity,

soil microbial communities, and ecosystem function: Are there any links?

Ecology 84: 2042–2050.

40. Nannipieri P, Ascher J, Ceccherini MT, Landi L, Pietramellara G, et al. (2003)

Microbial diversity and soil function. Europ J Soil Sci 54: 655–670.

41. Sharpton TJ, Stajich JE, Rounsley SD, Gardner MJ, Wortman JR et al. (2009)

Comparative genomic analyses of the human fungal pathogens Coccidioides and

their relatives. Genome Res. doi:10.1101/gr.087551.108.

42. Egeberg RO, Ely F (1956) Coccidioides immitis in the soil of the southern San

Joaquin Valley. Am J Med Sci 231: 151–154.

43. Rogers DJ, Randolph SE, Snow RW, Hay SI (2002) Satellite imagery in the

study and forecast of malaria. Nature 415: 710–715.

44. Koelle K, Rodo ́ X, Pascual M, Yunus M, Mostafa G (2005) Refractory periods

and climate forcing in cholera dynamics. Nature 436: 696–70.

45. Rogers DJ (2000) Satellites, space, time, and the African trypanosomiases. Adv

Parasitol 47: 128–171.

46. Goetz S, Prince S, Small J (2000) Advances in satellite remote sensing of

environmental variables for epidemiological applications. Adv Parasitol 47: 289–

307.

47. Greene DR, Koenig G, Fisher MC, Taylor GW (2000) Soil isolation and

molecular identification of Coccidioides immitis. Mycologia 92: 406–410.

48. Kemp R (1974) The distribution of Coccidioides immitis at Sharktooth hill,

Oildale, California [MS Thesis].. Long Beach, California: California State

College. 62 p.

49. Richards JA, Jia X (2006) Remote sensing digital image analysis, An

Introduction. Springer-Verlag, Germany.

50. Chander G, Markham B (2003) Revised Landsat-5 TM radiometric calibration

procedures and postcalibration dynamic ranges. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote

Sens 41: 2674–2677.

51. Cayan D, Maurer E, Dettinger M, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change

scenarios for the California region. Climate Change 87: 21–42. Clim Change 87:

21–42.

52. Greer A, Ng V, Fisman D (2008). Climate change and infectious diseases in

North America: the road ahead. CMAJ 11: 178–186.

53. Nuckols JR, Ward MH, Jarup L (2004) Using geographic information systems

for exposure assessment in environmental epidemiology studies. Environ Health

Perspect 11: 1007–1015.

54. Craglia M, Goodchild MF, Annoni A, Camara G, Gould M et al. (2008) NextGeneration Digital Earth. A position paper from the Vespucci Initiative for the

Advancement of Geographic Information Science. Int J Spat Data Infrastruct

Res 3: 146–167.

PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 14 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e111921
© 2014 Lauer et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of 

the Creative Commons Attribution License: 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits 

unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the 

original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms 

and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the 

License. 
SS-IAMF#2: Safety and Security Management Plan

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021 

General Conformity Determination – Appendix A Page | 1 

SS-IAMF#2: SAFETY AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Sixty days after receiving from the Authority a construction notice-to-proceed, the Contractor shall 

provide the Authority with a technical memorandum documenting how the following requirements, 

plan, programs and guidelines were considered in design, construction and eventual operation to 

protect the safety and security of construction workers and users of the HSR. The Contractor 

shall be responsible for implementing all construction-related safety and security plans and the 

Authority shall be responsible for implementing all safety and security plans related to HSR 

operation.

• Workplace worker safety is generally governed by the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 

1970, which established the OSHA. OSHA establishes standards and oversees compliance 

with workplace safety and reporting of injuries and illnesses of employed workers. In 

California, OSHA enforcement of workplace requirements is performed by California 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). Under Cal OSHA regulations, as 

of July 1, 1991, every employer must establish, implement, and maintain an injury and illness 

prevention program.

• The Authority has adopted a Safety and Security Management Plan to guide the safety and 

security activities, processes, and responsibilities during design, construction and 

implementation phases of the project to protect the safety and security of construction 

workers and the public. A Systems Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and a System Security Plan 

would be implemented prior to the start of revenue service to guide the safety and security of 

the operation of the high-speed rail system.

• Prior to Construction, the Contractor shall provide the Authority with a Safety and Security 

Management Plan documenting how they would implement the Authority’s safety and 

security requirements within their project scope.

• Implement site-specific health and safety plans and site-specific security plans to establish 

minimum safety and security guidelines for contractors of, and visitors to, construction 

projects. Contractors would be required to develop and implement site-specific measures that 

address regulatory requirements to protect human health and property at construction sites.

• Preparation of a Valley Fever action plan that includes: A) information on causes, 

preventative measures, symptoms, and treatments for Valley Fever to individuals who could 

potentially be exposed through construction activities (i.e., construction workers, monitors, 

managers, and support personnel); B) continued outreach and coordination with California 

Department of Public Health; C) coordination with county departments of public health to 

ensure that the above referenced information concerning Valley Fever is readily available to 

nearby residents, schools, and businesses and to obtain area information about Valley Fever 

outbreaks and hotspots; and D) provide a qualified person dedicated to overseeing 

implementation of the Valley Fever prevention measures to encourage a culture of safety of 

the contractors and subcontractors. The Valley Fever Health and Safety (VFHS) designee 

shall coordinate with the county Public Health Officer and oversee and manage the 

implementation of Valley Fever control measures. The VFHS designee is responsible for 

ensuring the implementation of measures in coordination with the county Public Health 

Officer. Medical information would be maintained following applicable and appropriate 

confidentiality protections. The VFHS in coordination with the county Public Health Officer 

would determine what measures would be added to the requirements for the Safety and 

Security Management Plan regarding preventive measures to avoid Valley Fever exposure. 

Measures shall include, but are not limited to the following: A) train workers and supervisors 

on how to recognize symptoms of illness and ways to minimize exposure, such as washing 

hands at the end of shifts; B) provide washing facilities nearby for washing at the end of 

shifts; C) provide vehicles with enclosed, air conditioned cabs and make sure workers keep 

the windows closed; D) equip heavy equipment cabs with high efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filters; and E) make NIOSH approved respiratory protection with particulate filters as 

recommended by the CDPH available to workers who request them.
SS-IAMF#2: Safety and Security Management Plan

July 2021 California High-Speed Rail Authority

2 | Page General Conformity Determination – Appendix A 

• System safety program plans incorporate FRA requirements and are implemented upon 

Authority approval. FRA’s SSPPs requirements would be determined in FRA’s new System 

Safety Regulation (49 CFR 270). 

• Rail systems must comply with FRA requirements for tracks, equipment, railroad operating 

rules and practices, passenger safety, emergency response, and passenger equipment 

safety standards found in 49 CFR Parts 200-299. 

• The HSR Urban Design Guidelines (Authority 2011) require implementing the principles of 

crime prevention through environmental design. The contractor shall consider four basic 

principles of crime prevention through environmental design during station design and site 

planning: territoriality (design physical elements that express ownership of the station or site); 

natural surveillance (arrange physical features to maximize visibility); improved sightlines 

(provide clear views of surrounding areas); and access control (provide physical guidance for 

people coming and going from a space). The HSR design includes emergency access to the 

rail right-of-way, and elevated HSR structure design includes emergency egress points. 

• Implement fire/life safety and security programs that promote fire and life safety and security 

in system design, construction, and implementation. The fire and life safety program is 

coordinated with local emergency response organizations to provide them with an 

understanding of the rail system, facilities, and operations, and to obtain their input for 

modifications to emergency response operations and facilities, such as evacuation routes. 

The Authority would establish fire/life safety and security committees throughout the HSR 

section.

• Implement system security plans that address design features intended to maintain security 

at the stations within the track right-of-way, at stations, and onboard trains. A dedicated 

police force would ensure that the security needs of the HSR system are met.

• The design standards and guidelines require emergency walkways on both sides of the 

tracks for both elevated and at-grade sections and the provision of appropriate space as 

defined by fire and safety codes along at-grade sections of the alignment to allow for 

emergency response access. 

• Implement standard operating procedures and emergency operating procedures, such as the 

FRA-mandated Roadway Worker Protection Program to address the day-to-day operation 

and emergency situations that would maintain the safety of employees, passengers, and the 

public. 
Response to B-P GCD Comment on Valley Fever

California High-Speed Rail Authority July 2021 

General Conformity Determination – Appendix A Page | 1 

RESPONSE TO B-P GCD COMMENT ON VALLEY FEVER

Thank you for the comment and additional information regarding Coccidioides immitis (a.k.a., the

Valley Fever fungus). This action for which FRA has requested comment is FRA’s Draft General 

Conformity Determination. The General Conformity Determination documents FRA’s evaluation of 

the potential emissions associated with the proposed Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of the 

California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System, consistent with relevant requirements of the Clean Air 

Act and implementing regulations. Fugitive dust is responsible for particulate matter pollution. 

However, FRA’s analysis of the potential emissions from the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section

found that construction period emissions would not exceed the General Conformity de minimis 

threshold for particulate matter pollution. Operation of the project would result in an overall 

reduction of regional emissions of all applicable air pollutants and would not cause a localized 

exceedance of an air quality standard. The general conformity analysis does not require soil 

testing for pathogens such as the Valley Fever fungus. 

Nonetheless, in considering this comment, FRA consulted with the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority regarding fugitive dust that contains the Valley Fever fungus. As a part of the 

environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared to meet the 

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Authority reviewed the potential of Valley Fever occurrence in the San 

Joaquin Valley, specifically in the area where HSR construction and operations would occur. As

described in its Final EIR/EIS, the Authority, in coordination with the FRA, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the California Department of Public Health, has included impact 

avoidance and minimization features (IAMF) as part of the project to incorporate additional best 

practices to minimize exposure to those at risk from construction activities disturbing naturally 

occurring Coccidioides spores. Specifically, the Authority will prepare a Valley Fever action plan

SS-IAMF#2: Safety and Security Management Plan, and measures that mitigate the production 

and exposure of fugitive dust AQ-IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions. These IAMFs would also 

reduce risk to the general public of Valley Fever spreading through fugitive dust emissions 

because these IAMFs would limit the amount of fugitive dust released as a result of construction. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 14, 2021

Andrea Martin

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

770 L Street Suite 620

Sacramento, CA, 95814

Project: Draft General Conformity Determination for the Bakersfield to Palmdale 

Project Section 

District CEQA Reference No: 20210507 

Dear Andrea Martin:

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the

Draft General Conformity Determination (DGCD) for the project referenced above from

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The project consists of implementation of the

Bakersfield to Palmdale section of the High Speed Rail system that will total 

approximately 80 miles in length (Project). The Project is located in Kern County and Los

Angeles County. The District offers the following comments:

1) Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) 

The Draft General Conformity Determination states, “Air Quality Mitigation Measure

#1 (AQ-MM#1) of the Draft General Conformity Determination indicates that the HighSpeed Rail Authority (HSRA) has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) with the District by offsetting to net zero the Project’s actual construction

emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.”

The District appreciates the HSRA ongoing commitment to working with the District 

and appreciates FRA’s reference of the mitigation measure AQ-MM#1 in the general

conformity determination for air quality. The District and HSRA had entered into an

MOU on June 19, 2014, which establishes the framework for fully mitigating to net

zero construction emissions of NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 for the entire HighSpeed Train Project throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which includes this

Bakersfield to Palmdale section. For reference, the District has attached a copy of the

MOU to this letter.
 

 

 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2

District Reference No. 20210507 

June 14, 2021 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To date, the District and HSRA have worked closely to ensure construction air quality

emissions of NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 are mitigated in accordance with the MOU.

This MOU requires the HSRA to enter into a VERA with the District for any segment,

or portion located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin that has been approved for

construction by the HSRA, or any other applicable state or federal entity. The MOU

applies to the above referenced Project. Therefore, the District recommends that the

HSRA enter in a VERA with the District to fully mitigate to net zero Project construction

emissions.

2) District Comment Letter 

The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the

HSRA. 

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin

by e-mail at Eric.McLaughlin@valleyair.org or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,

Brian Clements

Director of Permit Services

John Stagnaro

Program Manager

Enclosure: Memorandum of Understanding between District and HSRA
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by the California 

3 High-Speed Rail Authority ("Authority") and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

4 Control District ("District"). Authority and District are collectively referred to herein as 

the "Parties" with each being a "Party". 

6 RECITALS 

7 WHEREAS, District is an air pollution control district formed by the counties of 

8 Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare, and the Valley 

9 portion of Kern, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 40150, et seq.; 

and 

11 WHEREAS, District is responsible for developing and implementing air quality 

12 control measures within the District Boundaries as depicted in Exhibit A ("District 

13 Boundaries" or "San Joaquin Valley Air Basin") attached hereto and incorporated 

14 herein, including air quality control measures for stationary sources, transportation 

sources, and indirect sources; and 

16 WHEREAS, despite the best efforts of District, air quality within District 

17 Boundaries remains impaired such that the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is not in 

18 attainment of federal Clean Air Act standards for ozone and its precursors NOx and 

19 VOCs (extreme nonattainment) and PM2.5 and is in Attainment/Maintenance status for 

PM1 O (NOx, voe, PM1 O and PM2.5 collectively, "Criteria Pollutants"); and

21 WHEREAS, emissions of Criteria Pollutants from the Authority's planned high22 speed rail construction within District Boundaries would exacerbate that non-attainment 

23 status and could threaten that Attainment/Maintenance status; and 

24 WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is unique meteorologically in that 

it is surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, including to the west which 

26 significantly limits the ability of ocean weather patterns and winds to refresh air in the 

27 basin; and 

28 

SJVUAPCD -1- 1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000
1 WHEREAS, the Authority, in partnership with the Federal Railroad 

2 Administration ("FRA"), is developing a high-speed train system ("HST System"), which 

3 includes construction of guide-way segments, and ancillary facilities such as a Heavy 

4 Maintenance Facility, stations, and overpasses for California pursuant to the California 

5 High-Speed Rail Act (Public Utilities Code section 18500 et seq.) ("Rail Act") and the 

6 Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (codified at 

7 Streets and Highways Code section 2704 et seq.) ("Bond Act") that would serve the 

8 San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego 

9 through various station-to-station segments ("Segments") (as depicted in Exhibit B); 

10 and 

11 WHEREAS, the HST System includes segments or portions thereof that will be 

12 constructed, if and when funding can be secured, within the boundaries of the San 

13 Joaquin Valley ("SJV") including the following: Merced to San Jose (portion), Merced to 

14 Fresno (all), Fresno to Bakersfield (all), Bakersfield to Palmdale (portion), and 

15 Sacramento to Merced (portion), collectively referred to as "HST SJV District Portion"; 

16 and 

17 WHEREAS, the Authority completed Program-level Environmental Impact 

18 Statements/Reports ("EIS/EIR") in 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2012 pursuant to the National 

19 Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") 

20 evaluating impacts of the HST System, and selecting preferred route corridors; and 

21 WHEREAS, a project level Final EIS/EIR ("MF FEIR") for the Merced to Fresno 

22 Segment ("MF Segment") was approved and certified via Resolution 12-19 ("MF FEIR 

23 Resolution") and the MF Segment approved and CEQA findings made via Resolution 

24 12-20 ("MF Segment Resolution") by the Authority's Board of Directors in May 2012

25 and FRA's associated Record of Decision ("ROD") issued on September 2012; and 

26 WHEREAS, construction of a portion of the MF Segment (from approximately 

27 Madera to downtown Fresno) is anticipated to commence in 2014 with connections to 

28 the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin expected after year 2028; and 

SJVUAPCD -2- 1990 E. Gettysburg

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000
1 WHEREAS, the Authority found in the MF FEIR and MF FEIR Resolution that 

2 construction of the MF Segment would cause significant air quality impacts from 

3 construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants because the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

4 is in non-attainment for Criteria Pollutants; and 

5 WHEREAS, the Authority has included in the MF Segment Resolution, and in 

6 the Draft EIR/EIS for the Fresno-Bakersfield Segment (and anticipates so including in 

7 the draft environmental documents for other Segments of the HST SJV District Portion) 

8 various requirements and mitigation measures to reduce significant construction 

g emissions associated with the HST SJV District Portion (such as using the cleanest 

1 o construction and hauling fleet as reasonably practicable, as detailed in MF FEIR AQ11 MM#1 and #2); and 

12 WHEREAS, nevertheless, Criteria Pollutant(s) emitted during HST construction 

13 within the District Boundaries would still exacerbate and/or threaten the existing non14 attainment and maintenance status for Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries; 

15 and 

16 WHEREAS, during the public process leading up to the MF FEIR, the District 

17 recommended in writing that the Authority enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction 

18 Agreement ("VERA") with the District as an additional mitigation measure (because of 

19 the emissions offsets VERA implementation would achieve) for construction emission 

20 impacts the MF FEIR concluded would occur in the MF Segment; and 

21 WHEREAS, the MF Segment Resolution committed the Authority to entering 

22 into a VERA with the District for the MF Segment as a mitigation measure to 

23 accomplish net-zero MF Segment construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants 

24 because of the San Joaquin Air Basin's difficult air quality challenge (i.e., its non25 attainment status), which VERA now has been drafted for the funded Madera-to26 Fresno portion of the MF Segment and is near ready for execution ("Madera-to-Fresno 

27 VERA"); and 

28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-3-
1 WHEREAS, the. Authority understands that any significant HST construction 

2 emissions air quality impacts from Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries 

3 could be mitigated through various measures, including emissions offsets to net zero 

4 through entry into VERAs, which approach would address the District's view that any 

5 net HST construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries are 

6 impacts that must be fully mitigated; and 

7 WHEREAS, the District has developed Incentive Programs around several core 

8 principles, including cost-effectiveness, integrity, effective program administration, 

9 excellent customer service, the efficient use of District resources, fiscal transparency 

10 and public accountability; and 

11 WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs involve the District using monies 

12 (such as grant funds and project-proponent-provided monies via a VERA) to fund 

13 (usually on a percentage basis) the purchase and use by third parties of newer 

14 equipment that emits fewer Criteria Pollutants to replace older, less-clean-burning 

15 equipment (such as farm tractors), which the District administers through Individual 

16 Incentive Program Funding Agreements ("IIPFAs"); and 

17 WHEREAS, the District's IIPFAs require the user of the new equipment to use 

18 the new equipment for a minimum number of hours (based on the user's historical use 

19 of the replaced equipment) over a specified number of years, and require permanent 

20 destruction of the replaced equipment; and 

21 WHEREAS, the IIPFAs, because of their requirements, result in reductions of 

22 Criteria Pollutants that get assigned to the project proponent providing the funding to 

23 offset emissions by that project proponent ("Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets"); and 

24 WHEREAS, the Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets, because of the requirements of 

25 and protections in the IIPFAs, are secured and certified to the Authority by the District 

26 ("Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets") upon execution of each IIPFA; and 

27 WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs are regularly audited by 

28 independent outside agencies including professional accountancy corporations on 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-4-
1 behalf of the federal government, the California Air Resources Board ("ARB"), the 

2 California Department of Finance and the California Bureau of State Audits; and 

3 WHEREAS, the District has determined that with appropriate funding from 

4 Authority, the District can source, secure and certify Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets as 

5 necessary for construction of the HST SJV District Portion. 

6 AGREEMENT 

7 NOW THEREFORE, the Authority and the District hereby agree as follows: 

8 1. Offset of Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants

9 (i) The Authority shall fully offset all HST SJV District Portion-related HST

10 construction emissions from Criteria Pollutants by achieving surplus, quantifiable and 

11 enforceable emissions reductions of Criteria Pollutants. 

12 (ii) For the purpose of this MOU, "fully offset" or "net zero" means that the

13 total amount of all Criteria Pollutants emission reductions secured by the offset 

14 reduction measures is equal to, or greater than, the total amount of actual Criteria 

15 Pollutant HST construction emissions within the HST SJV District Portion, minus the 

16 projected emissions of Criteria Pollutants that would have occurred in the locations of 

17 the HST District Portion construction in the absence of HST construction as may be 

18 feasible and technically calculable for specific facilities HST might replace (as individual 

19 VERAs may include). "Surplus" emission reductions are reductions that are not 

20 otherwise required by existing laws or regulations. 

21 (iii) In order to fully offset such construction-related air emissions from the

22 HST SJV District Portion, upon each Segment in the HST SJV District Portion having 

23 been approved for construction by the Authority and any applicable state or federal 

24 entity, having secured funding for construction, and having approved or certified 

25 associated environmental review reports and/or statements as required by applicable 

26 law ("Certified Environmental Document"), the Authority and District shall enter into a 

27 VERA substantially in the form of the Madera-to-Fresno VERA to cover the portion of 

28 the Segment approved and funded for construction within District Boundaries prior to 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg -5-

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230·6000 
1 the commencement of construction of said portion. Notwithstanding the above, nothing 

2 in this MOU shall prevent the Authority from commencing any construction if, despite 

3 the Authority's best efforts, timely entry into the associated VERA did not occur; in such 

4 event, the Parties shall work cooperatively to accomplish entry into the VERA in time 

5 for emissions offsets to occur in a timely manner to satisfy applicable law such as 

6 contemporaneous offset timing requirements established by the U.S. Environmental 

7 Protection Agency for general conformity. 

8 2. VERA Implementation

9 (i) Upon entering into a VERA, the Authority shall provide the District with a

10 meaningful amount of Air Quality Mitigation Funds (as a deposit) as may be specified in 

11 each VERA, which the District shall place in a District trust or escrow account until 

12 committed in an executed and Authority-approved IIPFA. Such Funds are intended to 

13 fund equipment replacement and/or retrofit to achieve Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

14 and to fund the District's administrative expenses to implement the VERA, as may be 

15 specified in each VERA. The Authority acknowledges that the District will require 

16 availability of a meaningful amount of such Funds prior to soliciting and negotiating 

17 IIPFAs to accomplish Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets on the Authority's behalf as part 

18 of any individual VERA. The District acknowledges that construction of the HST SJV 

19 District Portion is not fully funded, and future funding sources and availability can affect 

20 how individual VERAs get funded and the provisions and terms in such VERAs. The 

21 total estimated amount of Air Quality Mitigation Funds necessary for each VERA are 

22 based on (a) the total tonnage of Criteria Pollutants estimated to be emitted during the 

23 HST construction covered by each VERA, as estimated within a Certified 

24 Environmental Document or some subsequent estimate based on more then-up-to25 date construction information and (b) District's cost per ton per the then-applicable rate 

26 contained in District Rule 9510 as set forth in each VERA. 

27 (ii) Upon receipt of a meaningful amount of such Funds as relates to an

28 individual VERA and upon the Authority's written notice to proceed from its Contract 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-6-
1 Manager to the District based on relative certainty of a likely construction start date for 

2 the HST construction covered by the relevant VERA, the District will commence 

3 negotiating and executing (after Authority limited review and approval) and funding 

4 (from the Funds in trusUescrow) IIPFAs to achieve Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA 

5 Offsets on behalf of the Authority in a timely manner to satisfy applicable law or 

6 general conformity regulations requiring emission reductions to be achieved 

7 contemporaneous to the actual emissions to be offset. The Authority will continue to 

8 fund the trusUescrow account, and District will continue to negotiate and execute 

g additional IIPFAs to create additional Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets until 

1 o sufficient Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets have been funded to accomplish full 

11 offset to net zero for that VERA. 

12 (iii) Upon execution of each IIPFA, District shall issue to the Authority a Secured

13 Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt, by which the District ensures to the Authority 

14 that such associated offsets listed in the Receipt have been secured with no further 

15 involvement or funding by the Authority. 

16 (iv) Through periodic reporting to each other, the Authority will monitor the actual

17 emissions resulting from construction and the District will monitor and match such 

18 actual emissions to the total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

19 Receipts issued to date. The District shall certify in writing to the Authority when the 

20 total Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets listed in all Receipts issued fully offset 

21 the actual construction emissions of Criteria Pollutant(s) from the HST Segment portion 

22 covered by the associated VERA. 

23 3. Refunds

24 When total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts

25 equal or exceed total actual construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST 

26 construction covered in a VERA, the District shall, upon Authority written request, 

27 refund the Authority any remaining Air Quality Mitigation Funds which are not 

28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-7-
1 encumbered through IIPFAs. The District shall have a reasonable period of time to 

2 refund the unencumbered Air Quality Mitigation Funds. 

3 4. Transfer of Segment Excess Emission Reductions

4 If total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts

5 exceed total construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST construction 

6 covered in a VERA, the Authority shall be credited with such excess emission ("VERA 

7 Excess Emission Reduction" or "Excess"). Such VERA Excess Emission Reductions 

8 shall be transferred to any other then-existing or future Authority-District VERA. If there 

9 is no existing VERA and likely will not be a future VERA in time for the Authority to get 

1 o value for the Excess, the Authority may transfer the Excess to a third-party developer. 

11 5. District Rule 9510-lndirect Source Review

12 Authority acknowledges that it is required to comply with all applicable laws that

13 may be in effect as the HST SJV District Portion is implemented, such as the District's 

14 current Rule 9510 (including its requirement to submit an Air Impact Assessment 

15 Application). The Authority acknowledges that it is subject to all applicable provisions 

16 of District Rule 9510 that are in effect at the time of submitting an Air Impact 

17 Assessment Application, but the District anticipates that Criteria Pollutant Offsets to be 

18 accomplished through VERAs as contemplated by this MOU will satisfy the emissions 

19 reductions requirements of current Rule 9510. 

20 6. Term of MOU

21 This MOU shall be effective upon the date it is signed. The Parties acknowledge

22 that construction of the HST SJV District Portion could span one or more decades. The 

23 Parties agree to work cooperatively together over that time period to evaluate any 

24 amendments necessary to this MOU to reflect any relevant circumstances that may 

25 change, including but not limited to changing state and federal law requirements 

26 related to air quality, changes (positive or negative) in the Clean Air Act attainment 

27 status of the San Joaquin Air Basin for Criteria Pollutants or other pollutants, changing 

28 and evolving HST funding, and changing state and federal law requirements related to 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg -8-

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000
s 

errnng Board Cha 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Contra Distric / 

1 the HST System. This MOU shall be terminated by its terms when total offsets stated in 

2 Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts equal or exceed total actual 

3 construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST SJV District Portion. 

4 7. Exhibits. The Exhibits to this MOU are fully incorporated and are a part

5 of this MOU, and are: 

6 A. District Boundaries Map

7 B. HST System and Segment Map

8 8. Miscellaneous. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into

9 the terms of this MOU. Counterpart and facsimile/computer image signatures shall be 

1 o treated as originals. Notices under this MOU shall be given in writing to the persons 

11 and addresses listed in the then-most-current VERA. This MOU contains all 

12 understandings between the Parties as to the matters covered herein and incorporates, 

13 integrates and supersedes any different or other oral or written understandings 

14 between the Parties as to the matters covered herein. This MOU was prepared equally 

15 by both Parties. 

16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and District have executed this MOU 

17 and agree that it shall be effective as of the date first written above. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

AUTHORITY 

High Speed Rail Authority 

Jeff Morales 

Chief Executive Officer 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-9-

DISTRICT 

Recommended for ap roval: 

Se e adredin 

Executive Director/APCO 

Approved as to legal form: 



APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND VOLUNTARY

EMISSION REDUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED

RAIL AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MITIGATING AIR QUALITY

IMPACTS

Attachment B:

Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement

(56 pages)
STANDARD AGREEMENT 

STD. 213 (NEW 06/03) 

AGREEMENT NUMBER 

HSR14-12 

REGISTRATION NUMBER 

1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below

STATE AGENCY'S NAME 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

CONTRACTOR'S NAME 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

The term of this June 1, 2014 ( or upon DGS approval, whichever is later) through July 31, 2028. 2. Agreement is: 

The maximum $1,705,472 ("Agreement Funding Maximum"). 3. amount of this 

One Million, Seven Hundred and Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Two Dollars Agreement is: 

The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference 4. made a part of the Agreement: 

Exhibit A-Scope of Work and its Attachments A-1 to A-8 (Attachment A-4 includes a budget) 39 Pages 

Exhibit B - Budget Detail and Payment Provisions 1 Page 

Exhibit C - General Terms and Conditions 4 Pages 

Exhibit D - Special Terms and Conditions 3 Pages 

Exhibit E-Supplemental Terms and Conditions for Contracts Using Federal Funds 7 Pages 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this A rcement has been executed b arties hereto (aclditiounl si natures on following page 9.) 

Califomia Depart111e11t ofGe11era/ CONTRACTOR Services Use 011{ 

CONTRACTOR' NAME (If other than an individual, slate whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) 

n Control District 

PRIN 

Hub Walsh, Governing Board Chair

ADDRESS 

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AGENCY NAME 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

DATE SIGNED (Do not type) 

PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING 

_Jeff_Morales,_Chief_Executive_Officer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D Exempt per:

ADDRESS 

770 L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 
ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE PAGE FOR VERA BETWEEN CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

AUTHORITY AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FOR 

CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE lA/lB (MADERA TO FRESNO) 

June 2014 

HSRA AGREEMENT NUMBER: HSR14-12 

DISTRICT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 20140105 

The following authorized representatives of the District, by their signatures, recommend and approve this 

Agreement for execution by the District's Governing Board. Recommended for approval: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 

Seyed Sadredin

Executive Director/APCO 

JUN 1 6 2014 Date: ------------

Approved as to legal form: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

JUN 1 6 2014 Date: 

Approved as to accounting form: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

Mehri Barati

Director of Administrative Services 

Date: ------------

Contro istrict 

Annette Ballatore- illiamson 

District Counsel 

JUN 1 6 2014
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 3 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION AGREEMENT (District No. 20140105) 

FOR THE MADERA-FRESNO PORTION OF THE MERCED-FRESNO HIGH SPEED 

RAIL SEGMENT 

This Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement ("Agreement" or "VERA") is 

entered into between the CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY ("Authority") 

and the SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

("District" or "Contractor"). Authority and District are each a "Party" and collectively are 

the "Parties". As used herein, "Agreement" or "VERA" includes the Standard Agreement 

cover page (STD 213), this Exhibit A (Scope of Work) and Exhibits B to E inclusive. 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, District is an air pollution control district formed by the counties of 

Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare, and the Valley 

portion of Kern, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 40150, et seq.; 

and 

WHEREAS, District is responsible for developing and implementing air quality 

control measures within the District Boundaries as depicted in Attachment A-1 ("District 

Boundaries") attached hereto and incorporated herein, including air quality control 

measures for stationary sources, transportation sources, and indirect sources; and 

WHEREAS, the Authority, in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration 

("FRA"), is developing an electrified high-speed train ("HST") system ("System"), which 

includes construction of guide-way segments, and ancillary facilities such as 

maintenance facilities, electrical overhead catenary, stations, and overpasses for 

California pursuant to the California High-Speed Rail Act (Public Utilities Code section 

18500 et seq.) ("Rail Act") and the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 4 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Act for the 21st Century (codified at Streets and Highways Code section 2704 et seq.) 

("Bond Act") that would serve the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, 

Los Angeles and San Diego (as depicted in Attachment A-2); and 

WHEREAS, the System includes segments (or portions thereof) that will be 

constructed within the San Joaquin Valley ("SJV") District Boundaries including the 

following: Merced to San Jose, Merced to Fresno, Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to 

Palmdale, and Sacramento to Merced collectively referred to as "HST SJV District 

Portion"; and 

WHEREAS, in 2014 the Parties anticipate entering into a Memorandum of 

Understanding to establish the process to fully mitigate (by offsetting to net zero) 

emissions from construction of the HST SJV District Portion; and 

WHEREAS, the Authority completed Program-level Environmental Impact 

Statements/Reports (EIS/EIR) in 2005 2008, 2010 and 2012 pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") 

evaluating impacts of the System, and selecting preferred route corridors; and 

WHEREAS, a project level Final EIS/EIR ("MF FEIR") for the Merced to Fresno 

Segment ("MF Segment") was certified via Resolution 12-19 ("MF FEIR Resolution") 

and the MF Segment was approved and CEQA findings made via Resolution 12-20 

("MF Segment Resolution") by the Authority's Board of Directors in May 2012 and 

FRA's associated Record of Decision ("ROD") issued in September 2012; and 

WHEREAS, during the public process leading up to the MF FEIR, the District 

recommended in writing that the Authority enter this VERA with the District as a 

mitigation measure for construction emissions (because of the offsets it would achieve); 

and 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 5 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

WHEREAS, construction of a portion of the MF Segment (grade separations, 

track bed and track bed structures from approximately Madera to downtown Fresno; 

rails, electrification and stations will be part of a future construction package(s)) is 

anticipated to commence in 2014 (known as Construction Package 1A/1 B or "CP 

1A/1 B"), and the Authority has not secured funding to construct north of Madera; and 

WHEREAS, despite incorporation of various requirements and mitigation 

measures (i.e., using the cleanest construction and hauling fleet as reasonably 

practicable, as detailed in MF FEIR AQ-MM#1 and #2) to reduce the construction 

emissions associated with the MF Segment, the Authority concluded in its MF Segment 

Resolution that construction would nevertheless still cause significant cumulative 

impacts on air quality within the District Boundaries because of the existing 

nonattainment status or maintenance status for Criteria Pollutants (extreme 

nonattainment, in the case of ozone precursors Oxides of Nitrogen ("NOx") and Volatile 

Organic Compounds ("VOCs")); and 

WHEREAS, the Authority in the MF Segment Resolution committed to fully 

mitigate) cumulative air quality impacts of the MF Segment resulting from construction 

for VOC, NOx, Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less in size ("PM10") and Particulate 

Matter of 2.5 microns or less in size ("PM2.5") (the "Offset Obligation"), collectively 

referred to as "Criteria Pollutants", by offsetting Criteria Pollutants collectively in the 

aggregate to net zero; and 

WHEREAS, the Authority determined the Offset Obligation was feasible because 

of the District's representations to the Authority about its expertise and its ability to 

partner with the Authority to implement the Offset Obligation at the Offset Cost 

Schedule set forth in Table 1; and 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 6 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

WHEREAS, the Authority in the MF Segment Resolution committed to causing 

the emissions offsets to occur within one year of the associated emission to be offset, or 

longer as permitted by 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93 Section 93.163 ("Offset 

Timing Requirement"); and 

WHEREAS, the District has developed Incentive Programs around several core 

principles, including cost-effectiveness, integrity, effective program administration, 

excellent customer service, the efficient use of District resources, fiscal transparency 

and public accountability; and 

WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs involve the District using monies 

(such as project-proponent-provided monies) to fund (usually on a percentage basis) 

the purchase and use by third parties of newer equipment that emits fewer Criteria 

Pollutants to replace older, less-clean-burning equipment (such as farm tractors), which 

the District administers through Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements; and 

WHEREAS, the District's Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements 

require the user of the new equipment to use the new equipment for a minimum number 

of hours (based on the user's historical use of the replaced equipment) over a specified 

number of years, with penalties and remedies for failure to so use the equipment 

including potentially having to return the funds for redeployment, and require permanent 

destruction of the replaced equipment; and 

WHEREAS, the Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements, because of 

their requirements, result in reductions of Criteria Pollutants that get assigned to the 

project proponent providing the funding (the Authority, in this case) to offset emissions 

by that project proponent ("Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets"); and 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 7 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

WHEREAS, the Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets, because of the requirements of 

and protections in the Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements, are generated 

and become secured upon execution of each Individual Incentive Program Funding 

Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs are regularly audited by 

independent outside agencies including professional accountancy corporations on 

behalf of the federal government, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the 

California Department of Finance and the California Bureau of State Audits ("Successful 

Audit History"); and 

WHEREAS, the District has determined that with appropriate funding from 

Authority, the District can generate and certify Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets to fully 

offset the CP 1 A/1 B portion of the MF Segment ("CP 1 A/1 B Portion") construction 

emissions of Criteria Pollutants; and 

WHEREAS, District has a history of successfully implementing at least eleven 

agreements similar to this VERA at an average cost-effectiveness per ton of $7,911, 

and has never to date needed to request a project proponent in any of those VERAs or 

any other VERA to provide funds beyond the original total funds estimate (including 

administrative fee) and deposit. 

AGREEMENT 

1. Offset of Emissions of Criteria Pollutants during Construction for CP 1 A/1 B

Portion and Cost Estimate

i. For CP 1A/1 B, the Authority shall fully offset its actual construction

emissions of Criteria Pollutants, which offsets the District shall provide and guarantee 

through the Authority's funding of and the District execution and implementation of 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 8 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements ("IIPFA") that achieve surplus, 

quantifiable and enforceable emissions reductions. 

ii. For the purpose of this Agreement, "fully offset" or "net zero" means that

the aggregate sum of all Criteria Pollutants emission reductions achieved by the IIPFAs 

is equal to, or greater than, the aggregate sum of actual Criteria Pollutant emissions 

from construction of the CP 1A/1 B Portion, meaning excess offset of one Criteria 

Pollutant is credited against emissions of other Criteria Pollutants. "Surplus" emission 

reductions are reductions that are not otherwise required by existing laws or regulations. 

iii. CP 1A/1 B extends approximately from the intersection of Avenue 17 and 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF") rail line in Madera to the intersection of 

Santa Clara Street and the Union Pacific rail line in downtown Fresno, as shown in 

Attachment A-3. Estimated construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants, by year by 

pollutant, for CP 1 A/1 B are set forth in Attachment A-4 ("CP 1A/1 B Criteria Pollutants 

Estimate"), which reflect implementation of AQ-MM#1 and #2 (contractor's use of a 

cleaner fleet). Based on the District's current estimated cost-per-ton, plus the District's 

four percent (4%) administrative cost overhead ("District Overhead") to procure offsets 

and to implement this Agreement, as specified in Section 2.1, and the CP 1 A/1 B Criteria 

Pollutants Estimate, achieving Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets for CP 1 A/1 B to net zero 

will cost approximately $1,364,377 ("CP 1 A/1 B Offset Cost Estimate"), as also shown in 

Attachment A-4. This is only an estimate; the actual cost to fully offset CP 1A/1 B may 

be higher or lower depending upon a number of factors which cannot be precisely 

determined now, including but not limited to the evolving market price to accomplish 

offsets and the actual pace and sequencing of construction. Accordingly, the Authority 

agrees to provide funds up to $1,705,472 ("Agreement Funding Maximum") (which is 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 9 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

the above amount plus twenty-five percent (25%); any additional amount would require 

an amendment to this VERA) to fully offset its actual CP 1 A/1 B construction emissions 

of Criteria Pollutants, subject to the District's obligations to secure those offsets on the 

Authority's behalf in a cost-effective manner as required by Paragraph 2.1. 

iv. The Authority at any time may submit to the District a Revised CP 1 A/1 B

Criteria Pollutants Estimate to reflect then-current information about construction timing, 

sequencing and equipment. The Authority and District shall work closely after 

submission to review and revise as necessary to allow District approval in writing within 

30 days of submission; the CP 1 A/1 B Offset Cost Estimate shall be adjusted 

accordingly, upon such approval, via Operating Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 

16.ii. 

2. Emissions Offsets Funding

2.1 Offset Cost Per Ton

Offset cost estimates under this VERA are based on the District's cost per ton set 

forth below in Table 1 (Offset Cost Schedule). 

Table 1 Offset Cost Schedule 

Criteria Pollutants Cost $/ton 

NOx or VOC/ROG $9,350 

PM10 (which includes 

PM2.5) $9,011 

These per-ton costs are not a guarantee and only an estimate, but the District 

shall use every reasonable effort to accomplish average per-ton costs, calculated as of 

its execution of the last IIPFA under this VERA, no higher than these Table 1 costs, as 

Table 1 might be modified per this Paragraph 2.1. The Table 1 per-ton costs derive from 

District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and are subject to change through the 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 10 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

District's formal public procedures for amending these rules. Consistent with District 

Rule 3180 (Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review), the total offset cost 

estimates shall include (which is included in Attachment A-4) an administrative cost 

equal to four percent (4%) of the offset cost estimate. Any changes to District Rule 3180 

or 9510 will be conducted through the District's formal public procedures and process 

for amending these rules. 

District shall provide written notice (via email and mail) to the Authority of any 

pending Rule 3180/9510 cost per ton change at least fifteen (15) days prior to any 

District approval of or decision on such pending change. The results of that change 

shall be memorialized via Operating Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii. 

2.2 Air Quality Cost per Ton 

Revisions to the CP 1A/1B Offset Cost Estimate (as contemplated in Paragraphs 

1 and 3.2) shall be based on Table 1 or the average cost-effectiveness the District then 

projects it will accomplish for this VERA (based on the IIPFAs then executed to date 

under this VERA), if the District concludes after consulting with the Authority that the 

projected cost-effectiveness will be different than Table 1 (as Table 1 might be modified 

per Paragraph 2.1 ). 

2.3 Payment of Funds for Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

i. Within fifteen (15) days after this VERA has been entered into by the

Authority and the District, and then approved by the California Department of General 

Services ("DGS"), the District shall send to the Authority an Initial Invoice in the form of 

Attachment A-5, or in another form as the Authority may reasonably request. 

ii. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the Authority receives the

Initial Invoice from the District or DGS has approved this VERA, whichever is later, the 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 11 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Authority shall deposit with the District initial funds in the amount of five-hundred 

thousand dollars ($500,000) ("Initial Deposit"), or a greater amount if the parties so 

agree via Operating Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii, as initial funding 

towards the CP 1A/1 B Offset Cost Estimate. This initial deposit and each subsequent 

deposit are collectively referred to herein as "Deposits" with each being a "Deposit". 

iii. The District will place each Deposit into a District-held but segregated

High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust Account. Deposits will be used to fund Individual 

Incentive Program Funding Agreements. Deposits in the High Speed Rail Offset 

Funding Trust Account are held by the District in trust for the Authority and are the 

property of the Authority until moved to the District's Committed High Speed Rail Offsets 

Funds Account under Paragraph 2.4. This High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust 

Account shall serve all Authority VERAs as the Authority replenishes it in accordance 

with Paragraph 2.4. 

2.4 Individual Incentive Program Funding Agreements; Secured Criteria 

Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt; Trust Account Replenishment 

i. Upon the Authority's submission to District of the Initial Deposit (and upon

the Authority's written notice to proceed from its Contract Manager to the District based 

on relative certainty of a likely construction start date) and upon each Authority 

additional Deposit, the District is obligated to use Deposits to enter into IIPFAs to 

achieve Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets for construction of the CP 1 A/1 B Portion on 

behalf of the Authority to the extent required under this Agreement. District shall use 

diligent efforts to negotiate and prepare draft Individual Incentive Program Funding 

Agreements with the owners and/or operators of the pollution source equipment ("IIPFA 

Equipment User") within District Boundaries, as identified by the District's Incentive 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 12 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Programs (such Agreements may not involve retrofit of existing equipment or facilities). 

District shall use reasonable efforts, balanced with other requirements of this VERA, to 

prioritize owners and/or operators of pollution source equipment that will lead to 

generation of Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets located as close as possible 

geographically to the location of the CP 1A/1 B construction. 

ii. IIPFAs shall include the following: (a) the business address of the IIPFA

Equipment User; (b) the Tax Identification Number of the IIPFA Equipment User; (c) the 

location(s) where the funded equipment is anticipated to be used; (d) replaced 

equipment disposal requirement; (e) description of replaced and new equipment; (f) 

minimum annual usage requirement for new equipment; and (g) the Authority named as 

an intended third-party beneficiary if the Authority so requests and the District so 

agrees. The Parties may adjust the preceding IIPFA content requirements via Operating 

Memorandum (pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii) if necessary to improve VERA 

implementation, provided such adjustments will allow the Authority to meet its auditing 

and reporting requirements. 

iii. The District shall provide each negotiated draft IIPFA to the Authority via 

e-mail prior to District execution, together with a draft Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

Receipt (defined in Paragraph 2.4.v. below) specifying clearly the amount of Criteria 

Pollutant VERA Offsets, by pollutant by year, the IIPFA will provide, how much such 

Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets will cost out of the Deposit funds (including District 

Overhead), and the per-ton-by-pollutant cost, for review by the Authority within five (5) 

business days. Authority's review is limited to ensuring each IIPFA and associated draft 

Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt (a) identifies the quantity of Criteria Pollutant 

reductions of which type are generated by the IIPFA in each year and associated costs 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 13 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

(so the Authority knows exactly what it is paying for at what cost) and (b) meets the 

requirements in Paragraph 2.4 (sub-sections ii and iii) of this VERA for what IIPFAs and 

Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts must contain. 

iv. Upon full execution of an Authority-approved IIPFA, District may move

funds equal to that shown in the associated draft Criteria Pollutant VERA Offset 

Receipt, including District Overhead which is to compensate the District for its staff time 

and other administrative costs to implement the IIPFA on behalf of the Authority. The 

Authority acknowledges that District has provided historical and auditable 

documentation to the Authority demonstrating that 4% is a reasonable approximation of 

the District's costs to implement agreements such as this VERA and IIPFAs; District 

agrees to provide any further of such documentation during the term of this VERA if the 

Authority reasonably concludes that such further documentation is necessary to satisfy 

any future audits or the FRA. 

v. Within ten (10) days after full execution of each Authority-approved IIPFA,

District shall provide a copy of that IIPFA and a Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt 

(in the form of Attachment A-6, or in another form as the Authority may reasonably 

request) to the Authority specifying the amount of Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets, by 

pollutant by year, secured by the IIPFA ("Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets"), 

how much such Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets cost out of the Deposit funds (including 

the District Overhead), and the per-ton-by-pollutant cost. Thereafter, the District is 

obligated to implement each IIPFA and to ensure, at no further cost to and no further 

involvement by the Authority, that associated Secured Criteria Pollutants VERA Offsets 

are generated as set forth in the associated Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt; 

should such generation fail as to any IIPFA and associated Criteria Pollutant VERA 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 14 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Offsets Receipt, the District shall take whatever steps are required (including but not 

limited to entering into additional IIPFAs, and funding them at no cost to the Authority) to 

ensure that substitute emissions reductions occur equivalent in amount to the 

associated Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt, and in a timing manner that allows 

the Offset Timing Requirement to be met for actual Criteria Pollutant Emissions from CP 

1A/1 B construction. 

vi. The District shall keep detailed records of the generation of Secured

Criteria Pollutants VERA Offsets over the life of the performances required under the 

associated IIPFA, consistent with District's record-keeping practices that have led to its 

Successful Audit History; District shall make such records available to the Authority 

and/or FRA for review upon request and shall keep such records for fifteen (15) years. 

vii. Upon receiving any Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt, the Authority

shall have no more than sixty (60) days to replenish the High Speed Rail Offset Funding 

Trust Account in the amount of that Receipt until total Deposits equal the CP 1 A/1 B 

Offset Cost Estimate as it may by then have been adjusted pursuant to Paragraphs 1 (iv) 

or 3.2(i). The District acknowledges that this sixty-day requirement is dependent upon 

the Authority receiving the required replenishment amount from FRA as reimbursement 

to the Authority of the Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt amount. This subsection 

is not a limit on the Authority's obligations set forth in Paragraph 1. 

viii. The District shall use every reasonable effort initially to match the Secured

Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets to the by-pollutant-by-year CP 1 A/1 B Criteria Pollutants 

Estimate listed in Attachment A A (as it may get revised per Paragraph 1(iv)) to satisfy 

the Offset Timing Requirement on a 1:1 basis (not the higher offset ratios permitted by 

the Offset Timing Requirement), and shall adjust those efforts over time as reasonably 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 15 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

possible (including by delaying execution of further IIPFAs if Criteria Pollutant VERA 

Offsets production get too far ahead temporally of actual emissions) to reflect actual 

emissions of Criteria Pollutants, as reported in accordance with Paragraph 3.2. The 

District shall advise the Authority in writing, as soon as the District recognizes and 

before executing any additional IIPFAs, if it reasonably determines that the 1 :1 standard 

cannot be met, in which case the Parties shall meet and confer to develop an 

implementation strategy to ensure the timing and amounts of emissions reductions 

occur at a minimum as specified by the Offset Timing Requirement. 

3. Segment Related Construction Emissions

3.1 Actual Construction Emissions Assessment

i. Commencing at first to occur of excavation, grading, demolition,

construction-vehicle travel on paved or unpaved surfaces creating vehicle exhaust, any 

of which occurs for the sole purpose of constructing (but not designing) the CP 1A/1 B 

Portion ("Construction"), the Authority shall start collecting detailed daily Construction 

information to determine the actual Criteria Pollutant Construction emissions for the CP 

1A/1 B Portion. To determine the actual Criteria Pollutant Construction emissions for that 

Portion (for inclusion in the Construction Report required by Section 3.1.iii), the 

Authority shall use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), or any 

substitute computer model or analysis approved by the District (such as a spreadsheet 

containing hand calculations using the most current emission factors for quantifying 

actual construction emissions). The District and Authority shall agree in writing upon, 

via Operating Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii, the date Construction started 

so as to fix subsequent reporting deadlines. 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 16 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

ii. Construction information shall include emission sources associated with

the on-site and off-site construction activities. For on-site construction activities, the 

Authority shall collect data for all off-road equipment by equipment type, engine 

horsepower, engine model year, and total daily hours of operation for each construction 

activity (i.e., site preparation, grading, paving, demolition, etc.). For off-site construction 

activities, the Authority shall collect all vehicle trips by general category of activity 

(employee and vendor travel or materials delivery), by vehicle type (i.e., auto, light-duty 

truck, heavy duty truck) and their associated total vehicle miles. The on-site and off-site 

construction activities will be monitored by the Authority, as presented in Attachment AZ ("Construction Reporting Detail Information"). Records of the construction information 

shall be kept by the Authority for fifteen (15) years and made available to the District 

upon request. 

iii. The Authority shall submit .to the District a Construction Report within sixty

(60) days starting at the end of every three (3) month period (or other frequency, as the

Parties may agree in writing via Operating Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii)

following the start of Construction, and within sixty (60) days of any termination pursuant

to Section SA.ii. The Construction Report, as outlined in Attachment A-8, shall be based 

on the Construction Reporting Detail Information collected during every three (3) month

period and any other information or data as the Parties may agree to via Operating

Memorandum pursuant to Paragraph 16.ii. The District shall evaluate the Construction

Report and provide its review in the Emission Reduction Status Report in accordance

with Paragraph 3.2. Upon completion of the entire CP 1A/1 B Construction activities that

generate material amounts of Criteria Pollutants, but no later than sixty (60) days after

the Authority's issuance to its CP 1A/1 B contractor of Certificate of Final Acceptance,
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 17 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

the Authority shall submit to the District a Final Construction Report summarizing all 

actual Construction related Criteria Pollutant emissions for CP 1 A/1 B. 

3.2 Emission Reduction Status Reporting 

i. Upon the District's receipt of the Construction Report, the District shall

have sixty (60) days to prepare and submit to the Authority an Emission Reduction 

Status Report ("Status Report"). This Status Report shall compare the Secured Criteria 

Pollutant VERA Offsets to date to the emissions of Criteria Pollutants in the CP 1A/1 B 

Construction Reports to date. The Status Report also shall identify the average costeffectiveness (in dollars per Criteria Pollutant per ton) based on the IIPFAs then 

executed to date under this VERA. Based on the foregoing in this Paragraph 3.2.i, the 

Status Report shall identify whether the then-current CP 1 N1 B Offset Cost Estimate is 

accurate and if not accurate shall propose a re-adjustment as necessary for the 

Authority's review and consideration for approval within thirty (30) days. The Status 

Report also shall provide an accounting of (a) the High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust 

Account, (b) the Committed High Speed Rail Offsets Funds Account (listing the IIPFA 

associated with each funds commitment entry) and (c) funds actually paid out from the 

Committed High Speed Rail Offsets Funds Account (listing the IIPFA associated with 

each pay out and the associated Secured Criteria Pollutant Offset amount). The District 

agrees to meet telephonically or in person with the Authority if the Authority has any 

questions related to any Status Report. 

ii. When the total Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets equal or exceed

the total emissions of Criteria Pollutants reported in Construction Reports through the 

Final Construction Report for CP 1 A/1 B, the District shall issue a Final Status Report so 

verifying. Excess offsets achieved shall be handled pursuant to Paragraph 3.4. Any 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 18 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

funds then remaining in the High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust Account associated 

with CP 1A/1 B shall be returned to the Authority by the District within thirty (30) days of 

issuing the Final Status Report, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Authority. 

3.3. MF Segment Construction Phases after CP 1 A/1 B 

Construction within the MF Segment beyond CP 1 A/1 B will be handled via 

amendment to this VERA or via a separate VERA, as the Parties subsequently may 

agree in such amendment or separate VERA. 

3.4. Disposition of Excess Secured Criteria Pollutants VERA Offsets 

i. If total Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets exceed the total actual

emissions of Criteria Pollutants reported in Construction Reports through the Final 

Construction Report for CP 1A/1 B ("CP 1 A/1 B Excess Secured VERA Offsets"), as 

reported in the Final Status Report, such CP 1 A/1 B Excess Secured VERA Offsets can 

be transferred to. any other Authority construction within District Boundaries; use of such 

transfers must comply with the Offset Timing Requirement. Such transfer shall be 

deemed effective fifteen (15) days after Authority written notification to the District of 

such transfer. If other Authority construction is not available to receive the benefit of 

such a transfer, the Authority may transfer the CP 1A/1 B Excess Secured VERA Offsets 

to a third-party development project in the District Boundaries unless then-applicable 

law prohibits such a transfer. 

ii. If CP 1A/1 B construction gets de-funded, halted or suspended for

whatever reason for a predicted material amount of time, and if total Secured Criteria 

Pollutant VERA Offsets exceed the total emissions of Criteria Pollutants for CP 1 A/1 B 

construction up to the construction halt or de-fund date, the District shall not enter any 

further IIPFAs for CP 1A/1B and the Authority may transfer the excess Secured Criteria 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 19 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Pollutant VERA Offsets to other Authority construction or to a third-party development 

project(s) in the District Boundaries. In addition, District shall apply any funds then in the 

High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust Account for CP 1 A/1 B to any then-active other 

Authority-District VERA(s); if there are none, then the District shall return to the 

Authority (if the Authority so requests) any such funds. Prior to re-starting CP 1 A/1 B 

construction, the Authority shall deposit with the District funds equivalent to the 

transferred Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets plus any amount returned to the 

Authority (or applied to non-CP 1A/1 B Authority construction) out of the High Speed Rail 

Offset Funding Trust Account pursuant to the preceding sentence. 

4. District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) Requirement

Authority acknowledges that it is required to comply with Rule 9510. The

Authority has submitted, and the District has approved, an Air Impact Assessment 

("AIA") Application, consistent with District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) 

requirements. The Authority acknowledges that it is subject to all applicable provisions 

of District Rule 9510 that are in effect at the time of submitting an Air Impact 

Assessment Application. 

5. Subsequent Litigation, Legislation and/or Administrative Action / Credit to 

the Authority

In the event that despite this Agreement, Authority is required as a result of a 

final judgment or District Approved Settlement (as defined below) in any third-party 

litigation, to pay monies in addition to the monies to be paid by Authority pursuant to this 

VERA, then District shall acknowledge and credit Authority with any additional emission 

reduction achieved to offset MF Segment construction emissions that will result from 

Authority's payment of such additional monies. For purposes of this Paragraph, a 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 20 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

"District Approved Settlement" shall mean a settlement of a lawsuit filed pursuant to 

CEQA, NEPA or other applicable environmental law which (i) provides for Authority's 

payment of monies in exchange for a dismissal of such lawsuit, (ii) provides for the use 

of such monies by the petitioner in such lawsuit in such a manner as to mitigate adverse 

air quality impacts of the MF Segment, and (iii) is approved in writing by District. The 

District shall have no authority to commit the Authority's money in any settlement of a 

third-party lawsuit without the Authority's consent, and the District shall have no 

authority over the Authority's ability or decision to settle or terms of settlement; the 

District's role is limited to evaluating any settlement for credit-giving purposes as stated 

above. 

5A. Term of Agreement 

i. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date fully executed and 

approved by the California Department of General Services, and shall terminate 

automatically upon the first to occur of (1) July 31, 2028, or (2) generation of all 

emissions reductions secured by the Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets required 

under this VERA, at which time the District shall so inform the Authority in writing. 

ii. At any time prior to the events listed in Paragraph 5A.i, for any reason 

notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this VERA, but only after the Parties 

complete dispute resolution under Paragraph 6, either Party may by written notice to the 

other Party ("Termination Notice") terminate this Agreement; termination shall be 

effective upon the date the receiving party receives the Termination Notice and shall 

release the Parties from all VERA obligations to each other except as provided below 

and elsewhere in this Agreement. District shall refund to the Authority any funds in the 

High Speed Rail Offset Funding Trust Account associated with CP 1 Af1 B construction 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 21 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

a of the date the District receives (or sends) the Termination Notice. Notwithstanding 

termination by Termination Notice by either Party or because the VERA end date of July 

31, 2028, has been reached, District's obligations to oversee implementation of IIPFAs, 

to ensure that Secured Criteria Pollutants VERA Offsets are generated as set forth in 

Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts, and to keep detailed records of the generation 

of Secured Criteria Pollutants VERA Offsets over the life of the IIPFAs, as required by 

Paragraph 2.4, shall remain effective for as long as necessary to ensure generation of 

all emissions reductions secured by the Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

regardless of termination by any means. In the event the Authority terminates this 

Agreement (unless the Authority terminates because the District materially breaches 

this Agreement or because funding for the construction of the CP 1 A/1 B Portion is 

deleted or cancelled), or in the event the District terminates this Agreement because the 

Agreement Funding Maximum is not increased via VERA amendment despite the 

Parties' agreement that additional funding is necessary to satisfy the emissions-offset 

purposes of this VERA, the Authority shall consult with the District as the Authority 

develops a feasible alternative strategy to comply with the remainder of its Offset 

Obligation, which alternative strategy the Authority shall use best efforts to develop 

within ninety (90) days of such termination and regarding which the Authority thereafter 

shall obtain District's approval (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), 

which consultation and approval requirement shall survive such termination. 

6. Dispute Resolution

In the event a dispute arises between the Parties about any provision in this

Agreement or the implementation of this Agreement that cannot be resolved through 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 22 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

discussions between the Parties or their authorized representatives, the following steps 

shall be taken. 

i. The Executive Officer of the Party alleging a dispute shall send a letter to

the other Party's Executive Officer outlining the dispute and the action desired. The 

receiving Party shall respond in writing within twenty-one (21) days. Should either Party 

request, the Executive Officers shall meet by telephone or in person. 

ii. If despite Executive Officer communications the Parties cannot resolve the

dispute, the Parties shall mediate the dispute in good faith if one Party so requests in 

writing. Mediation shall be conducted by JAMS mediation services (or a substitute, if 

the Parties mutually agree) in Sacramento by a mediator mutually selected by the 

Parties. The Parties shall use their best efforts to schedule the mediation to take place 

no later than two (2) months after the date mediation is requested, subject to mediator 

availability. The Partil:ls shall share equally the costs of mediation as invoiced by JAMS 

or substitute (unless the Parties agree otherwise on a case-by-case basis), but shall 

bear their own attorney's fees. 

iii. If mediation does not resolve the dispute, either Party may commence

litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 19. 

iv. Should the dispute be of an urgent nature, the aggrieved Party may

commence litigation without first completing mediation. In such case, the Parties shall 

mediate and litigate concurrently, with mediation occurring pursuant to Paragraph 6.ii. 

v. The Parties shall continue to perform their obligations under this VERA

during the dispute resolution process, unless the dispute at issue would prejudice one 

Party if that Party continued to perform a particular obligation; in such case, the Parties 

shall attempt to make arrangements, including contingencies as necessary, to allow the 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 23 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

Party to continue to perform the obligation during dispute resolution to allow the Party to 

perform the obligation in question without risk of prejudice. 

7. Representations, Covenants and Warranties

7.1. The Authority's Representations, Covenants and Warranties.

The Authority represents, covenants and warrants to District, as of the date of 

this Agreement, as follows: 

i. The undersigned representative(s) of the Authority are duly

authorized to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement, and upon the Authority's 

execution and delivery of this Agreement, this Agreement will have been duly 

authorized by the Authority. 

ii. Upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Authority, the

Authority's obligations under this Agreement shall, subject to Legislative appropriation 

and availability of funds and review and approval by the California Department of 

General Services, be legal, valid and binding obligations of the Authority, duly 

enforceable at law and in equity in accordance with the terms and conditions of this 

Agreement. 

iii. There is no lawsuit, legal action, arbitration, legal or administrative

proceeding, legislative, quasi-legislative or administrative action or claim existing, 

pending, threatened or anticipated which would render all or any portion of this 

Agreement invalid, void or unenforceable in accordance with the terms and conditions 

thereof, with the exception of pending and anticipated legal proceedings that could lead 

to suspension or stoppage of CP 1 A/1 B construction and/or its funding which would 

suspend or stop the Authority's ability and need to fund emissions offsets for that 

suspended or stopped construction. 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 24 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

iv. Other than the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the

undersigned representatives of Authority, and approval by the Board of Directors of the 

Authority (if and as required by Authority rules and delegations) and approval by DGS, 

there are no approvals, consents, confirmations, proceedings, or other actions required 

by Authority or any third party, entity or agency in order to enter into and carry out the 

terms, conditions and intent of the parties with respect to this Agreement, except as 

provided in Paragraph 7.1.ii. 

v. Upon the approval of this Agreement by the Authority, the Chief

Executive Officer of the Authority, or equivalent representative, or a delegee of such 

officer, has the authority to approve, deliver, verify, acknowledge and/or accept any 

communication, notice, notification, verification, and/or other document to be issued by 

Authority as reasonably necessary to implement, and if consistent with, the terms and 

conditions of this Agreement, without further approval of the Board of Directors of the 

Authority. This Section 7.1.v is a statement of existing authority, and does not grant any 

new or expanded authority. 

7.2. District's Representations, Covenants and Warranties 

District represents, covenants and warrants to the Authority, as of the date of this 

Agreement, as follows: 

i. The undersigned representatives of District are duly authorized to

execute, deliver and perform this Agreement, and upon District's execution and delivery 

of this Agreement, this Agreement will have been duly authorized by District. 

ii. Upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by District, District's

obligations under this Agreement shall be legal, valid and binding obligations of District, 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 25 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

duly enforceable at law and in equity in accordance with the terms and conditions of this 

Agreement. 

iii. There is no lawsuit, legal action, arbitration, legal or administrative

proceeding, legislative, quasi-legislative or administrative action or claim existing, 

pending, threatened or anticipated which would render all or any portion of this 

Agreement invalid, void or unenforceable in accordance with the terms and conditions 

thereof. 

iv. Other than the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the

undersigned representatives of District, and approval by the Governing Board of the 

District, there are no approvals, consents, confirmations, proceedings, or other actions 

required by District or any third party, entity or agency in order to enter into and carry 

out the terms, conditions and intent of the parties ( except DGS approval per Paragraph 

7.1.iv) with respect _to this Agreement, except IIPFA Equipment User approval of IIPFAs. 

v. The monies paid by the Authority under this Agreement shall be 

sufficient to ensure that the emission reduction contemplated by this Agreement shall 

occur, and District shall utilize such monies in such a manner as to ensure that such 

emission reductions shall occur. 

vi. Upon the approval of this Agreement by the governing board of

District, the Air Pollution Control Officer of District, or equivalent representative, or a 

delegee of such officer, shall have the authority to approve, deliver, verify, acknowledge 

and/or accept any communication, notice, notification, verification, and/or other 

document to be issued by District as reasonably necessary to implement, and if 

consistent with, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, without further approval of 

the Governing Board of District. 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 26 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

8. Indemnification

i. The Authority agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless District for,

from and in connection with any third party claims, losses and/or liabilities arising from 

or in connection with Authority's performance under this Agreement, excluding only 

such claims, losses and/or liabilities which result from or are in connection with District's 

sole negligence, act or omission. 

ii. The District agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Authority,

and its officers, agents and employees, for, from and in connection with any third party 

claims, losses and/or liabilities arising from or in connection with any IIPFA or 

equipment funded by it or the District's failure to perform its obligations under this 

Agreement, excluding only such claims, losses and/or liabilities which result from or are 

in connection with the Authority's sole negligence, act or omission. 

9. lnurement

The Authority's rights and obligations under this Agreement, or applicable portions

thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon any government agency that 

may succeed to the Authority's responsibilities for the HST System construction work 

covered by this VERA. Upon any such succession, the rights and obligations of the 

Authority under this Agreement shall be transferred to the transferee thereof, and the 

Authority shall thereupon be released by District from all obligations and liabilities so 

assigned, except for such obligations and liabilities arising prior to such succession. 

10. Assignment and Subcontracting

i. Neither Party shall have the right to assign all or any part of its rights

and/or obligations under this Agreement without the other Party's written consent, which 

consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event the other Party does give 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 27 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

consent to any such assignment, the other Party, the third party assignee and the 

assigning Party shall enter into an amendment and novation of this Agreement which 

acknowledges the assignment and conforms the various provisions of this Agreement 

as may be required to be conformed in order to provide to the assignee the rights and 

benefits of this Agreement as if such assignee and its project were the original party and 

project contemplated in this Agreement. 

ii. Neither Party may satisfy its obligations under this Agreement via a

subcontract. IIPFAs are not subcontracts. 

11. Recitals Incorporated ·

The recitals set forth hereinabove are hereby incorporated into this Agreement

and acknowledged, agreed to and adopted by the Parties to this Agreement. 

12. Further Assurances

The Authority and District agree to execute and deliver any documents and/or

perform any acts which are reasonably necessary in order to carry out the intent of the 

parties with respect to this Agreement. 

13. No Joint Venture or Partnership

District and the Authority agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in 

any document executed in connection with this Agreement shall be construed as 

making District and the Authority joint venturers or partners. 

14. Notices

Any notices or communications relating to this Agreement shall be given in 

writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given and served for all purposes when 

delivered, if (a) in person, (b) by facsimile or electronic mail (with the original delivered 

by other means set forth in this paragraph), (c) by generally recognized overnight 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 28 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

courier or (d) by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the respective addresses set 

forth below, or to such other addresses as the Parties may designate from time to time 

by providing written notice of the change to the other Party. 

THE AUTHORITY 

Mark Mcloughlin 

Director of Env. Services 

770 L Street, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ph: (916) 403-6934 

Fax: (916) 322-0827 

E-mail: mark.mcloughlin@hsr.ca.gov 

And 

Contract Manager 

770 L Street, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 403-6934

Fax: (916) 322-0827

15. Entire Agreement

DISTRICT 

Seyed Sadredin 

Executive Director/APCO 

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726 

Ph: (559) 230-6000 

Fax: (559) 230-6061 

E-mail: seyed. sad red in@valleyair.org 

The terms of this Agreement, together with all attached exhibits, are intended by 

the parties as the complete and final expression of their agreement with respect to such 

terms and exhibits and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or 

contemporaneous agreement. This Agreement specifically supersedes any prior written 

or oral agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this 

Agreement. 

16. Amendments and Waivers

i. No addition to or modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless

set forth in writing, signed by the Party against whom the addition or modification is 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 29 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

sought to be enforced, and approved by the District's and Authority's respective 

governing boards if and as required by applicable law and then-extant Executive Officer 

delegations of authority. The Party benefited by any condition or obligation may waive 

the same, but such waiver shall not be enforceable by another Party unless made in 

writing and signed by the waiving Party. 

ii. The Parties shall use Operating Memoranda, which shall be signed by 

both Parties, to formalize agreement as to matters which this Agreement requires or 

allows use of Operating Memoranda, or as to other matters where implementation detail 

requires further elaboration but is consistent with this Agreement. 

17. Invalidity of Provisions

If any provision of this Agreement as applied to either Party or to any

circumstance shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or 

unenforceable for any reason, the same shall in no way affect (to the maximum extent 

permissible by law) any other provision of this Agreement, the application of any such 

provision under circumstances different from those adjudicated by the court, or the 

validity or enforceability of this Agreement as a whole. The parties further agree to 

replace any such invalid, illegal or unenforceable portion with a valid and enforceable 

provision, which will achieve, to the maximum extent legally possible, the economic, 

business or other purposes of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable. 

18. Construction

Unless otherwise indicated, all paragraph references are to the paragraph of this

Agreement and all references to days are to calendar days (unless otherwise specified). 

Whenever, under the terms of this Agreement the time for performance of a covenant or 

condition falls upon a Saturday, Sunday or California state holiday, the time for 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 30 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

performance shall be extended to the next business day. The headings used in this 

Agreement are provided for convenience only and this Agreement shall be interpreted 

without reference to any headings. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall 

include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine 

or neuter genders, or vice versa. This Agreement may be executed in one or more 

counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall 

constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile or scanned (.pdf, .jpeg, etc.) images 

of signatures shall be treated as originals. The language in all parts of this Agreement 

shall be construed as a whole in accordance with its fair meaning, and shall not be 

construed against any Party solely by virtue of the fact that such Party or its counsel 

was primarily responsible for its preparation. 

19. Governing Law

The rights and obligations of the parties and the interpretation and performance

of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California. 

20. No Third-party Beneficiaries

Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer any rights or

remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any person other than the parties to 

it and their respective permitted successors and assigns, nor is anything in this 

Agreement intended to relieve or discharge any obligation of any third person to any 

Party hereto or give any third person any right of subrogation or action over or against 

any Party to this Agreement. 

21. Attachments

The attachments to this Exhibit A Scope of Work shall be deemed to be a part of

this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized terms 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

Page 31 of 56 

EXHIBIT A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

used in the attachments and not defined therein shall have the meaning as defined 

herein. The attachments are: 

A-1: District Boundaries 

A-2: High Speed Rail Segments Map 

A-3: Construction Package 1 A/1 B Map 

A-4: CP 1A/1B Criteria Pollutants Estimate and Cost 

A-5: Initial Deposit Invoice 

A-6: Criteria Pollutant Offset Receipt 

A-7: Construction Reporting Detail Information 

A-8: Construction Report Format 

22. Force Majeure

The time within which any Party shall be required to perform under this

Agreement shall be extended on a day-per-day basis for each day during which such 

performance is prevented or delayed by reason of events reasonably outside of the 

control of the performing Party, including, without limitation, acts of God, events of 

destruction, acts of war, civil insurrection, strikes, shortages, non-Party governmental 

delays, non-Party moratoria, civil litigation and the like, and/or delays caused by the 

other Party's act or omission. 



SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

ATTACHMENT A-4 

CP 1A/1B OFFSET COST ESTIMATE 

Pollutant ROG/VOC NOx PMlO* 

Tons to be Reduced - 2014 1.66 24.13 2.89 

Tons to be Reduced - 2015 2.67 38.81 5.37 

Tons to be Reduced - 2016 1.86 27.63 3.20 

Tons to be Reduced -2017 1.85 27.62 3.15 

Tons to be Reduced - 2018 to 2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total for CP lA/1B 8.04 118.19 14.61 

Cost per ton ($/Ton) $ 9,350.00 $ 9,350.00 $ 9,011.00 

Emission Offset Funds $75,174 $1,105,077 $131,651 

4% Administrative Cost (District Overhead) $3,007 $44,203 $5,266 

CPlA/18 Offset Cost Estimate (including 

District Overhead) $1,364,377 

Agreement Funding Maximum $1,705,472 

*PM2.5 is included in PMlO
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

ATTACHMENT A-5 

INITIAL DEPOSIT INVOICE 

INVOICE 

San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District 

Invoice Date: 

Invoice No.: 

Project No: 

Bill to Address 

California High-Speed Rail Authority

770 L Street. Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 

95814

Attn: Contract No: 

For Initial Deposit as required by section2.3 of the VERA Agreement ____ (District number) and 

____ (Authority number) 

Construction Emissions Offsets 

Total Contract Value $ 

Current Invoice 

Initial Deposit Amo 

Total Amount Due $ 

Contract Authorization Remaining $ 

(Nama/Title or person authorized to sign invoice) 

Please Remit Payment to : 

(San Joaquin Valley Alr Pollution Control Distrlct) 

(Address or other Bank lnformatlon) 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

ATTACHMENT A-6 

CRITERIA POLLUTANT VERA OFFSETS RECEIPT 

[On attached two (2) pages] 
INVOICE 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dlabict 

Invoice Cate: 

Invoice No.: 

Project No: 

Bill to Address 

Callfomla High-Speed Rall Authority 

770 L Street, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Attn: Contract No: 

For Emisssions Reductions Secured and Certified as Detalled In the Attached, under the 

Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement ______ (District number) and ____ _ 

(Authority number) 

Total Contract Authorization Amount $ 

Previous Invoices Total $ 

Current Invoice (Including 4% administrative coat) _$ - - - - "--

Total all lnvoice $ 

Total Contract Authorization Remaining $ 

(Namemue of person authorized to sign Invoice) 

Please Remit payment to : 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dletrlct 

(Addreas or other Bank Information) 
- -

San Joaquin Valley -■

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT HEALTHY Al R LIVING

- · . , _ .. -

CRITERIA POLLUTANT VERA OFFSET RECEIPT 

. J 

·---- - - -

THIS RECEIPT IS PRESENTED TO CALIFORNIA 

HIGH•SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY CERTIFYING THE CALIFORNIA 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS LISTED BELOW HAVE , , .

BEEN SECURED THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT. High-Speed Rail Authority 

HSR14-

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST (INCLUDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

COST) 

NEW

EQUIPMENT 

TYPE 

COST

EFFECTIVENESS

($/TONS)

AGREEMENT 

NUMBER 

REPLACED 

EQUIPMENT TYPE 

AGRICULTURAL 

TRACTOR 

AGRICULTURAL

TRACTOR C-21000 $20,800.00 $3,291.51

VOC TOTAL 

REDUCTIONS REDUCTIONS 

YEAR 

NOx 

REDUCTIONS 

(TONS) 

PM 10 

REDUCTIONS 

(TONS)* (TONS) (TONS) 

2014 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2015 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2016 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2017 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2018 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2019 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2020 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2021 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2022 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

2023 2.65 0.15 0.43 3.23 

TOTAL 26.5 1.50 4.30 32.3 

• *PM 2.5 IS INCLUDED IN PM I 0
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

ATTACHMENT A-7 

CONSTRUCTION REPORTING INFORMATION 

Contractor's Daily Record (From Authority's Environmental Mitigation

Management and Assessment (EMMA) system) 

• Equipment (On- or Off-road) 

• Serial Number 

• Make, Model, Model Year

• Rated Horsepower 

• Load Factor

• Fuel Type 

• Hours Operated 

• Construction Activity
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

ATTACHMENT A-8 

CONSTRUCTION REPORT FORMAT 

On-site Sources (off-road equipment) 

Step 1: 

High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is to collect the following information associated with actual construction by 

construction activities: On-site off-road equipment, engine horsepower, engine model year, and total hours of 

operation by equipment type. 

Step 2: 

Upon completing step 1, HSRA is to quantify the actual construction emissions and prepare a Construction 

Report with the following content: 

• Project Description and Location. Identify the following:

o VERA Number 20140105/ Indirect Source Review (ISR) project number 20130103 

o Project/Segment Name (i.e - High Speed Rail project - Merced to Fresno; Fresno to Madera) 

o 3-month Reporting Period Evaluated 

o Date of Report 

o Construction Package Number (e.g.: CP1A) 

• On-site Actual Construction Criteria Pollutants Emissions (NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5) in pounds 

o By equipment type 

o By model year 

o By horsepower 

• Description of methodology used for the construction analysis (e.g.: CalEEMod, hand calculation with 

emission factors, etc.)

Off-site Sources (i.e. vehicles) 

Step 1: 

The Authority is to collect the following information associated with actual construction by construction activities: 

vehicle types (i.e - light auto, heavy duty trucks, etc, All construction vehicle trips, and associated total vehicle 

miles traveled by vehicle type.) by trip activity (i.e.: hauling, employee trips, etc.) 

Step 2: 

Upon completing step 1, HSRA is to quantify the actual construction emissions and include in the Construction 

Report with the following content: 

• Project Description and Location. Identify the following:

o VERA number 20140105 

o Project/Segment Name (i.e - High Speed Rail project - Merced to Fresno; Fresno to Madera) 

o 3-month Reporting Period Evaluated 

o Date of Report 

o Construction Package Number (e.g.: CP1 A) 

• Off-site Actual Construction Criteria Pollutants Emissions (i.e.: NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.S) in pounds by type of 

trips: 

o Employee trips: VMT by vehicle model year

o Hauling trips: VMT by vehicle model year 

o Delivery trips: VMT by vehicle model year 

• Description of methodology used for the construction analysis (e.g.: CalEEMod, hand calculation with emission 

factors, etc.)
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT B 

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS 

A. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS/BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSES 

1. It is mutually agreed that if the Legislature's Budget Act, Congressional Budget Act, of

the current year (if amended or repealed) and/or any subsequent years covered under

this Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for commencing pursuit of work

under this contract, this Agreement may be terminated in accordance with Section SA.ii. 

of Exhibit A of this Agreement.

2. In addition, this Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions

or any statute enacted by Congress or State Legislature that may affect the provisions,

terms or funding of this Agreement in any manner. 

3. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the Legislature's Budget Act or a

Congressional Budget Act for purposes of this Agreement, the Authority shall have the 

option to terminate the Agreement in accordance with Section SA.ii. of this Agreement,

or to otherwise offer an Agreement Amendment to the Contractor in accordance with 

Section 16 of the Agreement to reflect the reduced amount.

B. INVOICING

1. Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts shall include the Authority's Agreement

number listed on the front page of this Agreement and shall be processed in 

accordance with Exhibit A, except that the Contractor shall send two copies of

each such Receipt (in addition to what is required in Exhibit A) to:

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Attention: Financial Operations Section 

770 L Street, Suite 800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT C 

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

EXHIBITC 

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

1. APPROVAL: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties and 

approved by the Department of General Services, if required. Contractor may not commence

performance until such approval has been obtained.

2. AMENDMENT: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid 

unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding

or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties.

3. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is not assignable by the Contractor, either in whole or in part,

without the consent of the State in the form of a formal written amendment.

4. AUDIT: Contractor agrees that the awarding department, the Department of General

Services, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative shall have the right to 

review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of 

this Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of 

three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated.

Contractor agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours 

and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to 

such records. Further, Contractor agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records

and interview staff in any subcontract and/or IIPFA related to performance of this Agreement.

(Gov. Code §8546.7, Pub. Contract Code §10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896). 

5. INDEMNIFICATION: See Section 8 of Exhibit A. 

6. DISPUTES: Contractor shall continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during

any dispute.

7. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: The Authority may terminate this Agreement in accordance

with Section 5A.ii.

8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in 

the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or 

employees or agents of the State.

9. RECYCLING CERTIFICATION: Not applicable because this Agreement does not involve the 

sale of products, materials, goods or supplies to the Authority.

10. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor

and its subcontractors and/or IIPFA Equipment Users shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass,

or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, 

color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS),
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT C 

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

mental disability, medical condition (e.g., cancer), age ( over 40), marital status, denial of family 

care leave and denial of pregnancy disability leave. Contractor and subcontractors and/or IIPFA 

Equipment Users shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and 

applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Contractor and 

subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. 

Code §12990 (a-f) et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California 

Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair 

Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 (a-f),

set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are 

incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. 

Contractor and its subcontractors and/or IIPFA Equipment Users shall give written notice of their 

obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining 

or other agreement. 

Contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all 

subcontracts and/or IIPFAs. 

11. CERTIFICATION CLAUSES: The CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES contained in 

the document CCC 307 are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this

Agreement by this reference as if attached hereto.

12. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

13. COMPENSATION: The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in 

compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including

travel, per diem, and taxes, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

14. GOVERNING LAW: This contract is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance

with the laws of the State of California.

15. ANTITRUST CLAIMS: The Contractor by signing this agreement hereby certifies that if

these services or goods are obtained by means of a competitive bid, the Contractor shall

comply with the requirements of the Government Codes Sections set out below. 

a. The Government Code Chapter on Antitrust claims contains the following definitions:

1) "Public purchase" means a purchase by means of competitive bids of goods, services, or 

materials by the State or any of its political subdivisions or public agencies on whose behalf the 

Attorney General may bring an action pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16750 of the 

Business and Professions Code. 

2) "Public purchasing body" means the State or the subdivision or agency making a public

purchase. Government Code Section 4550. 

b. In submitting a bid to a public purchasing body, the bidder offers and agrees that if the bid is 

accepted, it will assign to the purchasing body all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of

action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15) or under the 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT C 

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the 

Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, materials, or services by the 

bidder for sale to the purchasing body pursuant to the bid. Such assignment shall be made and 

become effective at the time the purchasing body tenders final payment to the bidder. 

Government Code Section 4552. 

c. If an awarding body or public purchasing body receives, either through judgment or 

settlement, a monetary recovery for a cause of action assigned under this chapter, the assignor

shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for actual legal costs incurred and may, upon 

demand, recover from the public body any portion of the recovery, including treble damages,

attributable to overcharges that were paid by the assignor but were not paid by the public body

as part of the bid price, less the expenses incurred in obtaining that portion of the recovery.

Government Code Section 4553.

d. Upon demand in writing by the assignor, the assignee shall, within one year from such 

demand, reassign the cause of action assigned under this part if the assignor has been or may

have been injured by the violation of law for which the cause of action arose and (a) the 

assignee has not been injured thereby, or (b) the assignee declines to file a court action for the 

cause of action. See Government Code Section 4554. 

16. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: For any Agreement in excess of $100,000, the

contractor acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code 7110, that:

a. The contractor recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall

fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support

enforcement. including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with

earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with section 5200) of Par:t 5

of Division 9 of the Family Code; and 

b. The contractor, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment

orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire 

Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

17. UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION: In the event that any provision of this Agreement is 

unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of 

this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.

18. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Contract includes services in excess of

$200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded

by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 

in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

19. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS:
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT C 

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

a. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve small business participation,

then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within

such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) report to the awarding

department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Govt.

Code § 14841.)

b. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve disabled veteran business

enterprise (DVBE) participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment

under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this

Contract) certify in a report to the awarding department: (1) the total amount the prime

Contractor received under the Contract; (2) the name and address of the DVBE(s) that

participated in the performance of the Contract; (3) the amount each DVBE received from the 

prime Contractor; (4) that all payments under the Contract have been made to the DVBE; and 

(5) the actual percentage of DVBE participation that was achieved. A person or entity that

knowingly provides false information shall be subject to a civil penalty for each violation. (Mil. &

Vets. Code§ 999.5(d); Govt. Code§ 14841.)

20. LOSS LEADER: 

If this contract involves the furnishing of equipment, materials, or supplies then the following

statement is incorporated: It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to 

sell or use any article or product as a "loss leader" as defined in Section 17030 of the Business

and Professions Code. (PCC 10344(e).)
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT D 

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

1. AMENDMENT (CHANGE IN TERMS) 

No amendment or variation of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in 

writing, signed by the parties, and approved as required. No oral understanding or 

agreement not incorporated in agreement is binding on any of the parties.

The DISTRICT shall only commence work covered by an amendment after the amendment

is executed and notification to proceed has been provided in writing by the AUTHORITY's

Contract Manager. 

2. DISPUTES 

The Parties shall continue with their respective responsibilities under this Agreement during

any work dispute.

3. DISTRICT'S DELIVERABLES UNDER EARLY TERMINATION 

Upon termination, the DISTRICT shall provide all project-related documents and 

correspondence required as part of the Scope of Work (Exhibit A). Project-related

documents shall include all documents that are in complete and final form and which have 

been accepted as complete by the AUTHORITY, or documents in draft and/or incomplete

form for those deliverables, which are in progress by the DISTRICT and have not been 

accepted as complete.

4. RETENTION OF RECORD/AUDITS 

For the purpose of determining compliance with Public Contract Code Section 10115, et 

seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when 

applicable, and other matters connected with the performance of the Agreement pursuant to 

Government Code Section 8546.7, the DISTRICT, IIPFA Equipment Users, and the 

AUTHORITY shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other

evidence pertaining to the performance of the Agreement, including but not limited to, the 

costs of administering the Agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their

respective offices at all reasonable times during the Agreement period and for three (3) 

years from the date of expenditure under this Agreement. The AUTHORITY, the State

Auditor, or any duly authorized representative having jurisdiction under any laws or 

regulations shall have access to any books, records, and documents of the DISTRICT that

are pertinent to the Agreement for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and 

copies thereof shall be furnished if requested.

Any IIPFA in excess of $25,000.00, entered into as a result of this Agreement, shall contain

all the provisions of this clause.
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT D 

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

5. AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES

Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this

Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement shall be reviewed by the Contract Manager.

Not later than 30 days after issuance of an interim or final audit report, the DISTRICT may 

request a review by the Contract Manager of unresolved audit issues. The request for

review will be submitted in writing to the Authority's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The 

request must contain detailed information of the factors involved in the dispute as well as 

justifications for reversal. A meeting by the CEO will be scheduled if the Contract Manager

concurs that further review is warranted. After the meeting, the Contract Manager will make 

recommendations to the CEO who will make the final decision for the AUTHORITY. The 

final decision will be made within three (3) months of receipt of the notification of dispute.

Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by AUTHORITY will excuse the 

DISTRICT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this clause.

6. IIPFAs

Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any obligation of the 

Authority or State flowing or owing to any IIPFA Equipment User

7. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA 

The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the California Public Records Act

(Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.), California Government Code Section 11019.9; and 

California Civil Code Section 1798 et seq. However, all financial, statistical, personal,

technical, or other data and information relative to the AUTHORITY's operations, which is 

designated confidential by the AUTHORITY and made available to the DISTRICT in order to 

carry out this Agreement, shall be protected by the DISTRICT from unauthorized use and 

disclosure.

8. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

The DISTRICT's signature affixed herein and dated shall constitute a certification under

penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the DISTRICT has, unless 

exempt, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Government Code 

Section 12990 and Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 8103. 

9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The DISTRICT hereby certifies that it does not now have nor shall it acquire any financial or

business interest that would conflict with the rP.rform,rnr.P. of services under this Agreement.

10. REBATES, KICKBACKS OR OTHER UNLAWFUL CONSIDERATION

The DISTRICT warrants that this Agreement was not obtained or secured through rebates,

kickbacks or other unlawful consideration either promised or paid to any AUTHORITY
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT D 

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

agency employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, the AUTHORITY shall have the 

right, in its discretion, to terminate this Agreement without liability, to pay only for the value 

of the work actually performed, or to deduct from this Agreement price or otherwise recover 

the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration. 

11. PROHIBITION OF EXPENDING STATE FUNDS FOR LOBBYING 

The DISTRICT certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 

• No State appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the 

DISTRICT, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or 

employee of any State agency, a Member of the State Legislature or United States

Congress, an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress, or any employee of

a Member of the Legislature or Congress in connection with the awarding of any 

State agreement, the making of any State grant, the making of any State, the 

entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,

renewal, amendment, or modification of any State agreement, grant, loan, or 

cooperative agreement.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when 

this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite 

for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. 

Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not 

less than $10,000.00 and not more than $100,000.00 for each such failure. 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

A. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor understands that the Authority has received Federal funding from FRA that

will be used to fund this Agreement. Accordingly, Contractor acknowledges that applicable

federal laws, regulations, policies and related administrative practices, including as they may 

change over the life of this VERA, will govern the administration of that funding, which could

affect this VERA and its requirements, whether or not they are specifically referenced herein. 

The Contractor shall ensure its IIPFAs include specific notice that Federal law requirements,

regulations and policies may change and could affect reporting and other requirements of

the IIPFA but would not affect funding in any IIPFA. 

The Contractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with

any reasonable Authority requests, which would cause the Authority to be in violation of FRA 

requirements.

B. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements regarding Access for

Individuals with Disabilities contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs").

Contractor shall ensure IIPFAs include requirements to so comply.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor and IIPFA Equipment Users shall comply with all applicable environmental

requirements and regulations, as follows:

The Contractor will conduct work under this Agreement in compliance with the following

laws, as modified from time to time, all of which are incorporated herein by reference:

1. Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, and section 308 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S. C. 1318, and all regulations issued thereunder.

2. The Contractor certifies that no facilities that will be used to perform work under this

Agreement are listed on the List of Violating Facilities maintained by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The Contractor will notify the Authority as 

soon as it or any IIPFA Equipment User receives any communication from the EPA 

indicating that any facility which will be used to perform work pursuant to this Agreement

is under consideration to be listed on the EPA's List of Violating Facilities; provided,

however, that the Contractor's duty of notification hereunder shall extend only to those

communications of which it is aware.

D. ENERGY CONSERVATION
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

The Contractor agrees to comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to 

energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conservation plan issued in 

compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6421 et seq.). 

E. FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS, AND RELATED ACTS 

1. The Contractor acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies

Act of 1986 (6 C.F.R. 13), as amended, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq., and USDOT 

regulations Program Fraud Civil Remedies (49 C.F.R. Part 31 ), apply to its actions

under this Agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Contractor certifies or 

affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, it may 

make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the Agreement and or the FRA assisted

project for which this Agreement is being made. In addition to other penalties that may 

be applicable, the Contractor further acknowledges that if it makes or causes to be 

made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification, the 

Federal Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of the Program Fraud 

Civil Remedies Act of 1986 as cited above on the Contractor to the extent the Federal 

Government deems appropriate.

2. The Contractor also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false,

fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification to the Federal

Government under a contract connected with a project that is financed in whole or in 

part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FRA, the Government reserves the 

right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5307 (n)(1) on the 

Contractor, to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate.

3. The Contractor agrees to include the above two paragraphs in each IIPFA. It is further

agreed that the paragraphs shall not be modified, except to identify the IIPFA 

Equipment User who will be subject to the provisions.

F. NO OBLIGATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1. The Authority and the Contractor acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding any 

concurrence by the federal government in or approval of this Agreement, absent the 

express written consent by the federal government, the federal government is not a

party to this Agreement and shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to the 

Contractor or any IIPFA Equipment User. 

2. The Contractor agrees to include the above paragraph in each IIPFA financed in whole 

or in part with federal assistance provided by FRA. It is further agreed that the 

paragraph shall not be modified, except to identify the IIPFA Equipment User who will 

be subject to its provisions.

G. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

1. This Contract is a covered transaction for purposes of 2 C.F.R. 1200. As such, the

Contractor is required to comply with applicable provisions of Executive Orders Nos. 

12549 and 12689, "Debarment and Suspension," 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note, and U.S. DOT 

regulations, "Non-procurement Suspension and Debarment," 2 C.F.R. Part 1200, which

adopt and supplement the provisions of U.S. Office of Management and Budget (U.S.

0MB) "Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)," 2 C.F.R. Part 180. 

2. To the extent required by the aforementioned U.S. DOT regulations and U.S. 0MB

guidance, the Contractor must verify that each IIPFA Equipment User is not excluded or

disqualified in accordance with said regulations by going to 

https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ and using the Search Records function to 

search by party name to see if that party is Excluded.

H. CIVIL RIGHTS 

The following requirements apply to the Contract:

1. NONDISCRIMINATION

In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,

Section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended; 42 U.S.C. § 6102,

Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and 49 

U.S.C. § 306, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any individual

because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability in any activities

leading up to or in performance of the Contract. In addition, the Contractor agrees to 

comply with applicable federal implementing regulations and other implementing

requirements that FRA may issue.

2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply to the Contract:

3. RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX 

In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the 

Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable equal opportunity requirements of U.S. 

Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) regulations, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor," including 41 C.F.R 60 

et seq. (which implements Executive Order No. 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity,"

as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating

to Equal Employment Opportunity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e note), and with any applicable

federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and federal policies that may in the future

affect activities undertaken to implement this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to take

affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, 

sex, or age. Such action shall include the following: employment, upgrading, demotion 

or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or 

other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In 

addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may 

issue. 

AGE 

In accordance with Section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623, the Contractor agrees to refrain from discrimination against 

present and prospective employees for reason of age. In addition, the Contractor agrees 

to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may issue. 

DISABILITIES 

In accordance with Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. § 12112, the Contractor agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the Equal 

Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R Part 1630, 

pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Contractor agrees 

to comply with any implementing requirements FRA may issue. 

The Contractor also agrees not to discriminate on the basis of drug abuse, in 

accordance with the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as 

amended, alcohol abuse, in accordance with the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and 

Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as 

amended, and to comply with Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 

1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of 

alcohol and drug abuse patient records. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply 

with applicable federal implementing regulations and other implementing requirements 

that FRA may issue. 
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

I. ACCESS TO AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS

1. The Contractor agrees to provide the Authority, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Transportation, the FRA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, the

appropriate Inspector General appointed under Section 3 or 8G of the United States

Inspector General Act of 1978, or any of their authorized representatives access to any

books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to 

this Agreement for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and 

transcriptions.

2. The Contractor agrees to permit any of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means 

whatsoever or to copy excerpts and transcriptions as reasonably needed, and to permit

interview by any of the foregoing parties of any officer or employee of Contractor.

3. The Contractor agrees to maintain all books, records, accounts, and reports required

under this Agreement for a period of not less than seven years after the date of

termination or expiration of this Agreement, except in the event of litigation or settlement

of claims arising from the performance of this Agreement, in which case the Contractor

agrees to maintain same until the Authority, the FRA Administrator, the Comptroller

General, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have disposed of all such 

litigation, appeals, claims or exceptions related thereto. Reference 49 C.F.R. 

§ 18.39{i)(11 ); see also ARRA Sections 902, 1514 and 1515. 

J. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

1. The Authority encourages the Contractor to utilize small business concerns owned and 

controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (as .that term is 

defined for certain USDOT agencies in Title VI) in carrying out this Agreement.

2. The Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in 

the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall carry out applicable requirements

of Title VI in the administration of this Agreement. Failure by the Contractor to carry out

these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the 

termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the Authority deems appropriate.
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

K. ARRA-Funded Project

Funding for this Agreement has been provided through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5. Contractor and IIPFA Equipment Users

are subject to audit by appropriate federal or State entities.

L. Recovery of Misspent Funds

The Contractor agrees that if the Contractor or any IIPFA Equipment User uses any funds

provided through this Agreement for purposes other than as required by this Agreement,

the Authority may recover misspent funds following an audit. This provision is in addition to 

all other remedies available to the Authority under all applicable state and federal laws. 

M. Prohibition on Use of ARRA Funds

The Contractor agrees in accordance with ARRA, Provision 1604, that none of the funds

made available under this contract may be used for any casino or other gambling

establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pools.

N. Whistleblower Protection

The Contractor agrees that it shall comply with Section 1553 of the ARRA, which prohibits

all non-federal contractors, including the State, and all contractors of the State, from

discharging, demoting or otherwise discriminating against an employee for disclosures by 

the employee that the employee reasonably believes are evidence of any of the following:

1. Gross mismanagement of a contract relating to ARRA funds

2. A gross waste of ARRA funds

3. A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the implementation

or use of ARRA funds

4. An abuse of authority related to implementation or use of ARRA funds

5. A violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract (including the 

competition for or negotiation of a contract) awarded or issued relating to ARRA funds

The Contractor agrees that it shall post notice of the rights and remedies available to 

employees under Section 1553 of Title XV of Division A of the ARRA. 

0. False Claims Act

The Contractor agrees that it shall promptly notify the Authority and shall refer to an 

appropriate federal inspector general any credible evidence that a principal, employee,
SJVUAPCD 

HSR14-12 

EXHIBIT E 

CONDITIONS FOR CONTRACTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) 

agent, IIPFA Equipment User or other person has committed a false claim under the False 

Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §3729 et seq.) or has committed a criminal or civil violation of laws 

pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, gratuity, or similar misconduct involving 

ARRA funds. 

P. Reporting Requirements 

Pursuant to Section 1512(c) and other sections of the ARRA, the Authority must submit

periodic reports to FRA about how ARRA funds are being spent, where, by whom, on what,

etc. The Authority reasonably believes that the information required from the District set

forth in Exhibit A, such as the information IIPFAs and the District's quarterly Status Reports

must contain, will enable the Authority to meets its ARRA reporting requirements to FRA. 

However, the District agrees to provide any additional information related to this Agreement

and its implementation that the Authority needs to satisfy its reporting obligations to FRA

under ARRA. The Authority agrees to compensate the District, if the District so requests,

for any material additional time the District must spend (beyond the activities the District is 

required to perform under this Agreement absent the need to collect and report such

additional information) to provide such additional information, at the District's staff-time

rates the District then is charging similarly-situated third parties for its services {the District

must document those rates and the additional time spent).
 

 

 

 

 

July 7, 2021 

Bret Banks 

Antelope Valley AQMD 

43301 Division Street 

Suite 206 

Lancaster, CA 93535 

Re: General Conformity for the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of California High-Speed Rail 

Dear Bret Banks: 

Purpose 

The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment to satisfy General Conformity (GC) for 

the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of the California High-Speed Rail project with the Antelope 

Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD). 

Project 

The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more 

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

Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the southern Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland 

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR Section ("Project" or 

"Action") is a critical link connecting the Merced to Fresno, and Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR 

sections to the Palmdale to Los Angeles HSR sections. 1 

General Conformity Rule 

The General Conformity Rule, as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93, 

Subpart B, establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of 

proposed projects that are federally funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality 

standards. This determination must demonstrate that a Proposed Action would not cause or 

contribute to new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere 

with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment. The 

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), as the Action proponent, is receiving federal 

grant funds through the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail program. The Action may also receive FRA safety approvals. Because of the 

federal funding and potential safety approvals, the Action is subject to the General Conformity 

Rule; and because construction-phase emissions (without mitigation) would exceed General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds, the Action is not exempt and must demonstrate conformity. 

General Conformity Determination 

The draft General Conformity Determination documents FRA's finding that the Action complies 

with the General Conformity Rule and that it conforms to the purposes of the area's approved 

State Implementation Plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements. The draft General 

1As part of its first phase, the California HSR system is currently planned as seven distinct sections from San Francisco in the north 

to Los Angeles and Anaheim in the south. 
Page2 

Conformity Determination is being issued for public review and comment concurrent with the 

publication of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section Final Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRIEIS). 

The draft General Conformity Determination is based on the Impact Avoidance and Minimization 

Measures (IAMF) and Mitigation Measures (MM) that are described in Section 3.3.8 of the 

EIR/EIS and that will be implemented for the Action. This compliance is demonstrated as 

follows: 

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

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

Whereas emissions generated during the construction of the Action would exceed General 

Conformity thresholds for one pollutant, these emission increases would be offset through 

the Air Quality Investment Program in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD). 

Based on the current emissions analysis, construction emissions exceed General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the AVAQMD. These exceedances are based 

on current construction schedule and equipment estimates. It should be noted that the 

emission numbers provided in the Authority's EIR/EISs are reasonable estimates based on the 

available information to date. The methodology used in creating these estimates is similar to 

what was used for estimating the emissions for the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield 

project section environmental documents. After seven years of construction in the central valley, 

it has become clear that the estimates in the EIR/EIS are conservative and actual emissions 

from construction are currently lower than estimates by 50-70%. 

The Authority has a long history of being proactive towards reducing construction emissions. As 

shown in Figure 1, the Authority has continually updated its policies and procedures to ensure 

that the project embraces and pushes the boundaries towards reducing emissions. 

Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features 

Avoiding and minimizing emissions is a strategy that is consistent with the net-zero greenhouse 

gas objectives of the Authority's Sustainability Policy. As such, the Authority has incorporated 

the following Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features (IAMF) into the project: 

• AQ-IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions: The contractor would employ several control 

measures to minimize and control fugitive dust emissions and prepare a fugitive dust 

control plan for each distinct construction segment. 

• AQ-IAMF#2: Selection of Coatings: The contractor would use lower voe content

paint than that required by SCAQMD Rule 1113. 

• AQ-IAMF#3: Renewable Diesel: The contractor would use renewable diesel fuel to 

minimize and control exhaust emissions from all heavy-duty diesel-fueled construction

diesel equipment and on-road diesel trucks.

• AQ-IAMF#4: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment:

All heavy-duty off-road construction diesel equipment used during the construction

phase would meet Tier 4 engine requirements.
• • • • 

Page 3 

• AQ-IAMF#S: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road Construction

Equipment: All on-road trucks would consist of model year 2010 or newer. 

• AQ-IAMF#6: Reduce the Potential Impact of Concrete Batch Plants: The 

contractor would prepare a technical memorandum documenting the concrete batch 

plant siting criteria, including locating the plant at least 1,000 feet from sensitive

receptors, and utilization of typical control measures. 

These IAMFs have helped to reduce the construction emissions generated by the project. For 

example, Figure 1 highlights the significant criteria pollutant emission reductions demonstrated 

by the project due to the IAMF#4. 

Figure 1 - Emission Savings due to Tier 4 Equipment in 2020 

TIER 4 REQUIREMENTS MINIMIZE AIR POLLUTION 

Protecting communities in construction 

NOx ROG PM BC 

Nitrogen Oxide Reactive Organic Gas Particulate Matter Black Carbon 

150,000 lbs. 13,800 lbs. 8,400 lbs . 6,300 lbs. 

66% LESS 71% LESS 55% LESS 58% LESS 

50,000 lbs. 3,900 lbs. 3,700 lbs. 2,600 lbs. 

Tier 4 requirements have had a significant positive impact to date. 

Future Emissions Estimates 

Since funding has not been fully secured for this project section, construction emissions would 

be re-visited and re-calculated after funding is secured, prior to the implementation of any offset 

programs. As such, the following steps will be followed to demonstrate conformity: 

• Once construction funding is secured for the project section, a revised construction schedule

will be developed.

• Based on the new schedule, a construction plan will be developed and analyzed to 

determine the emission burdens generated by construction.

• At the time of analysis, the IAMFs and MMs will be revisited and updated to include

technologies and methodologies that were not considered in the earlier analysis. This 
Page4 

review and implementation of updated measures will aid the project in reducing the 

generation of emissions due to construction. 

• Once emission estimates are calculated using the revised IAMF and MMs, it will be 

determined if the estimates are still above the applicable General Conformity de minimis

thresholds.

• All affected air districts will be notified of the emission levels and consulted to offset

emissions for those years/pollutants that exceed General Conformity de minimis thresholds.

Alternatively, the air districts could include these emissions in the applicable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

• The emission accounting program the Authority uses to track emissions for the segments

currently being constructed will be utilized to actively quantify the construction emissions

generated by the project. 

Conclusion 

As such, by signing this letter, the Authority and the air districts commit to the following: 

• The Authority will work with the air district in order to ensure that the lowest level of

construction emissions are generated through the use of mitigation measures outlined in 

this document and rolling review of best available technologies.

• Any emissions exceeding General Conformity de minimis thresholds will be completely

mitigated, in the year of occurrence, through either existing offset programs or inclusion

in the applicable SIP. The current emission offset programs include: 

o Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP) with the Antelope Valley Air Quality

Management District (AVAQMD). The AQIP is a voluntary emission reduction

compliance option, in which moneys are paid by an AQIP Clean Air Investor to 

the District for use to fund stationary and mobile source emission reduction 

strategies that will achieve emission reductions

(https://avaqmd.ca.qov/files/c97c5e2cf/AV2501.pdO.

• In addition to the above, and as discussed with AVAQMD, there is also an option for

those air districts to utilize offsets obtained through the SJVAPCD's Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Agreement (VERA) program. 

• The Authority and the air district will enter into a contractual agreement to mitigate the 

project's emissions, as required by General Conformity regulations, by providing funds

for the applicable offset program to fund grants for projects that achieve the necessary

emission reductions.

• The air district will seek and implement the necessary emission reduction measures, 

using Authority funds; and 

• The air district will serve in the role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects

and verifier of the successful mitigation effort.

As such, General Conformity will be satisfied for this project section. 

Brett Banks, AVAQMD 
770 L Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

July 7, 2021

Glen Stephens

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

2700 “M” Street, Suite 302

Bakersfield, California 93301-2370

Re: General Conformity for the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of California High-Speed Rail

Dear Glen Stephens: 

Purpose

The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment to satisfy General Conformity (GC) for 

the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of the California High-Speed Rail project with the Eastern 

Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD). 

Project

The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more 

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

Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the southern Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland 

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR Section (“Project” or 

“Action”) is a critical link connecting the Merced to Fresno, and Bakersfield to Palmdale HSR 

sections to the Palmdale to Los Angeles HSR sections.1

General Conformity Rule

The General Conformity Rule, as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93, 

Subpart B, establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of 

proposed projects that are federally funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality 

standards. This determination must demonstrate that a Proposed Action would not cause or 

contribute to new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere 

with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment. The 

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), as the Action proponent, is receiving federal 

grant funds through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail program. The Action may also receive FRA safety approvals. Because of the 

federal funding and potential safety approvals, the Action is subject to the General Conformity 

Rule; and because construction-phase emissions (without mitigation) would exceed General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds, the Action is not exempt and must demonstrate conformity.

General Conformity Determination

The draft General Conformity Determination documents FRA’s finding that the Action complies 

with the General Conformity Rule and that it conforms to the purposes of the area’s approved 

State Implementation Plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements. The draft General 

Conformity Determination is being issued for public review and comment concurrent with the 

1

 As part of its first phase, the California HSR system is currently planned as seven distinct sections from San Francisco in the north 

to Los Angeles and Anaheim in the south. 
Page 2 

publication of the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section Final Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). 

The draft General Conformity Determination is based on the Impact Avoidance and Minimization 

Measures (IAMF) and Mitigation Measures (MM) that are described in Section 3.3.8 of the 

EIR/EIS and that will be implemented for the Action. This compliance is demonstrated as

follows:

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

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

• Whereas emissions generated during the construction of the Action would exceed General

Conformity thresholds for one pollutant, these emission increases would be offset through

the Emission Banking Certificate Program in the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

(EKAPCD).

Based on the current emissions analysis, construction emissions exceed General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the EKAPCD. These exceedances are based 

on current construction schedule and equipment estimates. It should be noted that the 

emission numbers provided in the Authority’s EIR/EISs are reasonable estimates based on the 

available information to date. The methodology used in creating these estimates is similar to 

what was used for estimating the emissions for the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield 

project section environmental documents. After seven years of construction in the central valley, 

it has become clear that the estimates in the EIR/EIS are conservative and actual emissions 

from construction are currently lower than estimates by 50-70%. 

The Authority has a long history of being proactive towards reducing construction emissions. As 

shown in Figure 1, the Authority has continually updated its policies and procedures to ensure 

that the project embraces and pushes the boundaries towards reducing emissions. 

Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features

Avoiding and minimizing emissions is a strategy that is consistent with the net-zero greenhouse 

gas objectives of the Authority’s Sustainability Policy. As such, the Authority has incorporated 

the following Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features (IAMF) into the project: 

• AQ-IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions: The contractor would employ several control

measures to minimize and control fugitive dust emissions and prepare a fugitive dust

control plan for each distinct construction segment.

• AQ-IAMF#2: Selection of Coatings: The contractor would use lower VOC content

paint than that required by SCAQMD Rule 1113.

• AQ-IAMF#3: Renewable Diesel: The contractor would use renewable diesel fuel to

minimize and control exhaust emissions from all heavy-duty diesel-fueled construction

diesel equipment and on-road diesel trucks.

• AQ-IAMF#4: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment:

All heavy-duty off-road construction diesel equipment used during the construction

phase would meet Tier 4 engine requirements.

• AQ-IAMF#5: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road Construction

Equipment: All on-road trucks would consist of model year 2010 or newer.
Page 3 

• AQ-IAMF#6: Reduce the Potential Impact of Concrete Batch Plants: The

contractor would prepare a technical memorandum documenting the concrete batch

plant siting criteria, including locating the plant at least 1,000 feet from sensitive

receptors, and utilization of typical control measures.

These IAMFs have helped to reduce the construction emissions generated by the project. For 

example, Figure 1 highlights the significant criteria pollutant emission reductions demonstrated 

by the project due to the IAMF#4. 

Figure 1 - Emission Savings due to Tier 4 Equipment in 2020

Future Emissions Estimates

Since funding has not been fully secured for this project section, construction emissions would 

be re-visited and re-calculated after funding is secured, prior to the implementation of any offset 

programs. As such, the following steps will be followed to demonstrate conformity:

• Once construction funding is secured for the project section, a revised construction schedule

will be developed.

• Based on the new schedule, a construction plan will be developed and analyzed to

determine the emission burdens generated by construction.

• At the time of analysis, the IAMFs and MMs will be revisited and updated to include

technologies and methodologies that were not considered in the earlier analysis. This

review and implementation of updated measures will aid the project in reducing the

generation of emissions due to construction.
Page 4 

• Once emission estimates are calculated using the revised IAMF and MMs, it will be

determined if the estimates are still above the applicable General Conformity de minimis

thresholds.

• All affected air districts will be notified of the emission levels and consulted to offset

emissions for those years/pollutants that exceed General Conformity de minimis thresholds.

Alternatively, the air districts could include these emissions in the applicable State

Implementation Plan (SIP).

• The emission accounting program the Authority uses to track emissions for the segments

currently being constructed will be utilized to actively quantify the construction emissions

generated by the project.

Conclusion

As such, by signing this letter, the Authority and the air districts commit to the following:

• The Authority will work with each air district in order to ensure that the lowest level of

construction emissions are generated through the use of mitigation measures outlined in

this document and rolling review of best available technologies.

• Any emissions exceeding General Conformity de minimis thresholds will be completely

mitigated, in the year of occurrence, through either existing offset programs or inclusion

in the applicable SIP. The current emission offset programs include:

o Emission Banking Certificate Program (EBCP) with the Eastern Kern Air Pollution

Control District (EKAPCD). The EBCP facilitates the use of emission reductions

by industry as tradeoffs or offsets for new or modified stationary sources of air

contaminants, including transfer of ownership of such credits

(http://www.kernair.org/Rule%20Book/2%20Permits/210_3%20Emissions%20Re

ductions%20Banking.pdf).

• In addition to the above, and as discussed with EKAPCD, there is also an option for

those air districts to utilize offsets obtained through the SJVAPCD’s Voluntary Emission

Reduction Agreement (VERA) program.

• The Authority and the air district will enter into a contractual agreement to mitigate the

project's emissions, as required by General Conformity regulations, by providing funds

for the applicable offset program to fund grants for projects that achieve the necessary

emission reductions.

• The air district will seek and implement the necessary emission reduction measures,

using Authority funds; and

• The air district will serve in the role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects

and verifier of the successful mitigation effort.

As such, General Conformity will be satisfied for this project section.

_______________________________ 

Glen Stephens, EKAPCD