March 2011 Final EIS 

3-1 

3.0 Introduction 

This chapter provides the analysis of the potential project-related environmental effects 

that would occur with development of the DesertXpress project. Sections 3.1, Land 

Use and Community Impacts, through Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describe the affected environment of the 

project as it relates to each specific environmental issue, the environmental consequences 

resulting from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives, and mitigation 

measures that would reduce impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

The following environmental topics are addressed in this chapter: 

3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 3.9 Geology and Soils

3.2 Growth 3.10 Hazardous Materials

3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate 

Change

3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 3.12 Noise and Vibration

3.5 Traffic and Transportation 3.13 Energy

3.6 Visual Resources 3.14 Biological Resources

3.7 Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources

3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

Each environmental issue section contains a discussion of changes to the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS analyses regarding the affected and regulatory environment 

which are incorporated into this Final EIS as well as an analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the Preferred Alternative and the associated mitigation measures and 

residual impacts following mitigation. Substantive updates and changes in response to 

comments are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 
DesertXpress 3.0 Introduction 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3-2 

This page intentionally left blank.
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-1 

3.1 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

This section describes the updates and changes made in response to comments on the 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential the land 

use and community impacts related to the Preferred Alternative compared to the No 

Action and other Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.1.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS related to land use and community impacts and provides responses to those 

comments. Several comments resulted in updates/changes to the land use and 

community impacts analysis as discussed below. Substantive updates and changes are 

shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.1.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.1.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.1 describe in detail the 

affected environment for land use and community impacts for the DesertXpress project. 

Existing Land Uses 

The general community demographics and land development patterns of Victorville, 

Lenwood, Yermo, Baker, Primm, Jean, Sloan, and the metropolitan Las Vegas area have 

not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. While new 

developments have been constructed within the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative since 

publication of the Draft EIS, these developments are similar to the types of existing land 

uses considered in Draft EIS Section 3.1.3.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.1

and thereby remain applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Land Use Designations 

Comments 288, 289, 290, and 334 on the Draft EIS requested additional information 

related to land use planning within Barstow related to planned residential and industrial 

developments in western Barstow. These comments specifically requested a discussion of 

the P&V Enterprise development project, the Barstow Industrial Park, and the Walmart 

Distribution Center. To address these comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.3.2, under the heading “Segments 2A/2B” and subheading “Rail AlignmentsLand Use Designations” to include the following information:
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-2 

The City of Barstow is planning for the P&V Enterprises development 

project, which would introduce 302 residential parcels on 12,299 acres 

west of the Interstate 15 (I-15) freeway near the intersection of the 

National Trails Highway and Hinkley Road in southwestern Barstow. 

This project would be approximately one mile west of Segment 2A/2B.

The City of Barstow has also planned for the Barstow Industrial Park 

development project, which would introduce industrial development 

and accessory use, such as food service, fuel stations, and similar 

commercial uses. The Barstow Industrial Park development would be 

located in western Barstow, located on the west side of Lenwood Road 

at Jasper Road, just north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Railroad (BNSF) railway tracks. The planned Barstow Industrial Park 

would be approximately one mile east of Segment 2A/2B.

The City of Barstow is also proposing a 1,078,000 square foot Walmart 

Distribution Center on approximately 143 acres of vacant, undeveloped 

land in southwestern Barstow on Lenwood Road between Jasper Road 

and Agate Road. The Walmart Distribution Center would be located in 

the same area as proposed for the Barstow Industrial Park. The 

Walmart Distribution Center would be located approximately one mile 

east of Segment 2A/2B.

To further address Comments 288, 289, 290, and 334 on the Draft EIS, Figures S-3.1-6

and S-3.1-7 in the Supplemental Draft EIS are revised in this Final EIS to show the 

industrial land use designation within the vicinity of these planned developments in 

Barstow. This Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-6 and S-3.1-7. 

These revised figures are shown as Figure F-3.1-1 and F-3.1-2 at the end of this section. 

BLM Mining Claims and Multiple Use Classifications 

Comment 330 on the Draft EIS indicated that the DesertXpress project is not within the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Multiple Use Class I designated lands. To address 

this comment, the Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.1.1, under the heading 

“California Desert Conservation Area Plan Resource Management Plan,” paragraph 9 as 

follows: 

Figure 3-1.1 (of the Draft EIS) depicts the multiple use classifications near the 

alignment. As shown in Figure 3-1.1 (of the Draft EIS), the majority of the 

alignment that passes through the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) 

planning area is in either unclassified, Class M, or Class L land. Near Victorville, a 

small portion of the alignment runs through Class I land.

In response to Comment 330 on the Draft EIS and Comment S-240 on the Supplemental 

Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Table 3.1-2 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Table S-3.1-2. This revised table is provided as Table F-3.1-1 below. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-3 

Table F-3.1-1 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

High Compatibility Medium Compatibility Low Compatibility

Rail Alignments, 

Utility Corridors

Transportation corridors, 

utility corridors, industrial 

areas, institutional, 

vacant/undeveloped, 

airports (outside Runway 

Protection Zones and 

one-engine inoperative 

zones), airports,

hotels/casinos, BLM 

Multiple Use Class I 

designated land

Agricultural lands, 

medium to high intensity 

commercial uses,

hotel/casinos, 

administrative/ 

professional uses, BLM 

Multiple Use Class M 

designated land, Airport 

Runway Protection 

Zones and one-engine 

inoperative zones

Residential land uses, 

habitat/open space 

conservation areas, 

schools, hospitals, 

parks/recreational use, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

L and C designated 

land

Stations/

Maintenance 

Facilities, Temporary 

Construction Areas

Commercial/industrial land 

uses, business park, 

transportation corridors, 

utility corridors, agricultural 

lands, institutional, 

vacant/undeveloped lands, 

airports (outside Runway 

Protection Zones and 

one-engine inoperative 

zones), landfills, 

hotel/casinos, BLM 

Multiple Use Class I 

designated land

Residential land uses, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

M designated land, 

Airport Runway 

Protection Zones and 

one-engine inoperative 

zones

Habitat/open space 

conservation areas, 

schools, 

parks/recreational use, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

L and C designated 

land

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

Comment 331 on the Draft EIS requested that reference to the BLM West Mojave Plan 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) be removed from the Draft EIS. There were two 

alternatives considered for the BLM West Mojave Plan, and the approved alternative does 

not include the provision of an HCP. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends 

Draft EIS Section 3.1.1.1, under the heading “California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

Resource Management Plan” and subheading “West Mojave Plan,” paragraph 1 as follows:

The West Mojave Plan is the largest habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the U.S. 

The Plan covers 9.3 million acres in San Bernardino, Kern, Los Angeles, and Inyo 

counties. The BLM published the plan in 2005 and the Record of Decision (ROD) 

was signed in March 2006.1

 

1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Final Environmental Impact Report and 

Statement for the West Mojave Plan: A Habitat Conservation Plan and California Desert Conservation Area 

Plan Amendment. Volume 2. January 2005. Website accessed in 2007. 

<http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/cdd_pdfs/wemo_pdfs/plan/wemo/Vol-2-Complete-Bookmarks.pdf>.
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-4 

Comment S-241 on the Supplemental Draft EIS stated that Figures S-3.1.3 and S-3.1.4

incorrectly depict the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) site as owned by the 

BLM and requested that the figures be revised to show this land as owned by Clark 

County. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS 

Figures S-3.1-3 and S-3.1.4. These revised figures are shown as Figure F-3.1-6 and F3.1-7 at the end of this section. 

Comment S-242 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that Figure S-3.1-8 be revised 

to incorporate corrections to the legend and updated to reflect the land use designations 

identified in the Clark County, South County Land Use Plan. To address this comment 

and to provide updates to the most current land use plans in the project region, this Final 

EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-6 through S-3.1-10. These revised 

figures are shown as Figures F-3.1-1 through F-3.1-5 at the end of this section. 

To address comment S-242, this Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.1, under the heading “Segment 4C,” paragraph 2, as follows: 

Figure S-3.1-8 Figure F-3.1-3 shows the land use designations in the vicinity of 

Segment 4C. Within California, San Bernardino County has designated lands 

within the vicinity of Segment 4C for institutional use. Within Nevada, Clark 

County has designated lands within the vicinity of Segment 4C for open lands

residential use. Segment 4C would be located within the BLM Northern and 

Eastern Mojave Plan area. 

To address comment S-242, this Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.1, under the heading “Relocated Sloan MSF” (RSMSF), paragraph 2 as follows: 

Clark County has designated the RSMSF site for open lands residential land uses. 

The RSMSF is also located within the BLM Las Vegas Field Office Resource 

Management Planning Area. Figure S-3.1-9 Figure F-3.1-4 shows the land use 

designations on and within the vicinity of the RSMSF. The BLM has not 

designated a Multiple Use Classification for the RSMSF site or surrounding lands. 

To address comment S-242, this Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.1, under the heading “Frias Substation,” paragraph 3 as follows: 

Figure S-3.1-10 Figure F-3.1-5 shows the Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan 

designations for the Frias Substation site. The Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan 

designates the eastern portion of the Frias Substation site as Administrative 

and Professional Business and Design Research Park. The Enterprise Regional 

Land Use Plan designates the western portion of the site as Residential. The Frias 

Substation site is also located within the BLM Las Vegas Field Office Resource 

Management Plan Area. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-5 

To address comment S-242, this Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Table 

S-3.1-1. The revised table is provided as Table F-3.1-2 below. 

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

AAAs and 

Affected 

Segment

Land 

Ownership

Adjacent Land 

Uses Land Use Designations

Environmental 

Justice Census 

Block

AAA 1 

(Segment 2A/2B)

Private Residential, 

Commercial, 

Vacant

Residential, Commercial, 

Institutional

None

AAA 2 

(Segment 2A/2B)

BLM, Private Residential, 

Commercial, 

Vacant

Residential, Institutional None

AAA 3 

(Segment 3B)

BLM, Private Vacant, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Residential, Institutional 1 – Minority

AAA 4 

(Segment 3B)

Private Vacant, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Residential 1 – Minority

AAA 5 

(Segment 3B)

BLM, Private Vacant, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Residential, Institutional 1 – Minority

AAA 6 

(Segment 3B)

BLM Vacant, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Institutional 1 – Minority

AAA 7 

(Segment 6B)

BLM, Private Vacant, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Open Space 

Residential, Planned 

Development/Mixed-Use

None

AAA 8 

(Segment 6B)

Private Commercial, 

Industrial, 

Hotel/Motel, 

Transportation 

Corridor

Administrative and 

Professional, 

Commercial, Residential, 

Industrial-Manufacturing

1 – Minority

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

To address comment S-242, this Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.1, under the heading “Wigwam MSF Modification” as follows:

The orientation of the Wigwam Avenue MSF site has been modified, but the 

location of the Wigwam Avenue MSF site has not changed. The Wigwam 

Avenue MSF site would be located on privately owned lands and lands 

designated for Commercial and Administrative and Professional uses. 

As such, the existing land ownership and land use designations have not changed 

from what is presented in Section 3.1.3.2 the Draft EIS. Figure S-3.1-5 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-6 

Figure F-3.1-12 illustrates the land ownership for the Wigwam Avenue MSF site 

and Figure S-3.1-10 Figure F-3.1-5 shows the land use designations on and 

surrounding the Wigwam Avenue MSF site. As shown in Figure S-3.1-13

Figure F-3.1-15, the Wigwam Avenue MSF site is not located within a census 

block meeting the criteria for evaluation of environmental justice impacts. 

3.1.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for land use and community impacts for the DesertXpress 

project is described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.1.1. 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.1, to include the following regulation 

pertaining to the acquisition of private property:

If the DesertXpress project receives federal financial assistance, such 

as through a federal loan program, the acquisition of private property 

would be governed by the requirements of the Federal Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970 (Uniform Act) (as amended) and Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The Uniform Act was enacted by Congress 

to ensure that owners of real property to be acquired for federal and 

federally-assisted projects and persons displaced as a direct result of 

such projects are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably. 

All property owners and any persons displaced by the Desert Xpress 

project will be informed in writing of their status and eligibility for any 

payments or assistance required by the Uniform Act and its 

implementing regulations. Such payments and assistance may include, 

but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

 Just compensation for property acquired, whether in fee, 

easement, or other form of property rights acquisition. Just 

compensation will be established by an approved appraisal of 

fair market value or other processes defined in the Uniform Act 

and the regulations.

 An opportunity for the property owner to accompany the 

appraiser during inspection of the property.

 Eligible closing costs and other expenses related to the transfer 

of property. 

 Assistance in finding and relocating to replacement property.

 Eligible expenses for moving personal property to a replacement 

site.

 Replacement housing payments and related expenses for 

displaced residential owners and tenants.
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-7 

 Business reestablishment payments to small business and other 

defined eligible entities.

 Written noticed informing property owners and displaced 

persons of their rights and eligibility for assistance.

 A notice that no one will be required to move from the acquired 

property from which they are being displaced for a minimum of 

90 days.

Comment 333 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-243, S-244, and S-245 on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS requested that additional laws and regulations related to land 

ownership be addressed as relevant regulatory considerations. To address these 

comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.1.5, to include a discussion of 

the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act, Clark County Conservation of 

Public Lands and Natural Resources Act, Heliport Transfer Act, and the Clark County 

South County Land Use Plan as follows: 

Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act (Public Law 106-362)

The Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act was enacted in 

October 2000. The intent of the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands 

Transfer Act is to provide for the conveyance of Federal public lands in 

the Ivanpah Valley for the development of an airport facility under the 

jurisdiction of the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA). 

As part of the Ivanpah Valley Airport Lands Transfer Act, Congress 

directed the BLM to convey to CCDOA approximately 6,000 acres of 

land in the Ivanpah Valley between the communities of Jean and 

Primm and immediately east of the I-15 freeway for the purpose of 

developing the SNSA and related infrastructure. This land was 

transferred to CCDOA in 2004, whereby CCDOA paid fair market value 

for the transfer of lands.

Clark County Conservation of Public Lands and Natural Resources Act 

(Public Law 107-282)

The Clark County Conservation of Public Lands and Natural Resources 

Act (Clark County Lands Bill) was signed into law on November 6, 

2002. The purpose of the Clark County Lands Bill is to establish 

wilderness area, promote conservation, improve public land, and 

provide high quality development in Clark County. The Clark County 

Land Bill established the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, 

expanded the Red Rock National Conservation Area, and preserved 

petroglyph sites near Sloan. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-8 

As part of the Clark County Lands Bill, Congress directed the BLM to 

transfer an additional 17,000 acres of land, the Airport Environs 

Overlay District (Noise Compatibility Area), to Clark County upon final 

approval of the future SNSA. Congress also directed BLM to establish a 

2,640-foot wide transportation and utility corridor between the SNSA 

site and the Las Vegas Valley for the placement, on a non-exclusive 

basis, of utilities and transportation facilities for the SNSA. BLM 

formally identified the boundaries of that corridor in July 2007.

Heliport Transfer Act (Public Law 109-115, Section 180)

Under the Heliport Transfer Act, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) 

directed the transfer of 229 acres of BLM-managed land to Clark 

County for the purpose of operating a heliport facility. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact/Record of Decision on the heliport in early 2009. 

The DOI also transferred the land title to Clark County in late 2009. 

Clark County, South County Land Use Plan (2008)

The South County Land Use Plan was adopted in August 2008 and 

provides a guide for growth and development and contains goals and 

policies used to define development standards, guide public 

investment, and inform public and private decision making. The South 

County Land Use Plan encompasses approximately 1,218,130 acres in 

the southern portion of the Las Vegas Valley, including the 

communities of Cal-Nev-Ari, Eldorado Valley, Goodsprings, Jean, 

Nelson, Palm Garden, Primm, Sandy Valley, Searchlight, and Sloan. 

The South County Land Use Plan includes reference to the 

Transportation and Utility Corridor identified as part of the Clark 

County Lands Bill. The South County Land Use Plan identifies the 

location of the Transportation and Utility Corridor within the Sloan 

area and provides policies designed to respect and be consistent with 

the Corridor. 

Comments S-109, S-110, S-124, S-128, S-144, S-145, S-178, S-191, and S-240 on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS requested additional information relative to airport compatibility 

and conformance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. To address 

these comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.1.5 as follows to include a 

discussion of the FAA guidelines and regulations:
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-9 

Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the safety 

of civil aviation. The FAA establishes regulations related to air carriers 

and operators, pilots, and flight and ground instructors, as well as 

commercial space transportation. The FAA implements guidelines, 

policies, and regulations to protect and maintain the safe functioning 

of air carriers and airport activities. Specifically, the FAA Runway 

Protection Zone Policy states that FAA will resist or oppose objects or 

activities in the vicinity of an airport that conflict with an airport’s 

planning or design, or recommendation to protect that public’s 

investment in the national airport system. FAA Order 8260.19D, 

Section 11, provides standards related to airport obstacle evaluations. 

The primary purpose of obstacle evaluation is to determine how an 

object or activity will impact instrument flight procedures. Under FAA 

Order 8260.19D, the FAA has also established regulations pertaining to 

one-engine inoperative conditions, whereby an air carrier would 

attempt to take off with a non-operable engine. The one-engine 

inoperative regulations include specific slope requirements (distance 

and height) for air carrier take-off departures, which can limit the 

allowable height of structures within proximity to an airport runway 

within this one-engine inoperative zone.

3.1.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Several comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS resulted in changes to the land use and 

community impact analysis in this Final EIS and are discussed below. 

Comment S-237 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that the evaluation of land use 

compatibility include additional information and substantiation of the nature and extent 

of the incompatibility. Comment S-240 on the Supplemental Draft EIS also requested 

additional information related to airport compatibility. To address this comment, this 

Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS, Section 3.1.2, following Table S-3.1-3, to 

include additional clarifying text regarding compatibility with adjacent land uses and land 

use designations. This Final EIS also amends Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-3.1-3, to 

capture all relevant land use designations within the area of analysis. This revised table is 

provided as Table F-3.1-3 below. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-10

Table F-3.1-3 Compatibility with Land Use Designations 

Project Feature Type

Level of Compatibility

High Medium Low

Rail Alignments, Utility 

Corridors

Institutional, Public 

Facilities, 

Industrial/Manufacturing, 

Restrictive, Hotel/Casino,

Desert/Mountain

Commercial, Agricultural, 

Civic, Business and 

Design Research, 

Administrative and 

Professional, Planned 

Development/Mixed Use

Residential, Open 

Space

Stations/Maintenance 

Facilities, Temporary 

Construction Areas

Institutional, Public 

Facilities, Commercial, 

Industrial/Manufacturing, 

Hotel/Casino,

Commercial, Civic,

Business and Design 

Research, 

Administrative and 

Professional, 

Restrictive

Residential, Planned 

Development/Mixed Use, 

Restrictive

Agricultural, Open 

Space

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses

Table F-3.1-1 summarizes the compatibility of the DesertXpress project 

with existing adjacent land uses. 

The evaluation of “compatibility with adjacent existing land uses” 

relates to what is currently built on the ground in the study area 

(defined as one mile on either side of the rail centerline). 

Existing land uses within the study area were identified based on field 

reconnaissance, review of aerial mapping, and through coordination 

with agencies with jurisdiction in the project region. The evaluation of 

compatibility with existing land uses considers whether the project 

would conflict with the normal functioning of these existing 

developments. 

The DesertXpress rail alignments, utility corridors, stations, 

maintenance facilities, and TCAs would be considered to have high 

compatibility with similar types of existing land uses, such as 

transportation corridors or industrial developments, or development 

types that do not contain sensitive receptors that could be affected by 

the DesertXpress project, such as vacant or undeveloped lands. The 

DesertXpress project would have medium compatibility with existing 

land uses that contain a mix of similar types of developments and/or a 

limited number of sensitive receptors, such as commercial 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-11

developments, hotels/casinos, or administrative and professional uses. 

With medium compatibility, the overall function of the existing land 

use would remain with operation of the DesertXpress project. The 

DesertXpress project would have low compatibility with existing land 

uses that contain sensitive receptors, such as residents at nearby 

residential developments, that could be affected by potential 

environmental effects, such as increased traffic or increased noise 

levels from the DesertXpress project. 

Compatibility with Land Use Designations

Table F-3.1-3 summarizes the compatibility of the DesertXpress project 

with existing land use designations. 

The evaluation of compatibility with land use designations relates to 

planned land use designations as defined by an adopted land use plan 

(for example, a general plan, a comprehensive plan, or similar). Land 

use designations of particular plans define the type and intensity of 

allowable development for a specific area, thus forming a “blueprint” 

for future development. 

Land use designations within the study area were determined based on 

review of adopted plans in project area cities (Victorville, Barstow, and 

Las Vegas) and counties (San Bernardino County and Clark County). 

Federal agency land use plans, such as BLM’s West Mojave Plan, were 

also reviewed. Due to the large scale of the project, land use 

designation types were collapsed into several generalized categories: 

Administrative/Professional, Agricultural, Commercial, 

Industrial/Manufacturing, Open Space, Residential, Restrictive, Public 

Facility, Civic, Planned Development/Mixed Use, and Institutional. 

The evaluation of compatibility with the land use designation considers 

whether the DesertXpress project would conflict with or otherwise 

impair the functioning of proposed land uses. 

The DesertXpress project would be considered to have high 

compatibility with land use designations that would allow a similar 

type of utilitarian development. For example, the DesertXpress rail 

alignment and utility corridors would have high compatibility with 

Public Facility and Industrial/Manufacturing land use designations. 

The rail alignment and utility corridors would have medium 

compatibility with Commercial, Agricultural, Civic, Planned 

Development/Mixed Use, and Administrative/Professional land use 

designations, as these uses would not generally not permit 

transportation or utility features but would also not foster 

development that would host sensitive receptors. The rail alignment 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-12

and utility corridors would have low compatibility with land use 

designations that would introduce future sensitive receptors that could 

be adversely affected by the DesertXpress project, such as residents 

within Residential land use designations or sensitive biological species 

within Open Space land use designations. 

The DesertXpress stations and maintenance facilities would have high 

compatibility with Institutional, Public Facility, Commercial, Civic, and 

Administrative/Professional land uses since the project facilities would 

be similar to the types of development allowed under these land use 

designations. The stations and maintenance facilities would have 

medium compatibility with Residential and Planned 

Development/Mixed Use land use designations, since the passenger 

stations could serve residents or visitors in the area, and would have 

low compatibility with Agricultural and Open Space land use 

designations, since construction of such facilities could disturb 

potential agricultural production or conservation of these lands.

Comment 382 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-109, S-110, S-122, S-124 through S-129, 

S-144, S-145, S-153, S-178, S-191, and S-240 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested 

additional information relative to the DesertXpress project’s compatibility with the oneengine inoperative zone and departure conditions and Runway Protection Zone 

regulations under FAA regulations. These comments also stated that a final 

determination on compatibility will need to be determined by the FAA. To address this 

comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.4.2, under the heading 

“Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses” to include the following 

new text: 

The DesertXpress rail alignment would be located approximately 2,600 

feet west of the existing McCarran International Airport (LAS) within 

metropolitan Las Vegas. According to the Clark County Department of 

Aviation (CCDOA), the DesertXpress rail alignment would cross 

through the one-engine inoperative zones (discussed in more detail 

below). The DesertXpress rail alignment would also be located 

immediately west of the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport (SNSA).

According to FAA standards (FAA Order 8260.19D), the proximity and 

height of the DesertXpress rail alignment would conflict with the 

normal functioning of existing airlines at the LAS, whereby the rail 

alignment would not conform with the certified air carrier one-engine 

inoperative departure conditions. In other words, even though the 

proposed rail alignment is approximately 1⁄2 mile to the west of the 

airport property, the proximity and height of the Action Alternative rail 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-13

alignments would introduce a potential obstacle if an airplane were 

attempting a takeoff with a non-working engine. According to the 

airline operators (specifically Southwest Airlines), the height of the 

proposed DesertXpress rail alignment, if not lowered from its 

currently proposed design height, would require the airlines to 

substantially reduce air carrier weight loads, either by passenger or 

fuel load reductions, so that airlines could conform with FAA 

regulations governing one-engine inoperative requirements within the 

one-engine inoperative zones. The required reduction in passengers 

could render the operation of specific flights infeasible due to low 

passenger capacities. A reduction in fuel load could also place 

limitations on the available travel distances, such that specific 

destinations could no longer be reached via air carrier without 

refueling. 

The DesertXpress project would generally have high compatibility with 

an airport, such as the LAS, because they are both transportationrelated facilities. However, the DesertXpress rail alignment would 

have medium compatibility with an airport where the rail alignment 

would cross through the one-engine inoperative zone or an existing or 

planned Runway Protection Zone. 

To address Comment 382 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-109, S-110, S-122, S-124 

through S-129, S-144, S-145, S-153, S-178, S-191, , and S-240 on the Supplemental Draft 

EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Table 3.1-2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Table S3.1-2. This revised table is provided as Table F-3.1-1 above. 

To further address Comment 382 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-109, S-110, S-122, S124 through S-129, S-144, S-145, S-153, S-178, S-191, , and S-240 on the Supplemental 

Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.4 to include additional mitigation measures related to compatibility with the 

one-engine inoperative zones at the LAS and existing and planned Runway Protection 

Zones: 

Mitigation Measure LU-1: Rail Alignment Design in One-Engine 

Inoperative Zones at LAS

During the design-build process for the design plans in the vicinity of 

the LAS, the Applicant shall coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and 

airlines operating at the airport to develop and agree to a rail 

alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative 

zones and departure conditions under FAA standards. The Applicant

shall provide written verification of the agreement with the FAA, 

CCDOA, and associated airlines prior to approval of project designs in 

this location.
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-14

Mitigation Measure LU-2: Rail Alignment Design in Existing and 

Planned Runway Protection Zones

During the design-build process, the Applicant shall coordinate with 

the FAA regarding any existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. The Applicant shall obtain a 

Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does 

not present a hazard to air navigation.

Comment S-242 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that Figure S-3.1-8 of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS be corrected to incorporate the Clark County, South County Land 

Use Plan land use designations. Several environmental consequences conclusions require 

revisions to account for the updates to the illustrations and descriptions of land use 

designations. The changes to the affected environment discussions in the Supplemental 

Draft EIS are shown in Section 3.1.1.1 of this Final EIS. To address the land use 

designation corrections within the vicinity of Segment 4C, this Final EIS amends 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.3, under the heading “Segment 4C” as follows:

Segment 4C would have high compatibility with the existing vacant and open

lands and high to low compatibility with the institutional and residential land use 

designations, respectively. Segment 4C would also have high compatibility with 

the BLM Multiple Use Class M designated lands and low compatibility with the 

BLM Multiple Use Class L designated lands. Segment 4C would not displace 

any residence or business, nor sever an established community due to the 

undeveloped nature of the area it would cross. Segment 4C would have similar 

effects on environmental justice populations as Segment 4B because it traverses 

through the same census block. However, development within this census block is 

sparse and is concentrated well outside the vicinity of the Segment 4 rail alignment 

options. No adverse effect on environmental justice populations would occur. 

To address the land use designation corrections within the vicinity of the Relocated Sloan 

MSF, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.3, under the heading 

“Relocated Sloan MSF” and subheading “Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans” as 

follows: 

As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, the Applicant proposed the RSMSF 

in response to public comment from the Clark County Department of Aviation 

(CCDOA). The CCDOA identified potential adverse conflicts between the Sloan 

Road MSF as evaluated in the Draft EIS and the proposed “super arterial” roadway 

that would provide vehicular access to the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport near Primm. As a result, the Applicant relocated the RSMSF 

approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF to avoid potential conflicts 

with future planned airport-related uses. The RSMSF would have high low 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-15

compatibility with the existing undeveloped, vacant Open Space lands use

designation and low compatibility with the residential land use designations

under the Clark County Comprehensive Plan South County Land Use Plan.

To address the land use designation corrections within the vicinity of the Frias Substation, 

this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.3, under the heading “Frias 

Substation” and subheading “Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans” as follows:

The Frias Substation would have medium compatibility with the Residential land 

use designations on the west side of Dean Martin Drive and high compatibility 

with the Administrative/Professional Business and Design Research land use 

designations to the east of Dean Martin Drive. 

To address the land use designation corrections within the vicinity of the Alignment 

Adjustment Areas (AAA), this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.3, 

under the heading “Alignment Adjustment Areas” and subheading “Conflict with Adjacent 

Land Uses and Land Use Plans and Displacement and Community Severance,” bullet 

points 3 and 4 as follows: 

 AAA7: AAA7 would shift Segment 6B to the outside (western) edge of the 

freeway right-of-way (ROW) so as to better accommodate potential future 

widening of I-15. Nearly all of the land adjacent to the west of Segment 6B is 

designated for residential use. The only area proximate to Segment 6B 

currently in residential use is north and west of Robert Trent Jones Lane, a 

minimum distance of 1,000 feet from the I-15 corridor. Due to this distance, 

the modified rail alignment would not result in any interference with existing 

land uses nor in any community severance or disruption. The rail 

alignment would have low compatibility with land designated as 

Open Space and medium compatibility with lands designated as 

Planned Development/Mixed Use.

 AAA8: AAA8 would shift portions of Segment 6B outside of the Nevada 

Department of Transportation (NDOT) ROW and into the adjacent Clark 

County ROW on Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. This adjustment would 

have high compatibility with the existing industrial developments, medium 

compatibility with the hotels/motels and commercial developments, and low 

compatibility with the nearby residential developments. 

In regards to land use designations, Segment 6B would continue to have low 

compatibility with lands designated as Residential, medium 

compatibility with the lands designated as Commercial and 

Administrative /Professional, and high compatibility with lands 

designated as the Industrial/Manufacturing land use designations

with implementation of AAA8. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-16

While the rail alignment would be shifted to the west towards existing 

industrial, commercial, residential, and hotel/motel developments, the 

adjustment associated with AAA8 would remain within existing transportation 

corridors and no residential or business displacements would occur. Where 

the alignment adjustment would traverse within the median of Dean Martin 

Drive/Industrial Road (between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue), 

access to existing roadways and properties would be maintained. Therefore, no 

severance of an existing community would occur. 

To address the land use designations corrections within the vicinity of the Wigwam 

Avenue MSF, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.3, under the 

heading “Wigwam MSF Modification” and subheading “Conflict with Applicable Land Use 

Plans” as follows:

The Wigwam MSF Modification would not result in additional or new conflicts to 

applicable land use plans from what was evaluated in the Draft EIS. The Wigwam 

Avenue MSF would have high compatibility with lands designated for 

Commercial and Administrative/Professional uses. maintain high 

compatibility with Clark County’s planned development/mixed-use land use 

designations and medium compatibility with the commercial land use 

designations. 

A study evaluating the economic impact of the DesertXpress project on the City of Barstow 

(Barstow Study) was prepared in response to several comments received on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS relative to growth. The Barstow Study, included as 

Appendix F-E, evaluates the DesertXpress project’s economic effect on the City of 

Barstow from freeway-related traffic and associated “passby” trips through Barstow being 

diverted to the high-speed passenger train. A detailed discussion of the economic and 

employment effects on the City of Barstow is contained in Section 3.2, Growth, of this 

Final EIS. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.4.2, under the heading “Result 

in Environmental Effects Disproportionately Borne by a Low-Income or Minority 

Population” and subheading “Rail Alignment”, to include additional analyses related to 

the potential economic effects on environmental justice communities in the Barstow area 

as a result of the Action Alternatives: 

Operation of the Action Alternatives could result in negative 

employment and economic growth effects to the City of Barstow, which 

could affect a disproportionately low-income and minority community 

in Barstow. There are 13 environmental justice census block groups 

within the Barstow area in the vicinity of the Action Alternatives. The 

Action Alternatives would result in the diversion of I-15 freeway traffic 

between Victorville and Las Vegas to the high-speed passenger train. 

The Barstow economy is largely driven by taxable sales from freewayrelated traffic and the diversion of these “passby” vehicle trips through 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-17

Barstow would have an indirect negative growth effect to Barstow’s

economy. Based on the DesertXpress ridership forecast, it is estimated 

that annually about two million private automobile passengers and 

260,000 bus passengers would instead use DesertXpress. 

Over time, the share of Barstow’s economy affected by the 

DesertXpress project could slowly grow since ridership is expected to 

increase through year 2035. This reduction in economic growth from 

passengers being diverted to the high-speed passenger train would 

result in a loss to the City’s economic base of funds that would have 

flowed into the economy from outside sources. 

The Draft EIS identified year 2013 as the opening year for the 

DesertXpress project.2 Since construction of the DesertXpress project 

would take three to four years, the exact opening year of the project is 

not determined at this time. The DesertXpress project is assumed to 

begin operations three to four years after commencing construction. 

Table F-3.1-4 summarizes the potential long-term negative economic 

growth effects on Barstow as a result of operation of the high-speed 

passenger train between the first year of operation and 18th year of 

operation. The baseline for the analysis presented below is a total of 

10,463 jobs and $473.3 million in income, based on 2009 data.

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

Operation (Year 1 Operation through Year 18 Operation) 

Year

Change Over Time from Baseline (Baseline Shown in Italics)

Total Reduction in 

Economic Activity

Total Reduction in Job 

Activity (Percent)

Total Reduction in 

Income (Percent)

Baseline (2009) N/A 10,463 $473.3 million

Year 1 Operation -$18.7 million -244 (-2.33%) -$11.6 million (-2.45%)

Year 2 Operation -$32.2 million -421 (-4.02%) -$16.9 million (-3.56%)

Year 3 Operation -$41.6 million -542 (-5.00%) -$21.7 million (-4.59%)

Year 8 Operation -$48.8 million -636 (-6.07%) -$25.5 million (-5.39%)

Year 18 Operation -$51.9 million -676 (-6.46%) -$27.1 million (-5.73%)

Source: Economics & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 2010. 

 

2

 The year 2013 was selected because it was the year the DesertXpress high-speed train was expected to begin 

operations at the time when the Draft EIS was being prepared. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-18

The Barstow economy could experience a gradual reduction in 

economic activity, jobs, and income, with an average annual loss 

during operation.3 This reduction in economic growth from the 

freeway-traffic diversion would result in a loss to Barstow’s economic 

base of funds, which could disproportionately affect minority and lowincome communities during operation of the Action Alternatives. The 

reduction in economic activity could also result in reduced 

employment opportunities in Barstow. Operation of the Action 

Alternatives would result in the loss of about 542 jobs by the 3rd year of 

operation and up to 676 by the 18th year of operation. 4 The loss of jobs 

could adversely affect the Barstow economy, which already 

experiences disproportionately high levels of poverty. 

While operation of the Action Alternatives could result in negative 

economic effects to Barstow, which includes 13 minority and poverty 

environmental justice communities, construction of the Action 

Alternatives would result in a temporary increase in employment and 

associated salaries. Within San Bernardino County, Barstow would be 

the most central city for construction of the DesertXpress project, 

particularly for the 113-mile stretch of the rail alignment between 

Barstow and Primm. It is assumed that a significant share of the 

construction jobs and associated revenue created by the DesertXpress 

project in San Bernardino County would flow into Barstow and its 

immediate environs. Construction of the DesertXpress project could 

result in about 2,470 direct jobs in Barstow during the three- to fouryear construction period.5 This would represent an annual average of 

823 direct jobs per year, resulting in an eight percent increase in 

employment over the 2009 employment level of 10,463. These 2,470 

direct jobs are anticipated to generate an average payroll (combination 

of salaries) of $59.5 million over the course of the construction period.6 

While the construction jobs would be temporary during the 

construction phase, the introduction of the new direct jobs and 

associated salaries could have a temporary positive effect on the City’s 

 

3

 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

4 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

5

 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

6 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-19

employment rate and economic vitality, and could have a temporary 

positive economic effect on Barstow, includes 13 minority and poverty 

environmental justice communities. 

Based on the analysis presented in the Barstow Study, the economic 

and employment effects would not result in urban decay, a process 

whereby a previously functioning city falls into disrepair or become 

decrepit.7 Since the DesertXpress project would not result in urban 

decay or other interrelated physical environmental effects as a result of 

the negative effects on Barstow’s economy, this economic effect is not 

considered adverse. 

3.1.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The land use and community impact methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.1.3.3

and Section 3.1.4 remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the 

Preferred Alternative. This same methodology was used in Section 3.1, Land Use and 

Community Impacts, in the Supplemental Draft EIS. A summary of the methodology is 

provided below. 

Land Use 

The area of analysis for land use effects considers existing and planned land uses within 

one mile of the Preferred Alternative, as measured from the center line of the rail 

alignment. 

An adverse effect related to land use or community character would occur if the Preferred 

Alternative would: 

 Interfere with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses; 

 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation; 

 Cause displacement of a significant number of local residents; or 

 Disrupt or sever community interactions or otherwise divide an established 

community. 

The evaluation of “compatibility with adjacent existing land uses” examines what is 

currently built within the one-mile study area. Existing land uses within the one-mile 

study area were identified based on field reconnaissance, review of aerial mapping, and 

 

7

 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-20

through coordination with agencies with jurisdiction in the project region.8 The 

evaluation of compatibility with existing land uses considers whether the project would 

conflict with the normal functioning of these existing developments. 

The evaluation of “compatibility with land use designations” examines planned land use 

designations as defined by an adopted land use plan (for example, a general plan, a 

comprehensive plan, or similar). Land use designations of particular plans define the type 

and intensity of allowable development for a specific area, thus forming a “blueprint” for 

future development. Land use designations within the one-mile study area were 

determined based on review of adopted plans in project area cities (Victorville, Barstow, 

and Las Vegas) and counties (San Bernardino County and Clark County). Federal agency 

land use plans, such as BLM’s West Mojave Plan, were also reviewed. Due to the large 

scale of the project, land use designation types were collapsed into several generalized 

categories: Administrative/Professional, Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial/ 

Manufacturing, Open Space, Residential, Restrictive, Public Facility, Civic, Planned 

Development/Mixed Use, and Institutional. For example, the relevant land use plans 

include multiple Residential land use designations, with specific allowable densities for 

each type of residential use (i.e., low-density, medium-density, and high-density). For the 

purposes of this analysis, all of the Residential land use types were collapsed into one 

Residential land use category. 

Additionally, the relevant land use plans include different types of Commercial land use 

designations, such as Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, and Commercial 

Tourist, which each allow a specific sub-set of commercial uses. All of the Commercial 

and Industrial land use types were similarly collapsed into single Commercial and 

Industrial categories. 

The evaluation of compatibility with the land use designation considers whether the 

project would conflict with or otherwise impair the functioning of proposed land uses. 

Local Land Use and Environmental Regulations 

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a declaratory order on June 25, 2007 

regarding STB’s authority under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 10901. In this order, STB 

found the project to be exempt from state and local land use and environmental 

regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 

local/regional zoning ordinances. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not be 

subject to local land use plans. Thus while consistency with local policies is not required, 

an analysis of consistency with existing land use designations was conducted. 

 

8 Agencies include: BLM, San Bernardino County, City of Victorville, Clark County, City of Las Vegas, and the 

City of Barstow. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-21

Section 3.1.2.2 and Section 3.1.2.3 of this Final EIS below includes an evaluation of 

the environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative as 

they relate to land use and community impacts. 

Environmental Justice 

The area of analysis for environmental justice considers the environmental justice 

communities within one-mile of the Preferred Alternative, as measured from the center 

line of the rail alignment. 

A census block meeting the criteria for environmental justice analysis is defined as having 

a low-income population of greater than 25 percent or a minority population greater than 

50 percent of the total community population. A census block also meets the criteria for 

environmental justice analysis if the low-income and/or minority population is more than 

10 percentage points higher than the city or county average. In order to identify census 

blocks meeting these criteria, the 2000 U.S. Census block groups within a two-mile radius 

were examined. 

An adverse environmental justice effect would occur if: 

 An adverse environmental effect is predominately borne by a minority population 

and/or low-income population; or 

 An adverse environmental effect suffered by the minority population and/or lowincome population is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the 

adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority and/or non-low-income 

population. 

3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities under the Preferred Alternative. The No Action 

Alternative would include the planned and programmed transportation improvements 

identified in Section 2.3.1.2 of this Final EIS. The precise amount of land affected by the 

No Action Alternative is unknown at this time. Each project that is a part of the No Action 

Alternative would be subject to separate environmental review where specific land use 

impacts would be identified. 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

The No Action Alternative would result in planned and programmed improvements 

primarily within the existing I-15 freeway ROW, using land that is currently in the median 

and/or existing ROW of the I-15 freeway. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the No 

Action Alternative would intensify the use of the existing I-15 transportation corridor, but 

would not interfere with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses. The intent of the 

planned and programmed transportation improvements under the No Action Alternative 

would be to improve access along the I-15 freeway corridor primarily within the existing 

ROW and to improve traffic congestion, thereby maintaining the normal functioning of 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-22

adjacent land uses. However, the widening of the I-15 freeway corridor would add more 

travel lanes to the I-15 freeway, thereby increasing the footprint of the freeway corridor 

and allowing for more through vehicles. These improvements could conflict with existing 

land uses immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor, such as residential uses that 

could be affected by increased travel noise. 

Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans 

The planned and programmed improvements under the No Action Alternative would be 

located within the same land use plans identified for the Preferred Alternative. Since the 

No Action Alternative would not include the development of a high-speed train and would 

only involve highway improvements along the existing I-15 freeway corridor, it is not 

anticipated that the No Action Alternative would conflict with applicable land use plans. 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents and Disrupt 

or Sever Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established 

Community 

As previously stated, the No Action Alternative would result in transportation 

improvements primarily within the existing I-15 freeway ROW. For improvements within 

the I-15 freeway ROW, no displacements or existing residences would occur. 

The I-15 freeway is intended to remain in its existing configuration for most of the 

distance between Victorville and Las Vegas, with the exception of capacity improvements 

in the urbanized areas. In addition to the highway capacity improvements on I-15, other 

transportation improvements near Victorville and within Clark County are anticipated. 

However, as noted above, the precise amount of land affected by the No Action Alternative 

is unknown at this time and the extent of required displacements is unknown at this time. 

Each project that is a part of the No Action Alternative would be subject to separate 

environmental review where specific land use impacts would be identified. 

Result in Environmental Effects Disproportionately Borne by a Low Income 

or Minority Population 

The planned and programmed improvements under the No Action Alternative would be 

located within environmental justice census blocks. As previously stated, the precise 

amount of land affected by the No Action Alternative is unknown at this time and the 

extent of displacements within an environmental justice community is unknown. Each 

project that is a part of the No Action Alternative would be subject to separate 

environmental review where specific environmental justice impacts would be identified. 

Since the improvements considered under the No Action Alternative are expected to occur 

whether or not the Preferred Alternative is implemented, the Preferred Alternative would 

have greater land use and community effects than the No Action Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-23

3.1.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Section 3.1.4.2 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.1.3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describe in detail the land use and community impacts by individual project component. 

The discussion below summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that 

comprise the Preferred Alternative. 

Local Land Use Regulations

In San Bernardino County, the Preferred Alternative would be allowed under various 

County land use designations and zoning districts because it is a transportation facility 

that will be available to the public. The San Bernardino General Plan specifically allows 

public transportation uses in various land use districts.9 The Preferred Alternative would 

not change this determination. In Clark County, the Clark County planning staff indicated 

that there are no goals or policies within the Clark County Comprehensive Plan that would 

specifically limit construction or implementation of the project features.10

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

The evaluation of compatibility with adjacent existing land uses related to what is 

currently built on the ground in the study area (defined as one mile on either side of the 

Preferred Alternative). The evaluation considered whether the Preferred Alternative 

would conflict with the normal functioning of these existing developments. Refer to 

Section 3.1.1.3 of this Final EIS for a detailed description of compatibility with adjacent 

land uses. 

Since the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be fully grade separated and located 

almost entirely within the existing I-15 freeway ROW, the rail alignment would not 

interfere with access to existing land uses. Existing traffic patterns would not change since 

existing roadway connections to and from lands along the rail alignment would be 

maintained. 

Table F-3.1-1 above summarizes the compatibility of the Preferred Alternative with 

existing adjacent land uses. Table F-3.1-1 distinguishes the compatibility of the rail 

alignment and associated utility corridors and the compatibility of the station and 

maintenance facilities of the Preferred Alternative. 

Between Victorville and Barstow, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have 

medium to high compatibility with adjacent land uses since the area is mostly 

undeveloped. 

 

9 John Schatz, San Bernardino County Planning Department. Personal Communication, July 2007. 

10 Bob Klein, Clark County Planning Department. Personal Communication, July 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-24

Through Barstow, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would result in high 

compatibility with industrial land uses, medium compatibility with the adjacent 

commercial uses, and low compatibility with the residential land uses due to its proximity 

to the existing urban development north of the Interstate 15 (I-15) freeway. 

Between Barstow and Sloan, the rail alignment would have high compatibility with most 

adjacent land uses as the majority of these lands are undeveloped. The Preferred 

Alternative would be in close proximity to clusters of commercial, industrial, and 

residential developments near Yermo, Baker, Primm, and Jean. The rail alignment would 

have high compatibility with industrial developments, medium compatibility with the 

commercial developments, and low compatibility with nearby existing residential uses. 

From Sloan to the Las Vegas Station (Las Vegas Southern Station or Central Station B) 

terminus, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility near the 

industrial and undeveloped areas, medium compatibility with nearby commercial 

developments, and low compatibility with nearby residential areas. 

Within Las Vegas, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would diverge from the NDOT 

I-15 ROW in three locations, including between West Sunset Road and West Patrick Lane, 

between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue, and between Tropicana Avenue to St. 

Harmon Avenue. These portions of the rail alignment would be located to the west of the 

I-15 freeway within the Clark County ROW on Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. This 

portion of the rail alignment would have high compatibility with the existing industrial 

developments, medium compatibility with the hotels/casinos and commercial 

developments, and low compatibility with the nearby residential developments. 

Within Las Vegas, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be located 

approximately 2,600 feet west of the property boundary of LAS. According to the CCDOA, 

the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross through the one-engine inoperative 

zone. According to FAA standards (FAA Order 8260.19D), the proximity and height of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would conflict with the normal functioning of the 

existing airport use, whereby the rail alignment would not be in conformance with the 

certified air carrier one-engine inoperative departure conditions. In other words, even 

though the proposed rail alignment is approximately 1⁄2-mile to the west of the airport 

property, the proximity and height of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

introduce a potential obstacle if an airplane were attempting a takeoff with a non-working 

engine during an emergency situation. According to the airline operators (specifically 

Southwest Airlines), the height of the proposed Preferred Alternative rail alignment, if not 

lowered from its currently proposed design height, would require the airlines to 

substantially reduce air carrier weight loads, either by passenger or fuel load reductions, 

so that airlines could conform with FAA regulations governing one engine inoperative 

zone requirements. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-25

The Preferred Alternative would generally have high compatibility with an airport, such as 

LAS, because they are both transportation-related facilities. However, the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would have medium compatibility with an airport where the rail 

alignment would cross through the one-engine inoperative zone or an existing or planned 

Runway Protection Zone. The Preferred Alternative station and maintenance facility site 

options would not be within a Runway Protection Zone or one-engine inoperative zone for 

the LAS and would not conflict with an existing airport use and would therefore have high 

compatibility. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station (Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3)) and 

Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF) (OMSF Site Option 2, OMSF 2) 

would not interfere with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses insofar as adjacent 

lands are undeveloped and vacant, thereby demonstrating high compatibility. The 

Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would also be located immediately adjacent to 

access roads for several BLM mining claims located to the north of the site. Access to 

these dirt roads that extend from Dale Evans Parkway and provide access to the BLM 

mining claims would be maintained and the Victorville Station would not interfere with 

the functioning of these mining (industrial) land uses. 

Similarly, the Preferred Alterative Las Vegas Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) 

(Wigwam Avenue MSF) would have high compatibility with the surrounding mixture of 

commercial, industrial, hotel/casino uses, and medium compatibility with the nearby 

residential land uses near Dean Martin Drive. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station or Central 

Station B) would have medium to high compatibility with existing land uses. The Las 

Vegas Southern Station would be located on vacant land surrounded by industrial uses 

and would therefore have high compatibility with adjacent land uses. The Las Vegas 

Central Station B would be developed on land in current industrial use and would be 

surrounded by other industrial uses as well as hotels/motels and nearby residential uses. 

The Las Vegas Central Station B would have high compatibility with the industrial and 

hotel/motel developments and medium compatibility with the residential land uses near 

Dean Martin Drive. 

Figure F-3.1-13 shows the BLM Multiple Use Classification areas in relation to the 

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would cross through BLM Multiple Use 

Class M, L, and C designated lands. As identified in Table F-3.1-3 above, the Preferred 

Alternative would have medium compatibility with the BLM Multiple Use Class M 

designated lands and low compatibility with the BLM Multiple Use Class L and C 

designated lands. The BLM Multiple Use Class M lands allow for moderate use of lands 

with a balance of higher intensity uses, such as a high-speed rail, and the protection of 

public lands. The BLM Multiple Use Class L and C lands allow for more limited uses, with 

the intention of protecting sensitive resources. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-26

Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans 

Section 3.1.2.1 of this Final EIS stated that the Preferred Alternative is not subject to 

local land use plans; however, a discussion of the Preferred Alternatives’ consistency with 

adjacent land use designations in provided herein. Refer to the revised Figures F-3.1-1

through F-3.1-5 at the end of this section for an illustration of the land use designations 

within proximity of the Preferred Alternative. While these figures show all of the Action 

Alternative components, the Preferred Alternative would be within these same areas and 

within the same land use designations. 

The evaluation of compatibility with land use designations relates to planned land use 

designations as defined by an adopted land use plan (for example, a general plan, a 

comprehensive plan, or similar). Land use designations of particular plans define the type 

and intensity of allowable development for a specific area, thus forming a “blueprint” for 

future development. Refer to Section 3.1.1.3 of this Final EIS for a detailed description 

of compatibility with applicable land use plans. 

The land use designations within and adjacent to the Preferred Alternative were classified 

as having high, medium, or low compatibility with the rail alignment, stations, and 

maintenance facilities to measure the Preferred Alternatives’ potential direct effects on 

adjacent land uses. Table F-3.1-3 above shows the classification of land use designation 

compatibility. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility with the 

Institutional land use designations and low compatibility with the Residential land use 

designations between Victorville and Barstow. 

Through Barstow, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility 

with Institutional, medium compatibility with Commercial land use designations, and low 

compatibility with Residential land use designations. While the Preferred Alternative 

would intensify the use of the I-15 freeway corridor as a transportation corridor near 

Residential land use designations, the I-15 freeway already presents a major 

transportation corridor through central Barstow near these lands. Notably, the selection 

of the Segment 2C rail alignment option as part of the Preferred Alternative would avoid 

potential conflicts associated with Segments 2A/2B, which would traverse lands 

designated for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial uses that are not adjacent to 

existing transportation facilities. Segments 2A/2B are not part of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be located to the east of the proposed 

residential (P&V Enterprise Development project) and commercial/industrial (Barstow 

Industrial Park and Walmart Distribution Center) developments within the western 

portion of Barstow and conflicts with these land use plans would be avoided. As stated 

above, inclusion of Segment 2C as part of the Preferred Alternative would avoid conflicts 

to these developments associated with Segments 2A/2B, as Segment 2C would be located 

within the existing I-15 freeway corridor. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-27

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility with the 

Institutional and Industrial/Manufacturing land use designations, medium compatibility 

with Commercial land use designations, and low compatibility with Residential land use 

designations between Barstow and the California/Nevada state line. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility with Public 

Facility, Institutional, and Industrial/Manufacturing land use designations, medium 

compatibility with the Commercial land use designations, and low compatibility with the 

Open Space land use designations between the California/Nevada state line and Sloan. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have high compatibility with Public 

Facility and Industrial/Manufacturing land use designations, medium compatibility with 

Commercial, Planned Development/Mixed Use, and Administrative/Professional land use 

designations, and low compatibility with Residential and Open Space land use 

designations between Sloan and Las Vegas. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would have high compatibility 

with the Institutional/Manufacturing land use designations and low compatibility with 

nearby Residential land use designations. However, there are no residential developments 

within close proximity to the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF; the 

nearest residential development is located approximately one mile to the east. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options would have varying levels of 

compatibility with land use plans. The Las Vegas Southern Station would have high 

compatibility with the Industrial/Manufacturing and Commercial land use designations. 

The Las Vegas Central Station B would also have high compatibility with the 

Industrial/Manufacturing and Commercial land use designations, and would have 

medium compatibility with nearby Residential land use designations. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) would have high 

compatibility with the Industrial/Manufacturing and Administrative and Professional 

land use designations and medium compatibility with the nearby Residential land use 

designations west of the MSF site. 

Section 3.1.2.3 of this Final EIS states that the San Bernardino County land use 

designations and zoning districts would allow for implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative because it is a transportation facility that will be available to the public and the 

Clark County Comprehensive Plan would not limit the construction or implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative. 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not displace any housing and would 

therefore not displace any local residents. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

primarily be located within the existing I-15 freeway corridor and would not traverse 

through existing residential developments. Where the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would diverge from the I-15 freeway corridor, such as in areas north of Yermo 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-28

and Mountain Pass, there are no existing residential developments and no residents would 

be displaced. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would also diverge from the I-15 

freeway corridor in metropolitan Las Vegas. The rail alignment would be located within 

an existing Clark County ROW and would traverse through the median of Dean Martin 

Drive/Industrial Road. Thus, the rail alignment would remain within an existing 

transportation facility and no residences would be affected. 

The Applicant may acquire vacant lands designated for Residential use for the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment ROW; however, this acquisition would not require the 

demolition of existing homes or the displacement of any existing residents. 

Neither the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station nor the Victorville OMSF would result 

in the displacement of commercial, industrial, or residential uses. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options would result in different effects 

relative to displacement. The Las Vegas Southern Station would be developed on land that 

is currently vacant and thus would not result in the displacement of any existing use. The 

Las Vegas Central Station B would, however, displace existing industrial uses on the site, 

including staging and storage areas and a large warehouse with an indoor “kart” racing 

facility. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would result in the displacement of two 

businesses: the Southwest Rock and Landscape business (3020 West Wigwam Avenue) 

and the Little Baja Garden and Design business (3033 West Ford Avenue). 

Disrupt of Sever Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established 

Community 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not sever any established communities as 

it would be designed as fully grade separated and would be located primarily within the 

existing I-15 freeway corridor. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross over 

or under existing roads and highways allowing existing connections within communities 

to remain unchanged. The majority of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not 

contribute to further severance of the communities or otherwise disrupt community 

interactions since the I-15 freeway corridor already creates an existing linear division. The 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not result in community severance in areas 

where the rail alignment would diverge from the existing I-15 freeway corridor, such as 

north of Yermo and Mountain Pass and within the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Where 

the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would diverge from the I-15 freeway corridor in 

the metropolitan Las Vegas area, the rail alignment would remain immediately adjacent to 

the existing I-15 freeway corridor within the existing Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road 

transportation corridor. Access across the I-15 freeway and Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

Road would be maintained in this urbanized area and no disruptions to community 

interactions would occur. Overall, the rail alignment would remain grade separated and 

would not disrupt any existing roadways or community access points. If the Southern 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-29

Station is selected as the Las Vegas Station, approximately 1.8 miles of this elevated 

trackway between Russell Road and Aldebaran Avenue would not be constructed, further 

reducing the extent of any potential severance. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would pass through the cities/communities of 

Lenwood, Barstow, Yermo, Baker, Sloan, and Las Vegas. A discussion of the community 

interaction effects to each of these cities/communities is provided below. 

 Lenwood: The Preferred Alternative would pass through Lenwood within the 

existing I-15 ROW, on the north and west sides of the existing I-15 freeway lanes. 

As such, the Preferred Alternative would not introduce a new linear division and 

the existing connections within the community of Lenwood would remain and 

community interaction would be unchanged. 

 Barstow: The City of Barstow is already divided by the I-15 freeway corridor. 

Several local roadways span over the I-15 freeway. Because the Preferred 

Alternative would be located within the I-15 ROW and involve no changes to local 

roadways, it would not contribute to further severance of the community or 

otherwise disrupt community interactions. Further, the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would not trespass into existing residential streets or developed 

residential lands; thus, the Preferred Alternative would not interfere with 

community intersections through Barstow. 

 Yermo: The Preferred Alternative would create a divisional element in the 

community of Yermo, as the rail alignment would be outside of the I-15 freeway 

corridor to the north. However, as a grade separated rail alignment, the Preferred 

Alternative would cross over the two main roads in Yermo– Ghost Town Road and 

Calico Road – and connectivity along these roads would be maintained. 

 Baker and Sloan: Through Baker and Sloan, the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would be located within the existing I-15 freeway ROW. As such, the 

Preferred Alternative would not introduce a new linear division and the existing 

connections within these communities would remain and community interaction 

would be unchanged. Further, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not 

encroach into existing residential streets or developed residential lands; thus, the 

Preferred Alternative would not interfere with community intersections through 

Baker and Sloan. 

The Baker MOW would be developed on vacant lands and would not place a 

barrier or built feature between existing groups of homes and/or businesses. The 

Baker MOW would also not disrupt access on the adjacent local roadways. Thus, 

no adverse effects related to existing communities would occur as a result of the 

Baker MOW. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-30

 Las Vegas: Through Las Vegas, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

be located primarily within the existing I-15 freeway ROW. As such, the Preferred 

Alternative would not introduce a new linear division and the existing connections 

within these communities would remain and community interaction would be 

unchanged. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would diverge from the I-15 freeway 

corridor in metropolitan Las Vegas. If the Southern Station is selected as the 

terminus, the divergence would be limited to the area between West Sunset Road 

and West Patrick Lane only. If, however, Central Station B is selected, a second 

additional area of divergence would occur between West Hacienda Avenue and 

West Tropicana Avenue. In both circumstances, the (elevated) rail alignment 

would shift into the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road to the west of 

the I-15 freeway, which is within an existing Clark County ROW. The rail 

alignment would remain within an existing transportation corridor; the elevation 

of the trackway will ensure that access to existing roadways and properties would 

be maintained. Therefore, no severance of an existing community would occur. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would be located north of the 

developed area in Victorville, and would therefore not divide an established community. 

Neither of the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options would divide an 

established community, since both the Southern Station and Central Station B site options 

would be located in highly developed areas near other large developments. Similarly, the 

Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would be located within this same urbanized context 

in the metropolitan Las Vegas Area and would not divide an established community. The 

Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options and the Las Vegas MSF would not 

block any existing transportation features or fall between groups of residential uses in an 

existing neighborhood. While business displacements would occur at the Las Vegas 

Central Station B site and the Las Vegas MSF site, the existing uses are primarily 

industrial in nature and it is not anticipated that the removal of the existing industrial uses 

would divide or sever a community. These uses would be replaced with similar uses, as 

the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B option and the Las Vegas MSF 

would provide new industrial and maintenance-related uses. 

Result in Environmental Effects Disproportionately Borne by a Low Income 

or Minority Population 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross eight environmental justice 

communities with disproportionate low income and minority populations. Figures 

F-3.1-14 and F-3.1-15 show the locations of the environmental justice census blocks in 

relation to the Preferred Alternative. These environmental justice census blocks are 

located in Victorville, Barstow, between Baker and the California/Nevada state line, and 

within the Las Vegas metropolitan area. However, existing residential development 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-31

within the environmental justice block between Baker and the California/Nevada state 

line is sparse and is concentrated within Baker and outside of the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment area. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not directly affect (through displacement) 

a minority or low income resident. Residents within qualifying census block groups 

adjacent to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment are already exposed to substantial 

transportation infrastructure, such as the I-15 freeway and the associated environmental 

issues, such as traffic, noise, air quality, and aesthetics. Since the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment would generally follow existing transportation infrastructure, the rail 

alignment would not introduce substantial new effects to environmental justice 

communities. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment, when taken into consideration 

with the existing I-15 freeway corridor, would not result in substantial environmental 

changes for the adjacent environmental justice communities and the communities would 

generally continue to experience the same environmental effects currently produced by 

the I-15 freeway transportation corridor. 

Operation of the Preferred Alternative could result in negative employment and economic 

growth effects to Barstow, which could affect a disproportionately low-income and 

minority community in Barstow.11

 There are 13 minority and poverty environmental 

justice census block groups within the Barstow area in the vicinity of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. Section 3.2.1.3 of this Final EIS details the potential adverse 

economic impacts. The Preferred Alternative would result in the diversion of I-15 freeway 

traffic between Victorville and Las Vegas to the high-speed passenger train. The Barstow 

economy is largely driven by taxable sales from freeway-related traffic and this diversion 

of these “passby” vehicle trips through Barstow could have an indirect negative growth 

effect to Barstow’s economy. Based on the DesertXpress ridership forecast, it is estimated 

that annually about two million private automobile passengers and 260,000 bus 

passengers would instead use the Preferred Alternative. 

Over time, the share of Barstow’s economy affected by the Preferred Alternative could 

slowly grow since ridership is expected to increase over time. The Barstow economy could 

experience a gradual reduction in economic activity, jobs, and income, with an average 

annual loss during operation.12

 This reduction in economic growth from the freewaytraffic diversion would result in a loss to Barstow’s economic base of funds, which could 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities during operation of the 

Preferred Alternative. Table F-3.1-4 summarizes the anticipated long-term negative 

 

11 The Draft EIS identified year 2013 as the opening year for the DesertXpress project. Since construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would take three- to four-years, the exact opening year of the Preferred Alternative is 

not determined at this time. The Preferred Alternative is assumed to begin operations three to four years after 

commencing construction. 

12 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-32

economic growth effects on Barstow as a result of operation of the high-speed passenger 

train. The reduction in economic activity could also result in reduced employment 

opportunities in Barstow. Operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the loss 

of about 542 jobs by the 3rd year of operation and up to 676 by the 18th year of operation. 13 

The loss of jobs could adversely affect the Barstow economy, including the 13 

environmental justice communities within the Barstow area. 

While operation of the Preferred Alternative could result in negative economic effects to 

an environmental justice community, construction of the Preferred Alternative could 

result in a temporary increase in employment and associated salaries. Section 3.2.1.3 of 

this Final EIS also describes the beneficial employment and economic growth effects 

during construction of the Preferred Alternative. Within San Bernardino County, Barstow 

would be the most central city for construction of the Preferred Alternative, particularly 

for the 113-mile stretch of the rail alignment between Barstow and Primm. It is assumed 

that a disproportionate share of the construction jobs and associated revenue created by 

the Preferred Alternative in San Bernardino County would flow into Barstow and its 

immediate environs. Construction of the Preferred Alternative could result in about 2,470 

direct jobs in Barstow during the three- to four-year construction period. This would 

represent an annual average of 823 direct jobs per year, resulting in an eight percent 

increase in employment over the 2009 employment level of 10,463. 14

 These 2,470 direct 

jobs are anticipated to generate an average payroll (combination of salaries) of $59.5 

million over the course of the construction period.15

 While the construction jobs would be 

temporary during the construction phase, the introduction of the new direct jobs and 

associated salaries could have a temporary positive effect on the City’s employment rate 

and economic vitality, and could have a temporary positive economic effect on Barstow, 

which is an environmental justice community. 

Based on the analysis presented in the Barstow study, the economic and employment 

effects would not result in urban decay, a process whereby a previously functioning city 

falls into disrepair or become decrepit.16

 Since the Preferred Alternative would not result 

in urban decay or other interrelated physical environmental effects as a result of the 

negative effects on Barstow’s economy, this economic effect in not considered adverse and 

thus would not constitute an adverse economic effect to the existing environmental justice 

communities in the Barstow area. 

 

13 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.

14 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

15 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

16 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-33

The Baker Maintenance of Way (MOW) would be located within the same environmental 

justice census block crossed by the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. The Baker MOW 

would be developed on vacant land and would not displace any residents. The Baker 

MOW would be limited to a 2.4 acre site and would employ up to eight employees. With 

the use of the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) train technology as part of the Preferred 

Alternative, the high-speed trains would not result in excessive diesel idling at this 

location. Thus, the Baker MOW would not introduce adverse effects to the environmental 

justice community. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would be located within two census blocks 

meeting the minority and low-income population criteria for evaluation of environmental 

justice effects. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment near Victorville (Segment 1) 

would also cross these same two environmental justice census blocks. The Preferred 

Alternative Victorville Station would be located in a portion of these census blocks that is 

currently undeveloped. There are no residences or community facilities within one mile of 

the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station site. Thus, the Victorville Station site would 

not present potential direct or indirect adverse effects to environmental justice 

communities. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would not be located within an environmental 

justice census block. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would not be located within an environmental 

justice census block. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options would have varying effects to 

environmental justice communities. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern 

Station site option would not be located within an environmental justice census block but 

would be within one mile of three such qualifying census blocks. The closest 

environmental justice census block is located across the I-15 freeway to the east. The 

existing transportation corridor separates this environmental justice census block from 

the Las Vegas Southern Station site. Potential environmental effects associated with the 

Las Vegas Southern Station, such as noise, dust during construction, or visual effects, 

would be minimal to non-existent because of the intervening multi-lane transportation 

corridor. The other two nearby environmental justice census blocks are located to the 

west, with intervening urban development creating a barrier between the Las Vegas 

Southern Station site option and such communities. This intervening urban development 

would provide a barrier and reduce potential effects of the station to the disproportionate 

low-income and minority populations to the west. Therefore, the Las Vegas Southern 

Station would not result in a direct or indirect impact on an environmental justice 

community. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B site option would be located within 

one environmental justice census block with a qualifying minority population. The 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would also cross this same census block. Residential 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-34

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

Station B site option and the residents could be exposed to air quality, traffic, and noise 

impacts associated with the station. Residents in this area are already exposed to noise 

and air quality impacts from the I-15 freeway and the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas 

Central Station B site option would not result in a significant permanent noise or air 

quality effect on surrounding land uses. 

As discussed in Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final EIS, adverse 

traffic effects would be mitigated. Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration, and Section 

3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of this Final EIS also includes 

mitigation that would reduce adverse noise and air quality effects. With implementation 

of these mitigation measures, the adverse effects to environmental justice communities 

would be reduced; the Preferred Alternative would not result in disproportionate effects to 

such communities. 

3.1.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.1-5 below compares the land use and community impacts of the various Action 

Alternatives evaluated, as well as the No Action Alternative. Components of the Preferred 

Alternative are highlighted in yellow. 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would primarily implement the Action 

Alternative B rail alignment, in which the rail alignment would be located within the 

existing I-15 freeway ROW. The Segment 1 and Segment 3 Action Alternative B rail 

alignments would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway travel lanes, while 

the Segment 2, Segment 5, and Segment 6 Action Alternative B rail alignments would be 

located at the furthest edge of the existing I-15 ROW. 

None of the Action Alternative A rail alignment options, in which the rail alignment would 

be located primarily in the median of the I-15 freeway, are part of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be in closer proximity to adjacent land 

uses on the west or northern side of the I-15 freeway corridor relative to median options, 

since the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be primarily adjacent to the western 

or northern edge of the existing I-15 freeway travel lanes. The majority of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would be located at a greater distance from the adjacent land 

uses on the east or southern sides of the I-15 freeway corridor than would the median 

options. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-35

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

Alternative

Compatibility 

with Adjacent 

Land Uses

Compatibility 

with Land Use 

Plans

Number of 

Housing Units 

Displaced

Extent of Community 

Disruption/Severance

Number of Environmental 

Justice (EJ) Communities 

Crossed by or Within One

Mile of Facilities

No Action Alternative High High Unknown None Expected Assumed Similar to Action 

Alternatives

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 High High 0 None Expected Cross 2 EJ census blocks 

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Low-High Low-High 0

Linear division through 

Lenwood and Yermo

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ census 

blocks

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Low-High Medium-High 0

Linear division through 

Lenwood

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ census 

blocks 

Segment 2C Low-High Medium-High 0 None Expected Cross 2 EJ census blocks 

Segment 3 

Segment 3A Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 3 EJ census blocks 

Segment 3B Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 3 EJ census blocks 

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 

Low within 

Mojave National 

Preserve

Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 2 EJ census blocks 

Segment 4B Low Medium-High 0 None Expected Cross 1 EJ census block 

Segment 4C Low-High Medium-High 0 None Expected Cross 1 EJ census block 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-36

Alternative

Compatibility 

with Adjacent 

Land Uses

Compatibility 

with Land Use 

Plans

Number of 

Housing Units 

Displaced

Extent of Community 

Disruption/Severance

Number of Environmental 

Justice (EJ) Communities 

Crossed by or Within One

Mile of Facilities

Segment 5 

Segment 5A High Low-High 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Segment 5B High Low-High 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Segment 6 

Segment 6A Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 4 EJ census blocks 

Segment 6B Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 4 EJ census blocks 

Segment 6C Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 2 EJ census blocks 

Segment 7 

Segment 7A Low-High High 0 None Expected Cross 6 EJ census blocks 

Segment 7B Low-High High 0 None Expected Cross 6 EJ census blocks 

Segment 7C Low-High Low-High 0 None Expected Cross 7 EJ census blocks 

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 Medium Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 2 EJ census blocks 

Victorville Station Site 2 High Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 1 mile of 2 EJ census 

blocks

Victorville Station Site 3 High Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 2 EJ census blocks

Victorville OMSF 1 Medium Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 1 EJ census block 

Victorville OMSF 2 High Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 1 mile of 1 EJ census 

block
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-37

Alternative

Compatibility 

with Adjacent 

Land Uses

Compatibility 

with Land Use 

Plans

Number of 

Housing Units 

Displaced

Extent of Community 

Disruption/Severance

Number of Environmental 

Justice (EJ) Communities 

Crossed by or Within One

Mile of Facilities

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station High High 0 None Expected Within 1 mile of 3 EJ census 

blocks 

Las Vegas Central Station A High High 0 None Expected Within 1 mile of 9 EJ census 

blocks 

Las Vegas Central Station B Medium-High Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 1 EJ census block 

Las Vegas Downtown 

Station Medium-High High 0 None Expected Within 2 EJ census block 

Sloan Road MSF17 High Low 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Relocated Sloan MSF High Low 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Wigwam Avenue MSF Medium-High Medium-High 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Robindale Avenue MSF Medium Medium-High 1 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Frias Substation Medium-High Medium-High 0 None Expected Outside any EJ census block

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way 

Facility High Medium-High 0 None Expected Within 1 EJ census block 

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric 

Multiple Unit) N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

17 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-38

Overall, the Action Alternative A rail alignments would create less of a conflict with 

existing land uses immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway than the Preferred Alternative. 

Since Action Alternative A would develop a high-speed rail through the middle of an 

existing freeway (an intensification of the existing transportation use), it would generally 

not conflict with immediately adjacent land uses. The Preferred Alternative would be 

adjacent to the freeway and one side of the rail alignment would be adjacent to land with 

another, potentially contrasting, land use designation. 

Conversely, the Action Alternative A rail alignments would create a greater conflict with 

future expanded uses of the I-15 freeway, including widening of the I-15 freeway. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has indicated that the use and maintenance of 

median rail alignments would introduce greater potential for conflict with the I-15 freeway 

corridor than would be Action Alternative B rail alignments that would be located adjacent 

to the existing I-15 freeway travel lanes. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4 rail alignment (Segment 4C) would avoid intrusion 

into the Mojave National Preserve, as would Segment 4B. Segment 4A would traverse 

through a portion of the Mojave National Preserve. However, all Segment 4 rail alignment 

options would result in low compatibility with the BLM Multiple Use Class M and L lands. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would have greater compatibility 

with adjacent land uses than Victorville Station Site 1 (VV1) and Operations, maintenance, 

and Storage Facility Site 1 (OMSF 1) and similar compatibility as Victorville Station Site 2 

(VV2). VV1 and OMSF 1 would be located near a residential neighborhood, and would 

therefore have medium compatibility with adjacent land uses, rather than the high 

compatibility of the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and VV2 with the adjacent 

undeveloped and vacant lands. 

The Las Vegas Southern Station site option would have high compatibility with the 

adjacent industrial uses, where as the Las Vegas Central Station B site option would have 

medium to high compatibility with the residential land uses and industrial and 

hotel/motel developments, respectively. The Southern Station site option would have 

compatibility similar to Central Station A; the Central Station B site option would have 

compatibility similar to the Downtown Station. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas 

Southern Station and Las Vegas Central Station A would have the greatest compatibility 

with existing industrial/manufacturing and commercial land uses. The Preferred 

Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station and Las Vegas Central Station A would have high 

compatibility with industrial/manufacturing and commercial land uses since the facilities 

would be similar to the types of development allowed under these land use designations. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would be more compatible with existing land 

uses than the Robindale Avenue MSF but less compatible than the Sloan Road MSF and 

Relocated Sloan MSF. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would have high 

compatibility with the industrial land uses and medium compatibility with the residential 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-39

land uses, where as the Robindale Avenue MSF would only have medium compatibility 

with the residential land uses. The Sloan Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF would have 

high compatibility with the undeveloped and vacant lands. 

Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would avoid potential conflicts 

associated with Segment 2A/2B which would traverse lands designated by the City of 

Barstow for future residential and industrial development since Segment 2C would follow 

the existing I-15 freeway corridor. Segment 2C would avoid potential conflicts with the 

P&V Enterprise Development project, the Barstow Industrial Park project, and the 

Walmart Distribution Center project. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment would have greater compatibility 

with land use plans than would Segment 4A and Segment 4B. The Preferred Alternative 

Segment 4C rail alignment would have high compatibility with the Institutional land use 

designations, where as Segment 4A would have low compatibility with Residential land 

use designations west of Mountain Pass along the I-15 freeway corridor. The Preferred 

Alternative Segment 4C would also avoid potential conflicts associated with Segment 4B 

which would traverse through the planned Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System 

(ISEGS) project site. Refer to Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS for 

additional information related to the ISEGS project.. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would have similar compatibility 

with land use plans as would VV1, VV2, and OMSF 1. All of the Victorville station and 

maintenance facilities would have high compatibility with the Industrial/Manufacturing 

and Institutional land use designations and medium compatibility with the Residential 

land use designations. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site option would have similarly 

high compatibility with Industrial/Manufacturing and Commercial land use designations 

as would the Las Vegas Central Station A and Downtown Station. The Preferred 

Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B would also have high compatibility with such land 

use designations, but would also have medium compatibility with nearby Residential land 

use designations. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B would 

have the lowest compatibility with land use plans as compared to the Las Vegas Station 

site options. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would have similar compatibility with land use 

plans as the Robindale Avenue MSF, as both sites would have high compatibility with the 

Commercial and Administrative and Professional land use designations and medium 

compatibility with nearby Residential land use designations. The Preferred Alternative 

Las Vegas MSF would have greater compatibility than the Sloan Road MSF and the 

Relocated Sloan MSF, which both would have low compatibility with the Open Space land 

use designations. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-40

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would avoid the displacement of a residential 

use associated with the Robindale Avenue MSF. However, the Preferred Alternative Las 

Vegas MSF does involve the displacement of two industrial businesses, while the Sloan 

Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF would not result in any residential or business 

displacements. Thus, the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would have greater 

displacement effects than the Sloan Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF and lesser 

displacement effects than the Robindale Avenue MSF. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B site option would result in the 

displacement of industrial uses, including a staging and storage area and a large 

warehouse. Similarly, the Las Vegas Downtown Station would result in the displacement 

of an industrial use. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site option and 

the Las Vegas Central Station A would not result in any commercial, industrial, or 

residential displacements. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative Southern Station and Las 

Vegas Central Station A would have lesser effects relative to business displacement than 

would the Preferred Alternative Central Station B site option and the Las Vegas Downtown 

Station. None of the Las Vegas Station site options would cause residential displacement. 

Disrupt or Sever Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established 

Community 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would be located within the I-15 

ROW and would not involve any changes to local roadways. The Preferred Alternative 

Segment 2C rail alignment would avoid potential community disruption associated with 

Segments 2A/2B, which would create new linear features through Lenwood and Barstow. 

However, all of the rail alignments would be grade separated and would maintain the 

existing roadway and community connections. 

The other Preferred Alternative components and Action Alternatives would have similar 

effects related to community disruption and severance. 

Result in Environmental Effects Disproportionately Borne by a Low Income 

or Minority Population 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would have greater effects on 

environmental justice populations than would Segments 2A/2B. Segment 2C would cross 

through two environmental justice census blocks with a disproportionate low income 

population, which Segments 2A/2B would not be located within any such census blocks. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C would have similar effects on environmental justice 

populations as Segment 4B because it traverses through the same census block. However, 

development within this census block is sparse and is concentrated well outside the 

vicinity of the Segment 4 rail alignment options. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-41

The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would not be located within an environmental 

justice census block with a disproportionate low income or minority population. The 

Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would avoid environmental justice effects 

associated with OMSF Site Option 1 (OMSF 1), which would be located within an 

environmental justice census block with a disproportionate low income population. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would be located within one environmental 

justice census block with disproportionate minority and low-income populations. The 

Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would have lesser environmental justice effects 

than would VV1, which would be located within two environmental justice census blocks, 

and greater effects than VV2, which would not be within such as census block. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site option would not be located 

within an environmental justice census block, similar to the Las Vegas Central Station A. 

However, both of these station site options would be located within one mile of at least 

two such qualifying census blocks with disproportionate low-income and minority 

populations. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B site option would be 

located within an environmental justice census block with a disproportionate minority 

population. The Las Vegas Downtown Station would be located within two environmental 

justice census blocks with both disproportionate low-income and minority populations. 

Although the Preferred Alternative Southern Station site option and the Las Vegas Central 

Station A would not be located within an environmental justice census block, all Las Vegas 

Station site options would be in or within one mile of at least one census block meeting the 

environmental justice qualifying criteria. Low-income and minority populations could be 

exposed to air quality, traffic, and noise impacts from the Las Vegas Station site options. 

Mitigation measures identified in Section 3.1.3 below would reduce these potentially 

adverse effects to such populations. 

None of the Las Vegas MSF site options would be located within an environmental justice 

census block. 

The other Preferred Alternative components and Action Alternatives would have similar 

effects related to environmental justice. 

3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse direct land use effects relative to 

land use plans or community severance because the Preferred Alternative would be 

located primarily within existing transportation ROWs or currently undeveloped areas. 

Small amounts of industrial or commercial displacement would occur with the Las Vegas 

Central Station B site option and the Las Vegas MSF, but would not result in adverse land 

use or community effects as the displacement of these uses would not disrupt an existing 

community or displace residences. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-42

The Preferred Alternative could conflict with designated one-engine inoperative zones and 

existing and planned Runway Protection Zones associated with airport land uses, such as 

the LAS. The following mitigation would be required to reduce effects related to the 

compatibility with the normal functioning of the airport: 

Mitigation Measure LU-1: Rail Alignment Design in One-Engine 

Inoperative Zones at LAS 

During the design-build process for the design plans in the vicinity of the LAS, the 

Applicant shall coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the 

airport to develop and agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the 

one-engine inoperative zones and departure conditions under FAA standards. The 

Applicant shall provide written verification of the agreement with the FAA, 

CCDOA, and associated airlines prior to approval of project designs in this 

location. 

Mitigation Measure LU-2: Rail Alignment Design in Existing and 

Planned Runway Protection Zones 

During the design-build process, the Applicant shall coordinate with the FAA 

regarding any existing and planned airport uses and established Runway 

Protection Zones. The Applicant shall obtain a Part 77 determination from the 

FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation. 

Potential indirect land uses effects and adverse effects on environmental justice 

populations would be mitigated through measures specified in other environmental topic 

sections of Chapter 3.0, Introduction, of this Final EIS, including Section 3.4, 

Utilities/Emergency Services; Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation; Section 

3.6, Visual Resources; Section 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change; 

and Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration. 

Measures identified in these sections of the Draft EIS that would apply to the Preferred 

Alternative include: 

 Section 3.4.5, Utilities/Emergency Services: Avoidance or minimization of 

conflict with existing utility infrastructure (including coordination with existing 

utility providers). 

 Section 3.5.5, Traffic and Transportation: The addition of signalization 

and/or lanes to the intersection approaches. 

 Section 3.6.5, Visual Resources: Use of aesthetically pleasing materials for 

the rail alignment that minimize reflectivity, use of architecture and colors and the 

Victorville Station that reflect the surrounding desert landscape, design or signage 

at the Victorville Station to reflect the scale and character of the site and 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.1-43

surroundings, use of contour grading, orderly construction site management, 

minimization of light spillover during construction, and use of visual screening 

construction areas as appropriate. 

 Section 3.11.5, Air Quality and Global Climate Change: Use of best 

management dust control practices to minimize air quality impacts during 

construction.

 Section 3.12.7, Noise and Vibration: Installation of noise barriers, use of 

sound and vibration reducing materials, relocation of crossovers or special track 

work, property acquisitions, limited construction times, limited locations of 

construction related activities, and use of sounds-reducing construction 

equipment.

3.1.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The incorporation of the mitigation measures would mitigate permanent effects related to 

project construction and operation. While the majority of the Preferred Alternative would 

be located within the existing I-15 freeway corridor, portions of the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment north of Yermo and Mountain Pass would result in the permanent 

conversion of lands to transportation use. The portion of the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment that would divert from the I-15 freeway corridor in metropolitan Las Vegas 

would already be located within an existing Clark County ROW intended for 

transportation use. The areas intended for the Preferred Alternative station and 

maintenance facilities would also result in the permanent conversion of lands to 

transportation uses, even with implementation of the above mitigation measures. 
Segment 1

Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

Site 1

Victorville

OMSF 1

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Site 3A/3B

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 2C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

15

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Road

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

4

5

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006

Legend

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Land Use Designation (California)

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space Contracts

Residential

Restrictive

Other

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-6:

Land Use/Zoning Designation (1) F-3.1-1

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to show the industrial land use designations associated with planned industrial

 developments in western Barstow. 

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Segment 2A/2B

Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3A/3B

Segment 2C 

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

Segment 2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A / 2B

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Barstow

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

4

5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Land Use Designation (California)

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space Contracts

Residential

Restrictive

Other

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-7:

Land Use/Zoning Designation (2) F-3.1-2

*This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to show the industrial land use designations associated with planned industrial

 developments in western Barstow. 

Segment 2B
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Baker

Halloran

Springs Segment 3A/3B

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A/5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3A/3B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3A/3B

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5 Las Vegas

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to reflect the most current land use designations in Nevada, as defined in the Clark County, South County Land Use Plan. FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3-1-8:

Land Use / Zoning Designation (3) F-3.1-3

Tunnels

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

Legend

Land Use Designation (California)

Land Use Designation (Nevada)

Planned Development/Mixed Use

Public Facilities

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Desert and Mountain

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space

Residential

Restrictive

Other

Residential
Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6A / 6B

Segment 5A / 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15 Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to reflect the most current land use designations in Nevada, as defined in the Clark County, South County Land Use Plan

 and the Enterprise Land Use Plan.

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-9:

Land Use / Zoning Designation (4) F-3.1-4

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Zoning Designation (Nevada)

Civic

Administrative and Professional

Public Facility

Industrial-Manufacturing

Residential

Commercial

Planned Development/Mixed Use

Open Space
Segment 6A/6B

Segment 6C

Segment 7C

Robindale MSF

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station 

Segment 7A/7B

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

TCA 16

McCarran

International

Airport

Tropicana Ave

L

a

s

V

e

g

a

s

B

vl d

Rd

Segment 6B

TCA 22

Segment 6A

15

Segment 7A Segment 6C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Segment 7B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Robindale MSF

Wigwam MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Zoning Designation (Nevada)

Civic

Administrative and Professional

Public Facility

Industrial-Manufacturing

Residential

Commercial

Planned Development/Mixed Use

Open Space

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles NORTH

0 2 1

Miles

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-10:

Land Use / Zoning Designation (5) F-3.1-5

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to reflect the most current land use designations in Nevada, as defined in the Clark County, South County Land Use Plan

 and the Winchester Land Use Plan.
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Baker

Halloran

Springs Segment 3A/3B

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A/5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3A/3B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3A/3B

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5 Las Vegas

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-3:

Land Ownership (3) F-3.1-6

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to correctly depict the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) site as owned by Clark County.

Legend

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Clark County (Nevada)

Tunnels

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6A / 6B

Segment 5A / 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15 Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.1-4:

Land Ownership (4) F-3.1-7

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to correctly depict the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) site as owned by Clark County.

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Legend

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Clark County (Nevada)

Tunnels
Segment 2C

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

TCA 1B

Burkhardt

Lake

Silver Lake

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

TCA 1B

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

4

5

Land Ownership/Management (1)

FIG

F-3.1-8

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Land Ownership/Management

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Clark County (Nevada)
Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 2C 

Nebo Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A

Nebo Area

Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

4

5

Land Ownership/Management (2)

FIG

F-3.1-9

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Land Ownership/Management

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Clark County (Nevada)
NEVADA

CALIFORN

15 IA

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

4

5

Baker Blvd.

TCA 9 15

Baker

Segment 3B Baker

MOW

127

Primm

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles

Legend

Land Ownership/Management

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Clark County (Nevada)

Tunnels

Land Ownership/Management (3)

FIG

F-3.1-10
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada

California

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Tunnels

Legend

Land Ownership/Management

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Clark County (Nevada)

Land Ownership/Management (4)

FIG

F-3.1-11
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Segment 6B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.28.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E. Tropicana Ave

L

a

s

Ve

g

a

s

Blv

d

W. Russell Rd

Segment 6 B

Robindale Ave.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

160

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

Land Ownership/Management (5)

FIG

F-3.1-12

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2 1.25 .5

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

Legend

Land Ownership/Management

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations
Primm

Victorville

Barstow

Yermo

Baker

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 2A

Segment 4C

1 inch equals 13 miles NORTH

Source: Bureau of Land Management,

California Desert Conservation Area Land

Use Plan, 1999; DesertXpress 2007 FIG

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

Classifications, California Desert Conservation Area

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 105

Miles

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Map 1 of 1

Death Valley NP

Victorville

Las

Vegas

Mojave National Preserve

(National Park Service)

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 2C

Legend

California Desert Conservation Area

Class I Intensive Use

Class M Moderate Use

Class L Limited Use

Class C Controlled Use

Private, State and Other

Federally Managed Lands

CDCA Boundary

County Lines

Military Boundary

Planning Units

Other Features

National Park Boundary

Competitive Even Corridor

#

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Tunnels
Yermo

Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Victorville

Segment 3B

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 2A

Segment 4C

Segment 2C

and U

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Baker MOW

60710103002

6071013006

60710103003

60710103007

60710121001

1

2

Locator Map

Map 1

1 inch equals10.5 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

Environmental Justice: California (1)

FIG

F-3.1-14

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 1 5 0

Miles

0 2 10 0

Kilometers

15

TCA 1B

Victorville

OMSF

(OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Segment 1

Helendale

Victorville

60710117002

60710091029

60710091047 60710121004

60710098002

60710098003

60710099011 60710099012

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

15

60710094003

60710095006 60710095005

60710094002

60710095004

60710095001

60710120001

60710095002

60710120005

607101200002

6071012004

Lenwood

Barstow

60710094001

60710121001

247

58

Segment 2C

TCA 2C1

Legend

Environmental Justice Data

Minority Population

60700000001 Census Block Number

Poverty Level

Census Block Groups That Meet

Environmental Criteria For:

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Tunnels
Primm

Jean

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Segment 5B

Segment 6B

Segment 4C

Wigwam Avenue MSF

Las Vegas

Central Station B

Las Vegas

Southern Station

60710103002

1

2

Locator Map

Map 1

1 inch equals10.5 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

Environmental Justice: Nevada (1)

FIG

F-3.1-15

Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 5 2.5

Miles

0 1 5 0

W. Russell Rd

Kilometers

15

W. Saraha Ave

Segment 6 B

30003015

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern 

Station 

TCA 16

30002013

30002031

30002033

30009002

30008002

30006003

30011004

30011003 30012003

30020001 30019021

30019012

30012002

30019011

30014003

30014004

30013004

30013002

30010046

30024041

30024042

30024031

30024052

30024051

30023003

30023002

30026021

30029563

30022031 30022041

30022042

30022053

30029551

30022051

30022052

30029541

30027023

E. Sunset Rd

E. Warm Springs Rd

TCA 22

30001014

30001052

30010041

30010044

30010034

30029121

30027021

30028072

30013003

30024032

30026031

30026032

30029251

30009001

30011001

30011002

30013005

30013001

30014005

30024061

30026022

30077022

30029562

30029123

30029481

30029542

30022032

30011045

30022011

30026011

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Legend

Environmental Justice Data

Minority Population

60700000001 Census Block Number

Poverty Level

Census Block Groups That Meet

Environmental Criteria For:

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Tunnels

30028161

30028321
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-1 

3.2 GROWTH 

This section describes the updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the growth effects related to 

the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No Action and other Action Alternatives 

and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.2.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

Section 4.3, Response to Comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

related to growth and provides responses to those comments. Several comments resulted 

in updates/changes to the growth analysis in this Final EIS and are discussed below. 

Following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS and in response to comments, the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) commissioned a study of potential economic 

impacts to the City of Barstow (Barstow Study).1 The Barstow Study is included as 

Appendix F-E to this Final EIS. The Barstow Study utilized information from an 

additional report that evaluated the predicted employment and economic impact in San 

Bernardino County and Clark County.2

 This employment and economic impact analysis is 

included as Appendix F-F to this Final EIS. Additional information from the Barstow 

Study and the employment and economic impact report have been incorporated into this 

Final EIS. Substantive updates and changes in response to comments on the Draft and 

Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.2.1.1 Affected Environment 

Section 3.2.3 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.2.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS describe 

in detail the affected environment for growth effects for the DesertXpress project. 

The geographies examined within the Draft EIS and the Supplemental EIS include the 

regional and local environments of San Bernardino County, Clark County, the City of 

Victorville, and the City of Las Vegas. The regional and local growth projections and 

forecasts included in Draft EIS Section 3.2.3.1 were updated in the Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section 3.2.1 to reflect the most current growth projections. The regional and local 

growth projections for San Bernardino County, Clark County, Victorville, and Las Vegas, 

have not changed since publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS and the information in 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.2.1 remains applicable to this Final EIS and the 

evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

 

1

 Economics and Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 

2010. 

2

 Thomas Carroll and Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. 

October 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-2 

Comment 304 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-195 through S-200, S-205, S-206, S209, S-212 through S-215, S-219, S-220, and S-221 on the Supplemental Draft EIS 

requested additional information related to potential socioeconomic impacts of the 

DesertXpress project on the City of Barstow. To address these comments, this Final EIS 

amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.3.1 as follows to incorporate information from the 

Barstow Study and the associated employment and economic impact report. 

City of Barstow

Population: Barstow’s population was essentially unchanged from 

1990 to 2000. The City’s General Plan indicates that Barstow 

experienced a slower growth rate as compared to the San Bernardino 

County growth rate. The City’s General Plan attributes this slower 

growth rate to the distance between Barstow and other urban growth 

centers and the outward migration of populations and economic 

activities to outlying areas in southern California. 3 

Between 2000 and 2010, population growth in Barstow accounted for 

only 2.3 percent of the 46.9 percent growth rate in the High Desert area 

of San Bernardino County, which includes the Victor Valley cities of 

Adelanto, Apple Valley, Hesperia, and Victorville. In terms of 

population growth between 2000 and 2010, the population increase in 

Barstow was the 8th lowest of the 50 inland cities in the County.4

Table F-3.2-1 summarizes population growth projections for Barstow 

through year 2030. A combination of the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) Growth Projections, San 

Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the City of 

Barstow staff data estimate that Barstow’s population was about 

24,010 in 2008.5 These projections expect Barstow to grow to 29,771 by 

year 2020, an annual growth rate of about 1.8 percent. Based on this 

growth rate, Barstow is expected to have a population of 35,370 by year 

2030.6 

This projected growth shows some effect of outward migration of 

Southern California, but relatively little. Barstow can thus be thought 

of as a location that still has a mainly self-contained economy, and one 

 

3

 City of Barstow. City of Barstow General Plan. July 7, 1997. 

4 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

5

 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

6 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-3 

that will likely remain in that condition for a least a decade, if not 

longer. This means that Barstow’s economy will largely be separated 

from the forces now shaping the Victor Valley area of the High Desert.7 

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

Year Population / Percent 

Growtha

Households / Percent 

Growtha

Employment / Percent 

Growtha

2005 

(actual)

24,010 

(year 2008) NA 8,123 NA 12,209 NA

2010 25,101 + 4.5 10,516 + 29 16,536 + 35

2015 27,360 + 9 13,869 +32 20,088 + 20

2020 29,771 + 9 16,894 + 22 22,924 + 14

2025 32,450 + 9 19,802 + 17 26,244 + 14

2030 35,370 + 9 22,520 + 14 29,945 +14

Source: Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 2010; 

SCAG Projections, 2008. 

a

 Percent Growth from last measured year (5-year increments) 

Housing: Barstow has historically experienced a slow growth rate 

relative to housing. Between 2000 and 2007, the household growth 

rate was about 8.7 percent, substantially below the rate for San 

Bernardino County (12.6 percent) over the same period.8 

Consistent with expected population growth, the City’s General Plan 

and SCAG’s 2008 Growth Projections estimate the number of 

households to nearly double by 2020. Table F-3.2-1 summarizes the 

estimated household growth within Barstow through 2030. SCAG 

estimates a faster growth rate for households than the anticipated 

population growth rate in Barstow.

With regard to Barstow’s housing market, sales volume was relatively 

static between 1988 to the end of 2002, with 81 sales on average per 

year. The housing boom between 2004 and 2006 raised average 

 

7

 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

8 City of Barstow. City of Barstow General Plan, Housing Element Update 2006-2014. 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-4 

annual sales to about 200, but the economic downturn that began in 

2008 brought sales volumes back down to historic averages.9 

Employment: As described above, Barstow is a relatively small, slow 

growing city that remains largely isolated from the major economic 

forces shaping San Bernardino County, including proximity to the Los 

Angeles region. Barstow’s economic base primarily consists of two 

employment sections - transportation and government.10 The US 

military and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway remain the 

two largest employers within the Barstow area, with a number of 

employees working civilian jobs or in the classification yard, 

respectively. 

Table F-3.2-1 summarizes the anticipated employment growth in 

Barstow. SCAG’s 2008 Projections estimate that the number of jobs in 

Barstow will continue to increase through year 2030. SCAG estimated 

a job growth of about 35 percent between 2005 and 2010, with a total of 

16,536 jobs in Barstow in 2010. By 2030, Barstow is expected to have 

29,945 jobs, an average annual increase of about 6 percent.11 

In 2009, total income of all people in Barstow was approximately 

$473.3 million, the 9th lowest amount among San Bernardino County’s 

50 inland cities. Barstow’s poverty level in 2008 was reported at 19.9 

percent, approximately double the rate in San Bernardino County as a 

whole.12 

Barstow’s economic condition is largely driven by variations in flow of 

funds. Variations include the number of travelers on Barstow’s 

freeways. Annually, about 17.6 million travelers pass through Barstow, 

with the vast majority using the I-15 freeway, but others on I-40 and 

SR-58.13 Of these 17.6 million, it is estimated that nearly 70 percent 

(12.1 million) are traveling through Barstow en route to or from Las 

Vegas.14 

 

9 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

10 City of Barstow. City of Barstow General Plan, Housing Element Update 2006-2014. 2008. 

11 SCAG. SCAG 2008 Projections. 2008. 

12 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

13 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.

14 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-5 

Retail activity, including sales at service stations and food and clothing 

stores, represents a large portion of Barstow’s economy. Between 

2000 and 2007, Barstow’s taxable sales grew from $415.6 million to 

$596.9 million, or approximately 38.4 percent. Due to the economic 

downturn of 2008-2009, taxable sales in 2009 fell by 12.4 percent to 

$523.1 million. Barstow’s taxable sales are heavily related to 

passengers on the I-15 freeway. Freeway-related sales are estimated to 

have comprised about 65 percent, or $340.5 million, of the City’s total 

taxable sales in 2009.15 

Of this $340.5 million attributed to freeway-related sales, sales of fuel, 

food, and related items at service station represent the largest single 

component. About $54.2 million of this total is attributed to diesel fuel 

sales, almost entirely related to the trucking industry (i.e., not 

attributable to passenger vehicles).16 

3.2.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment related to growth for the DesertXpress project is described in 

detail in Draft EIS Section 3.2.1 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.0-1. These 

regulatory environment discussions remain applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation 

of the Preferred Alternative. 

Draft EIS Section 3.2.1 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.0-1 focused on the 

regulatory environment in San Bernardino County, Clark County, Victorville, and Las 

Vegas. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.1.2 as follows to include a 

discussion of the regulations and standards related to growth in the City of Barstow: 

City of Barstow General Plan

The City of Barstow General Plan, adopted in July 1997, identifies longrange goals and guidance for future development of the City, with 

specific intent to ensure orderly growth while ensuring the health and 

safety of residents and visitors. The General Plan indicates the general 

location of land uses, presents information concerning the potential 

maximum development for given areas, shows the interrelationships of 

various land use patterns, and provides tools to manage future growth. 

 

15 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

16 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-6 

The General Plan assumes that the community will continue to growth 

through year 2020 at rates consistent with historic trends since the 

nineteen sixties. The General Plan assumes that Barstow will grow at a 

rate of three percent per year between 1996 and 2020 based on region 

wide trends. However, growth trends in Barstow have been markedly 

slower than those of San Bernardino County as a whole. This slower 

growth reflects Barstow’s relative isolation from fast-growing urban 

areas to the south and west. 

The General Plan identifies five principal growth areas, including the 

Barstow Road/Rimrock Road, Outlet Mall, Lenwood Specific Plan, 

Highway 58/West Main Street, and the Mojave River/I-15 areas. The 

DesertXpress project would be in close proximity to five growth areas. 

The General Plan also identifies redevelopment areas within the City. 

These redevelopment areas are intended to eliminate or alleviate 

blighting conditions by providing public improvements and seek to 

facilitate development consistent with the City land use policy. These 

areas extend throughout the City and would be within close proximity 

to the DesertXpress project.

3.2.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Several comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS resulted in changes to the 

growth evaluation in the EIS and are discussed below. 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.2, Growth, each focused on growth 

effects in San Bernardino County, Clark County, Victorville, Baker, and Las Vegas. These 

sections of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS did not include a discussion of the 

growth effects to Barstow, as no station or maintenance facilities would be developed. To 

address Comment 304 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-195 through S-200, S-205, S206, S-209, S-212 through S-215, S-219, S-220, and S-221 on the Supplemental Draft EIS, 

this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 to include a discussion of the 

growth effects of the DesertXpress project in Barstow. 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.2 to update the methodology for evaluating 

growth effects, specifically related to the growth effects in Barstow. 

The area of analysis for growth effects includes the cities of Victorville, 

Barstow, Baker, and Las Vegas, as well as the regions of San 

Bernardino County and Clark County within proximity to the 

DesertXpress project. This analysis is focused primarily on the areas 

surrounding station and maintenance facility site options near and/or in 

Victorville and Las Vegas, as well as the City of Barstow. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-7 

The reason for this focus on the areas near the proposed station and 

maintenance facility site options is that potential population and 

employment growth related to the Action Alternatives would most likely occur near 

the station and maintenance facility sites. The station and maintenance facilities 

are the only “interfaces” of the project where passengers would board or exit trains 

and where the vast majority of DesertXpress employees would be located. With 

the exception of the MOW facility proposed for the community of Baker, which 

would house eight employees, there are no other “entry points” to the 

DesertXpress project that could foreseeably add to employment and/or induce 

population growth. 

Another factor affecting growth would be the mode shift, or shift from 

automobile traffic on I-15 freeway to high-speed rail that would occur 

under the Action alternatives. This mode shift could reduce the 

potential number of “pass-by” visitors to communities along the 

corridor, including Barstow, Baker, Primm, and Jean. While these 

communities would have no direct public interface with the 

DesertXpress project, local economies of each community include 

substantial areas of “visitor-serving” uses, such as outlet malls, 

restaurants, and gas stations which rely heavily on automobile traffic 

on I-15 corridor as their primary source of customers. Since the Action 

Alternatives could reduce the number of trips on the I-15 freeway 

assumed with the No Action Alternative and because the Action 

Alternatives do not include any stops or direct interface with these 

communities, the Action Alternatives could have a negative effect on 

the future growth in these communities. 

The City of Barstow is the only urban area through which DesertXpress 

would pass with no such entry point. Notwithstanding, potential 

economic impacts to the City of Barstow have been examined. 

The impact evaluation for Barstow focuses on potential effects related 

to the expected diversion of automobile traffic that would occur with 

implementation of high-speed passenger rail service as a result of 

potential automobile travelers opting to use the DesertXpress highspeed passenger rail system. Diversion of vehicle traffic from the I-15 

freeway to the high-speed train could reduce the potential number of 

“pass-by” visitors to communities along the corridor, including 

Barstow. While Barstow would have no direct public interface with the 

DesertXpress project (i.e., no station or maintenance facility), the local 

economy includes substantial areas of “visitor-serving” uses, such as 

outlet malls, restaurants, and gas stations which rely heavily on vehicle

traffic on the I-15 freeway corridor as their primary source of 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-8 

customers. With this reduction in I-15 freeway traffic, there could 

potentially be economic effects to Barstow in regards to economic 

conditions, housing, and employment.

To evaluate the direct and indirect growth effects of the Action Alternatives, state, 

regional, and local growth projections of population, housing, and employment 

were used as the baseline. The anticipated employment from the DesertXpress 

project was then added to these baseline numbers to determine if the Action 

Alternatives would result in substantial growth or adverse economic effects. 

The analysis in the Barstow Study and the associated employment and 

economic impact report considers the economic conditions in Barstow 

that are a result of money being brought into the market by non-truck 

traffic moving between southern California and Barstow. The Barstow 

Study and employment and economic impact report are included as 

Appendix F-E and Appendix F-F to this Final EIS, respectively.

The Action Alternatives are also evaluated as to whether they could foster 

employment or population growth through the removal of any existing 

impediments to growth. Lack of utilities and urban facilities are the most common 

impediments to growth of undeveloped areas. While the DesertXpress project 

would traverse significant areas of undeveloped lands which have little to no 

utilities or urban services, it would not extend utilities to these areas in a way that 

would remove an impediment to growth. In other words, while the project would 

construct additional transportation, electrical and communications infrastructure, 

this infrastructure would not remove an impediment to growth because it would 

not be readily available to adjacent land uses, with the exception of areas in close 

proximity to stations and maintenance facilities. 

Another factor affecting growth would be the mode shift, or shift from automobile 

traffic on I-15 to high-speed rail that would occur under the action alternatives. 

This mode shift could reduce the potential number of “pass-by” visitors to 

communities along the corridor, including Barstow, Baker, Primm, and Jean. 

While these communities would have no direct public interface with the 

DesertXpress project, local economies of each community include substantial areas 

of “visitor-serving” uses, such as outlet malls, restaurants, and gas stations which 

rely heavily on automobile traffic on I-15 corridor as their primary source of 

customers. Since the action alternatives could reduce the number of trips on I-15 

assumed with the No Action Alternative and because the action alternatives does 

not include any stops or direct interface with these communities, the action 

alternatives could have a negative effect on the future growth in these 

communities. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-9 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.1, under the heading “Action 

Alternatives” and subheading “Direct Regional Effects: Construction Employment” as 

follows to include additional information related to construction job creation in the 

project study area: 

Direct Regional Effects: Construction Employment: Construction of the 

Action Alternatives would be temporary, occurring over an anticipated three- to

four-year time frame. According to the applicant, the anticipated number of 

workers to be employed directly by DesertXpress to Approximately 45,853 

jobs are anticipated to be created during the construction phase of the 

DesertXpress project, which includes workers directly employed to

design and construct all proposed facilities, including design, supply, 

manufacturing, testing, and training for the trains and system elements and heavy 

civil construction.

17 , would vary from about 1,730 to 3,000 per year, depending on 

the construction phase. At any given time up to 260 of the design, supply, 

manufacturing, testing, and training positions would be filled by Bombardier 

employees from other locations worldwide, some of whom might be temporarily 

relocated to the local Victorville and/or Las Vegas area (some design, supply and 

manufacturing work would be done at the project site and some would be done 

remotely). The construction phase of the DesertXpress project is 

estimated to generate 28,384 direct jobs in San Bernardino County and 

17,469 direct jobs in Clark County over the three- to four-year period. 

In total, the DesertXpress project would introduce 45,853 new 

employment opportunities in the project area during construction.18 It 

is assumed that existing Bombardier employees from other locations 

worldwide would fill some of the design, supply, manufacturing, 

testing, and training job positions and that these employees may be 

temporarily relocated to the local Victorville, Barstow, or Las Vegas 

area. Some design, supply, and manufacturing work would be done at 

the specific construction sites along the Preferred Alternative and 

some would be done remotely. The remainder of design and construction 

jobs, approximately 3,900 in all at the highest employment peak, would likely 

come from the local construction labor force in San Bernardino County and Clark 

County. Construction would thus result in a short-term increase in construction 

related job opportunities. 

 

17 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

18 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-10

As of 2006 2009, the construction industry comprised approximately 7.1% 7.8 

percent of the labor force, or about 62,000 63,000 jobs, in San Bernardino 

County. 19 Construction jobs in Clark County during this same year comprised 

approximately 13 8.9 percent of the labor force, totaling 112,300 79,007 jobs. 20 

New construction jobs created by the Action Alternatives could help ameliorate 

local employment impacts in San Bernardino County and Clark County associated 

with the continued 2008 economic downturn. This downturn has resulted in 

increased unemployment, particularly in the construction sector within Las Vegas. 

Thus, the Action Alternatives could have a temporary beneficial effect to the 

region by providing job opportunity for local residents. This would minimize the 

need to draw on labor resources from outside the project area during the 

anticipated three- to four-year construction period. As such, construction of the 

action alternatives is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on local employment 

and growth and would not be anticipated to result in significant permanent 

relocation of construction workers from outside the project area to inside the 

project area. 

It is also reasonably foreseeable that salaries to construction workers 

and related spending on construction activities from local/regional 

suppliers could contribute to additional economic growth in the 

communities along the proposed route. Construction jobs are expected 

to generate approximately $2.2 billion in salaries in San Bernardino 

County and $1.3 billion in Clark County.21 In total, construction is 

expected to result in about $3.5 billion in new direct salaries over 

three- to four- years, contributing to beneficial local economic impacts 

in adjacent and nearby communities.22 These effects would however, 

be temporary, lasting for the duration of the construction period, and 

would therefore not be anticipated to have permanent effects on 

growth. 

It is also reasonably foreseeable that salaries to construction workers and related 

spending on construction activities from local/regional suppliers could contribute 

to additional economic growth in the communities along the action alternatives. 

These indirect effects would however, be temporary, lasting for the duration of the 

construction period, and would therefore not be anticipated to have permanent 

effects on growth. 

 

19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 2009. 

20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 2009. 

21 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

22 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-11

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.1, under the heading “Action 

Alternatives” as follows to include a discussion of the direct local growth effects in 

Barstow: 

Direct Local Effects: Barstow: Construction of the DesertXpress 

project would have direct temporary effects on employment and 

economic growth in Barstow. Within San Bernardino County, Barstow 

would be the most central city for construction of the DesertXpress 

project, particularly for the 113-mile stretch of the rail alignment 

between Barstow and Primm. It is assumed that a significant share of 

the construction jobs and associated revenue created by the 

DesertXpress project in San Bernardino County would flow into 

Barstow and its immediate environs. Similar to the regional effects to 

San Bernardino County, construction of the DesertXpress project 

would result in significant job generation within Barstow and 

associated increases in salaries. Construction of the DesertXpress 

project would result in about 2,470 direct jobs in Barstow during the 

three- to four-year construction period. This would represent an 

annual average of 823 direct jobs per year, resulting in an eight percent 

increase in employment over the 2009 employment level of 10,463.23 

These 2,470 direct jobs are anticipated to generate an average payroll 

(combination of salaries) of $59.5 million over the course of the 

construction period.24 While the construction jobs would be 

temporary during the construction phase, the introduction of the new 

direct jobs and associated salaries would have a temporary positive 

effect on the City’s employment rate and economic growth.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.2, under the heading “No Action 

Alternative” to include the following discussion of indirect local growth effects in Barstow 

under the No Action Alternative: 

As the No Action Alternative would not involve the construction of the 

DesertXpress project, future vehicle trips would not be diverted from 

the I-15 freeway to the high-speed passenger train. Motorists traveling 

between Victorville and Las Vegas on the I-15 freeway would continue 

to pass through Barstow and contribute to the local economy growth, 

specifically related to retail and service station purchases. While the 

No Action Alternative would introduce improvements to the I-15 

 

23 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

24 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-12

freeway to increase capacity, no specific capacity improvements have 

been identified within the developed area of Barstow and it is not 

anticipated that there would be a substantial change to the passenger 

traffic traveling through Barstow. As such, the No Action Alternative 

would not be assumed to have a substantial short-term or long-term 

effect, positive or negative, to the economic growth in Barstow. 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.2, under the heading “Action 

Alternatives” and subheading “Indirect Local Effects: San Bernardino County/City of 

Victorville” as follows to include the following paragraph related to the indirect 

employment and economic growth effects in San Bernardino County associated with 

construction of the DesertXpress project: 

Construction of the DesertXpress project could result in beneficial 

indirect employment and economic growth effects to San Bernardino 

County during the three- to four-year construction period. Services 

and associated employment opportunities could become available to 

serve the jobs directly created by project construction. Construction of 

the DesertXpress project would introduce to San Bernardino County a 

total of 26,699 indirect or induced jobs.25 These new indirect and 

induced jobs would result in approximately $1.5 billion in indirect 

salaries, which could have a positive, temporary indirect effect on the 

economic growth in San Bernardino County.26 These indirect 

construction effects to employment and economic growth in the 

County would, however, be limited to the three- to four-year 

construction time period. 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.2, under the heading “Action 

Alternatives” as follows to include a discussion of the indirect growth effects in Barstow: 

Indirect Local Effects: Barstow: The Segment 2 rail alignment 

alternatives would traverse directly through Barstow, but with no 

station or maintenance facility. 

The DesertXpress project would result in the diversion of non-truck I15 freeway traffic between Victorville and Las Vegas to the high-speed 

passenger train. As a passenger train, the DesertXpress project would 

not be expected to affect the amount of fleet truck traffic traveling 

through Barstow, 

 

25 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

26 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.; Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. 

October 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-13

The Barstow economy is largely driven by taxable retail sales from 

freeway-related traffic. With the shift of non-truck freeway-related 

traffic to the high-speed passenger train, the DesertXpress project 

would have an indirect negative growth effect to Barstow’s economy 

during operation.

Based on the DesertXpress ridership forecast, it is estimated that

annually, about two million private automobile passengers and 

260,ooo bus passengers would instead use DesertXpress. This rate of 

freeway traffic diversion is expected to translate into a loss of about 

$41.6 million total economic activity from the Barstow economy by the 

first year of operation of the high-speed passenger train. This 

reduction represents about seven percent of Barstow’s economy in 

2009. Additionally, the DesertXpress project would cause a 4.6 

percent reduction in total City income, a 1.7 percent reduction in 

property tax revenue, and a 7.4 percent reduction in total sales tax 

revenue by the 3rd year of operation. The Barstow economy would 

experience a loss in economic activity of approximately $51.9 million 

by the 18th year of operation, and increased losses in income, sales 

taxes, and property taxes.27 This reduction in economic growth from 

passengers being diverted to the high-speed passenger train would 

result in a loss to the City’s economic base of funds that would have 

flowed into the economy from outside sources. This would result in a 

reduced flow of funds from the retail sector to its local suppliers and 

service firms. This reduction would also reduce the flow of funds from 

the retail sector and its suppliers and service firms to households, 

thereby lowering the ability for households to spend money in the local 

economy. This cycle could result in further negative indirect growth 

effects to the Barstow economy.28 

As a result of this reduction in economic activity, operation of the 

DesertXpress project is anticipated to result in the loss of 542 jobs 

within Barstow by the 3rd year of operation of the high-speed passenger 

train. This represents a 5.2 percent job loss in Barstow, based on a 

total of 10,463 jobs reported in 2009.29 

 

27 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

28 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

29 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-14

Over time, the share of Barstow’s economy affected by the 

DesertXpress project will slowly grow since the high-speed passenger 

train ridership is expected to increase over time.30 Table F-3.2-2 

summarizes the anticipated long-term potential adverse economic 

impacts on Barstow as a result of operation of the high-speed 

passenger train for the 1st, 3rd, and 18th year of operation. 

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

Operation (Year 1, Year 3, and Year 18 Operation) 

Impact

Change Over Time from Baseline

2009 

(Baseline)

Year 1 Operation –

Total Reduction 

(Percent)

Year 3 Operation –

Total Reduction 

(Percent)

Year 18 Operation –

Total Reduction 

(Percent)

Economic 

Activity N/A -$18.7 million -$41.6 million -$51.9 million

Job Activity 10,463 -244 (-2.33%) -542 (-5%) -676 (-6.46%)

Income $473.3 million -$11.6 million (-2.45%) -$21.7 million (-4.59%) -$27.1 million (-5.73%)

Sales Taxes $5.2 million -$174,826 (-3.34%) -$387,564 (-7.41%) -$483,929 (-9.25%)

Property Taxes $1.3 million -$9,791 (-0.75%) -$21,706 (-1.67%) -$27,102 (-2.08%)

Source: Economics & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 2010. 

Overall, the operation of the DesertXpress project would have a 

downward influence on Barstow’s economic growth, but no change to 

population. The magnitude of economic loss for all sources would be 

less than 10 percent, ranging from a low of a 1.7 percent loss on 

property taxes by the 3rd year of operation to a high of a 9.25 percent 

loss on sales taxes by the 18th year of operation.31 While these are 

potential adverse economic growth effects to Barstow, they are not at a 

level that would result in secondary physical environmental effects, 

such as urban decay. “Urban decay” is understood to occur when an 

otherwise previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into 

disrepair or becomes decrepit.32 Since the negative economic effects to 

Barstow would not result in urban decay, no adverse physical 

economic growth effects would occur. However, the Applicant has 

 

30 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

31 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

32 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-15

proposed a voluntary mitigation measure to address concerns raised 

by the City of Barstow regarding potential economic impacts of the 

DesertXpress project. Voluntary Mitigation Measure GRO-1 could be 

applied to reduce the negative economic effects to Barstow.

The potential adverse economic impacts during operation of the 

DesertXpress project could also affect housing values in Barstow. 

However, historic data indicates that the behavior of Barstow’s 

housing market has been primarily influenced by factors other than 

local economic fluctuations. As such, the loss of jobs in Barstow as a 

result of operation of the DesertXpress project would not be 

anticipated to substantially affect housing growth and no adverse 

effects would occur.33

While operation of the DesertXpress project would have a negative 

growth effect during operation, construction of the DesertXpress 

project could result in beneficial indirect employment and economic 

growth effects during the three- to four-year construction period. 

Services and associated employment opportunities could become 

available to serve the jobs directly created by project construction. 

Construction of the DesertXpress project would introduce about 2,322 

indirect or induced jobs to Barstow. These new indirect and induced 

jobs would result in approximately $126.3 million in indirect salaries, 

which could have a positive temporary indirect effect on the economic 

growth in Barstow. These indirect construction effects to employment 

and economic growth in Barstow would, however, be limited to the 

three- to four-year construction time period. 

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.2.4.2, under the heading “Action 

Alternatives” and subheading “Indirect Local Effects: Clark County/City of Las Vegas” as 

follows to include the following paragraph related to the indirect employment and 

economic growth effects in Clark County associated with construction of the DesertXpress 

project: 

Construction of the DesertXpress project could result in beneficial 

indirect employment and economic growth effects to Clark County 

during the three- to four-year construction period. Services and 

associated employment opportunities could become available to serve 

the jobs directly created by project construction. Construction of the 

DesertXpress project would introduce a total of 16,432 indirect or 

 

33 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-16

induced jobs to Clark County.34 These new indirect and induced jobs 

would result in approximately $852.4 million in indirect salaries, 

which could have a positive temporary indirect effect on the economic 

growth in Clark County.35 These indirect construction effects to 

employment and economic growth in the County would, however, be 

limited to the three- to four-year construction time period. 

This Final EIS adds Draft EIS Section 3.2.5 as follows to include a voluntary mitigation 

measure proposed by the Applicant to address concerns raised by the City of Barstow 

regarding potential economic impacts of the DesertXpress project: 

3.2.5 Mitigation Measures

As the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse direct or 

indirect growth effects at the regional or local levels, no mitigation 

measures would be required. However, the Applicant has proposed a 

voluntary mitigation measure to address concerns raised by the City of 

Barstow regarding potential economic impacts of the DesertXpress 

project.

Voluntary Mitigation Measure GRO-1: Voluntary Applicant 

Coordination with City of Barstow and San Bernardino County for 

Employment 

The Victorville OMSF site options (OMSF 1 and OMSF 2) would be 

located approximately 20 miles south of Barstow. Either OMSF will 

require hundreds of skilled railroad labor. The Applicant will 

coordinate with the appropriate City of Barstow and San Bernardino 

County economic development departments to ensure job 

opportunities at the maintenance facility are made available to 

Barstow residents. 

In addition to permanent jobs during operations, preliminary planning 

has identified Barstow as a key location for staging and construction 

support services during the construction, testing, and commissions 

phases of the Desert Xpress project. The Applicant will work with the 

City of Barstow to ensure its residents are informed of job 

opportunities both during construction and operation of the 

DesertXpress project. The Applicant will also work closely with the 

City of Barstow to identify appropriate and beneficial construction and 

 

34 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010.

35 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-17

staging activities to be located within the City. Additionally, the 

Applicant will work with the City of Barstow to identify and jointly 

develop programs for job training and technical skills training to 

support the DesertXpress project in all phases of design, construction, 

testing, and commissioning, and operations.

3.2.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.2.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.2.2 described the growth impact 

methodology for the DesertXpress project. Since publication of the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS, the growth impact methodology has been updated in response to 

public and agency comment on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Refer to the 

amended discussion to Draft EIS Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.1.3 of this Final EIS. 

3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Potential Direct Effects 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction of the proposed high-speed 

passenger train between Victorville and Las Vegas. There would be no associated 

diversion of automobile or airplane trips between Southern California and Las Vegas. 

While the No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation 

improvement projects that would be in place by the year 2030, these improvements 

primarily consist of the expansion of existing highways and roadways in and around the I15 freeway between Victorville and Las Vegas. These improvements would directly 

generate construction period jobs. These projects would also incrementally increase the 

number of permanent jobs at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 

NDOT, and local agencies to maintain new and/or expanded facilities. In sum, the No 

Action Alternative would have the potential to contribute to growth within the region. 

This employment growth under the No Action Alternative would be small in comparison 

to the overall anticipated growth in Victorville, San Bernardino County, Las Vegas, and 

Clark County. 

No new housing or substantial permanent employment would be directly created as part 

of the No Action Alternative, but it is reasonably foreseeable that local and regional 

transportation improvements could have the ability to indirectly influence growth through 

the extension or expansion of transportation infrastructure that could facilitate growth in 

presently undeveloped or inaccessible areas. Regional growth forecasts are developed in 

part based on regional transportation improvement plans. The No Action Alternative is 

expected to entail the construction of projects as identified in these regional 

transportation plans. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would be expected to result in 

population and economic growth commensurate with regional growth forecasts. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-18

The No Action Alternative would have a direct effect related to population if one of the 

projects under this alternative would require the removal of housing located in its building 

footprint. However, it is unknown at this time if these projects would displace housing. 

Any improvement under the No Action Alternative would require project-specific 

environmental review to determine effects from housing displacement. Since the majority 

of the improvements under the No Action Alternative would require expansions and 

improvements to existing roadway infrastructure, direct displacement of housing is 

expected to be limited.

Potential Indirect Effects 

Indirect growth effects most often occur when a project removes an existing obstacle to 

growth, positive or negative growth in local/regional economic vitality, and/or positive or 

negative growth in population numbers or patterns. 

As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this Final EIS, the No Action Alternative 

consists of planned and funded transportation improvement projects that would be in 

place by the year 2030. As these improvements primarily consist of improvements to 

existing roadways and interchanges, there would be very limited effects in terms of 

opening new lands to development. As a result, the No Action Alternative would not 

indirectly induce growth beyond that which is already envisioned in regional growth 

forecasts. These roadway improvements would serve to reduce congestion and improve 

traffic flows between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

A potential roadway improvement would involve expanding the width of the I-15 freeway 

between Primm and Las Vegas. Refer to Section 2.3.1 of this Final EIS for further 

discussion of the programmed transportation improvements. Although the Primm to Las 

Vegas corridor is already served by a freeway, any such expansion of roadway capacity 

would have the potential to influence growth patterns. Such an expansion could make 

areas along the I-15 freeway more attractive for new residential and commercial 

development depending on the availability of infrastructure and water supply. Any 

improvement under the No Action Alternative would likely require project-specific 

environmental review to determine specific environmental effects. 

As the No Action Alternative would not involve the construction of the DesertXpress 

project, future vehicle trips would not be diverted from the I-15 freeway to the high-speed 

passenger train. Motorists traveling between Victorville and Las Vegas on the I-15 freeway 

would continue to pass through Barstow and contribute to the local economy growth, 

specifically related to retail and service station purchases. While the No Action Alternative 

would introduce improvements to the I-15 freeway to increase capacity, no specific 

capacity improvements have been identified within the developed area of Barstow and it is 

not anticipated that there would be a substantial change to the passenger traffic traveling 

through Barstow. As such, the No Action Alternative would not be assumed to have a 

substantial short-term or long-term effect, positive or negative, to the economic growth in 

Barstow. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-19

3.2.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.2.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.2.3 describe in detail 

the growth impacts of the DesertXpress project. These sections consider the DesertXpress 

project as a whole, rather than by individual project components. The discussion below 

parallels the discussions in Draft EIS Section 3.2.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.2.3 and summarizes the growth effects specific to the Preferred Alternative. 

Potential Direct Effects 

The Preferred Alternative would result in direct growth effects to the regional and local 

environments during both the construction and operational phases. 

Direct Regional Effects: Construction Employment

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would occur over an anticipated three- to fouryear timeframe. Approximately 45,853 jobs are anticipated to be created during the 

construction phase of the Preferred Alternative, which includes workers directly employed 

to design and construct all proposed facilities, including design, supply, manufacturing, 

testing, and training for the trains and system elements and heavy civil construction.36

 

The construction phase of the Preferred Alternative is estimated to generate 28,384 direct 

jobs in San Bernardino County and 17,469 direct jobs in Clark County over the three- to 

four-year period. In total, the Preferred Alternative would introduce 45,853 new 

employment opportunities in the project area during construction.37

 It is assumed that 

existing Bombardier employees from other locations worldwide would fill some of the 

design, supply, manufacturing, testing, and training job positions and that these 

employees may be temporarily relocated to the local Victorville, Barstow, or Las Vegas 

area. Some design, supply, and manufacturing work would be done at the specific 

construction sites along the Preferred Alternative and some would be done remotely. The 

remainder of design and construction jobs would likely come from the local construction 

labor force in San Bernardino County and Clark County. Construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would thus result in a short-term increase in construction related job 

opportunities. 

As of 2009, the construction industry comprised approximately 7.8 percent of the labor 

force, or about 63,000 jobs, in San Bernardino County.38 Construction jobs in Clark 

County during this same year comprised approximately 8.9 percent of the labor force, 

totaling 79,007 jobs.39 Construction of the Preferred Alternative could help create new 

 

36 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

37 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 

39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-20

jobs and stimulate employment growth during the current economic recession. The 

ongoing economic recession that began in 2007-2008 has resulted in increased 

unemployment in San Bernardino County and Clark County, particularly in the 

construction sector. As such, construction of the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to 

have a beneficial direct effect on local employment and growth and would not be 

anticipated to result in significant permanent relocation of construction workers from 

outside the project area to inside the project area. 

It is also reasonably foreseeable that salaries to construction workers and related spending 

on construction activities from local/regional suppliers could contribute to additional 

economic growth in the communities along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. The 

Preferred Alternative construction jobs are expected to generate approximately $2.2 

billion in salaries in San Bernardino County and $1.3 billion in Clark County.40 In total, 

construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in $3.5 billion in new direct salaries 

in San Bernardino and Clark Counties during the three to four years, contributing 

beneficial local economic impacts in adjacent and nearby communities.41

 These effects 

would however, be temporary, lasting for the duration of the construction period, and 

would therefore not be anticipated to have permanent effects on growth. 

Direct Regional Effects: Permanent Employment

Table F-3.2-3 shows the estimated total permanent jobs expected to be created by the 

Preferred Alternative in the Victorville, Baker, and Las Vegas areas respectively. 

Table F-3.2-3 Estimated Operation Employment by Location 

Location Opening Year 

Number of Employees 

Buildout Year 

Number of Employees

Victorville Area Jobs 361 463

Baker Area Jobs 8 8

Greater Las Vegas Jobs (MSF, Passenger Station) 154 251

Grand Total 523 722

Source: DesertXpress, 2007; CirclePoint, 2008. 

Direct Local Effects: San Bernardino County/City of Victorville

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) and OMSF (OMSF 2) would 

employ approximately 361 people at the opening year of rail operations and about 460 

people in the buildout year (2030). Robust population and employment growth is 

anticipated in Victorville and the surrounding unincorporated areas. More than 38,000 

 

40 Thomas Carroll & Associates, DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis, 

October 2010. 

41 Thomas Carroll & Associates, DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis, 

October 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-21

new jobs are expected in these local areas by the year 2030. The increase in jobs 

associated with the Preferred Alternative would constitute approximately 1.2 percent of all 

anticipated job growth in the area by 2030. No adverse direct growth effects would occur. 

Direct Local Effects: Barstow 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would have direct temporary effect on 

employment and economic growth in Barstow. Within San Bernardino County, Barstow 

would be the most central city for construction of the Preferred Alternative, particularly 

for the 113-mile stretch of the rail alignment between Barstow and Primm. It is assumed 

that a disproportionate share of the construction jobs and associated revenue created by 

the Preferred Alternative in San Bernardino County would flow into Barstow and its 

immediate environs. Similar to the regional effects to San Bernardino County, 

construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in significant job generation within 

Barstow and associated increases in salaries. Construction of the Preferred Alternative 

would result in about 2,470 direct jobs in Barstow during the three- to four-year 

construction period.42

 This would represent an annual average of 823 direct jobs per 

year, resulting in an eight percent increase in employment over the 2009 employment 

level of 10,463.43 These 2,470 direct jobs are anticipated to generate an average payroll 

(combination of salaries) of $59.5 million over the course of the construction period.44

 

While the construction jobs would be temporary during the construction phase, the 

introduction of the new direct jobs and associated salaries would have a temporary 

positive effect on the City’s employment rate and economic growth. 

Direct Local Effects: Baker

The Preferred Alternative includes the construction and operation of a MOW facility near 

unincorporated Baker. The Applicant anticipates that this facility would employ a staff of 

eight employees. Due to the small size of the MOW facility, the Preferred Alternative is 

not anticipated to have an adverse growth effect. 

Direct Local Effects: Clark County/City of Las Vegas

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station (Southern Station or Central Station B) would 

be located within the Las Vegas metropolitan area of unincorporated Clark County. The 

station site areas for either the Las Vegas Southern Station or Central Station B are heavily 

urbanized and are in close proximity to the “Las Vegas Strip,” a stretch of Las Vegas 

 

42 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

43 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

44 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-22

Boulevard along which most of the region’s major casino and hotels are located. The 

Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) would be located near the 

current southern edge of the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station (either the Southern Station or Central 

Station B), along with the Las Vegas MSF would have the combined potential to create 

about 138 jobs at the opening year and 251 jobs in the buildout year. The growth potential 

for the Las Vegas Southern Station and the Las Vegas Central Station B would be the same 

as both would provide the same number of permanent employment opportunities. These 

jobs would constitute less than one percent of the anticipated growth in Clark County and 

Las Vegas by 2030 and therefore would not exceed current growth projections. The 

minimal population and housing growth as a result of either Las Vegas Station site option 

and the Las Vegas MSF operation would be well within the growth projections for the City 

of Las Vegas and Clark County. 

Potential Indirect Effects 

The Preferred Alternative would result in indirect growth effects to the regional and local 

environments during both the construction and operational phases. 

Indirect Regional Effects: Transit-Oriented Development Potential 

Rail transit projects often foster a mixture of residential and commercial development in a 

synergistic, clustered arrangement (sometimes referred to “transit-oriented 

development”). Such developments will typically occur around areas where people 

commute multiple times per week from a residential area to an employment center. A 

transit-oriented development (TOD) in a primarily residential area would include a mix of 

commercial and service oriented businesses typically geared to the daily needs of 

commuters (coffee shops, dry cleaners, grocery stores, etc.). By locating such business in 

close proximity to both transit and housing, TOD is encouraged in many jurisdictions as a 

means of reducing automobile trips. 

The Preferred Alternative could foster some TOD within the vicinity of the station 

facilities, but the amount is anticipated to be small. Unlike other TODs, the Preferred 

Alternative would primarily serve non-work trips between two stations only – Victorville 

and Las Vegas. Given the travel time (at least 100 minutes between stations), anticipated 

$50 or greater one-way fare, and focus on serving resort-bound travelers from southern 

California to Las Vegas destinations, it is anticipated that the use of the rail line for 

frequent commute trips would be minimal. Notwithstanding, the Preferred Alternative 

could potentially attract people to live in the nearby vicinity of one of the stations in order 

to take advantage of high-speed rail transit between the two ends. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-23

Indirect Regional Effects: Economic Vitality 

The economies of several communities along the I-15 freeway are heavily dependent on 

visitor-serving retail and commercial uses. In particular, the communities of Barstow, 

Baker, Primm, and Jean each feature a variety of businesses geared to attract people 

driving through the I-15 freeway. 

The ridership study prepared by the Applicant (Appendix F-D) estimates that by 2035, 

as many as five million annual automobile trips between southern California and Las 

Vegas would be diverted to high-speed rail. This diversion would reduce the potential 

pool of customers from visitor-serving businesses located in these communities. This 

could in turn have a potentially negative effect on the economic vitality of these 

communities. The discussion under heading “Indirect Local Effects: Barstow” below 

discusses the specific anticipated economic effects in Barstow as a result of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

While the communities of Primm and Jean would have no direct public interface with the 

Preferred Alternative, local economies of these communities include substantial areas of 

“visitor-serving” uses, such as outlet malls, restaurants, and gas stations which rely heavily 

on automobile traffic on I-15 corridor as their primary source of customers. Since the 

Preferred Alternative could reduce the number of trips on the I-15 freeway and because 

the Preferred Alternative does not include any stops or direct interface with these 

communities, the Preferred Alternative could have a negative effect on the future 

economic growth in these communities. The traffic analysis shows that although the 

Preferred Alternative would accommodate a large number of trips between Victorville and 

California/Nevada state line, automobile traffic on the I-15 freeway would remain high. 

The number of automobiles traveling on the I-15 freeway between Victorville and the 

California/Nevada state line would be reduced at the inception of the Preferred 

Alternative, however the number of cars travelling on the I-15 freeway between Victorville 

and the California/Nevada state line by the year 2030 would increase back to near or in 

some cases higher volumes that under existing conditions.45

 Traffic volumes in 2030 on 

the I-15 freeway would be reduced by 5 to 12 percent during the AM and PM peak hours, 

as compared to existing traffic levels. The reason the traffic volumes on the I-15 freeway 

would rebound and in the future exceed existing levels even with the Preferred Alternative 

is because the projected increase in travel demand between southern California and Las 

Vegas by the year 2030. As a result, communities oriented toward visitor-serving 

businesses in the I-15 freeway could see a drop off in customers in the early years of the 

initiation of the Preferred Alternative, but traffic levels would rebound overtime so that 

businesses would continue to have substantial pools of potential customers on the I-15 

freeway to draw from. Potential adverse effects to the economic vitality of these 

communities is acknowledged, but anticipated to be relatively minor in nature. 

 

45 DMJM Harris|AECOM. Final Report – DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis. February 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-24

Indirect Local Effects: San Bernardino County/City of Victorville 

Operation of the Preferred Alternative has the potential for indirect growth effects relative 

to local economic vitality and local population patterns. 

The addition of new permanent jobs with the operation of VV3 and OMSF would have the 

potential to indirectly affect the economic vitality of the local economy in the Victorville 

area. With new employment opportunities, spending in the area could increase, thus 

contributing to the growth in the local economy. Growth in the local economy could be 

beneficial to the Victorville region. However, as the job growth associated with the 

Preferred Alternative constitutes such a small percentage of the anticipated employment 

growth in the region that there would be no adverse indirect effect on the economic vitality 

of San Bernardino County and the City of Victorville. 

While the employment growth as a result of the Preferred Alternative is relatively small in 

scale when compared to the anticipated growth rates for the City of Victorville and San 

Bernardino County, the Preferred Alternative could have the potential to induce 

population and housing growth as a result of the new employment opportunities. 

However, such growth would occur in an area where tremendous population growth has 

already been projected for 2030. Specifically, incorporated Victorville is anticipating a 

population increase of more than 100,000 people between 2010 and 2035. 46

 Much of this 

growth would be accommodated in currently undeveloped areas to be annexed to the City 

by 2030. As of January 2010, Victorville expanded the City’s sphere of influence limits to 

include an additional 37,000 acres (57 square miles). In the future, some or all of this 

sphere of influence are may be annexed to the City. In sum, the Preferred Alternative 

would create new jobs and housing in the Victorville area, but in relatively miniscule 

numbers when compared to anticipated growth projections. 

VV3 and OMSF are likely to generate complementary, synergistic development. The 

OMSF may foster businesses supporting train operations, ranging from manufacturing to 

security and maintenance. Moreover, VV3 is likely to attract to the area a number of 

visitor-serving businesses, catering to passengers. As noted in the Applicant’s ridership 

study (Appendix F-D), by 2035 up to seven million annual passengers would travel from 

other areas in southern California to Victorville in order to board Las Vegas-bound trains. 

It is reasonable to expect that businesses catering to the needs of rail travelers would seek 

to locate in the vicinity of the passenger station. Such uses could include restaurants, gas 

stations, auto washing and service, retail, and related visitor-serving businesses. In 

addition, the Victorville Station and OMSF would employ about 463 people at buildout 

(2030). The presence of employees could create demand for businesses and services 

catering to a working population, such as restaurants, day care centers, and personal 

services. 

 

46 City of Victorville. City of Victorville General Plan 2030, Draft Program EIR. August 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-25

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study and the Regional Transportation 

Commission travel demand forecasting model indicates that future growth is anticipated 

around the station areas (see Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final 

EIS). However, this indirect growth would be channeled by Victorville and San 

Bernardino County land use plans and would occur within the anticipated growth 

“envelope.” The general areas surrounding VV3 and OMSF are anticipated to experience 

significant growth. According to the City of Victorville General Plan, Victorville has 

assigned land use designations for the areas within the City’s sphere of influence. The 

designations allow for more than 17 million square feet of commercial and industrial 

development. 

Future development, if any, in the vicinity of VV3 and OMSF would be subject to the land 

use regulations of Victorville and/or San Bernardino County. These jurisdictions would 

evaluate development proposals according to relevant general plan and zoning 

regulations, all of which take growth projections into account. The level of indirect growth 

associated with VV3 and OMSF would be comfortably within regional growth projections. 

Moreover, the Victorville and San Bernardino County land use regulatory authority would 

ensure that indirect growth of jobs and housing as a result of the Preferred Alternative 

would conform to regional growth projections. 

Construction of the DesertXpress project could result in beneficial indirect employment 

and economic growth effects to San Bernardino County during the three- to four-year 

construction period. Services and associated employment opportunities could become 

available to serve the jobs directly created by project construction. Construction of the 

DesertXpress project would introduce to San Bernardino County a total of 26,699 indirect 

or induced jobs. These new indirect and induced jobs would result in approximately $1.5 

billion in indirect salaries, which could have a positive temporary indirect effect on the 

economic growth in San Bernardino County.47

 These indirect construction effects to 

employment and economic growth in the County would, however, be limited to the threeto four-year construction time period. 

Indirect Local Effects: Barstow 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would traverse directly through Barstow within 

the existing I-15 freeway. No station or maintenance facility is planned for Barstow at this 

time. The Preferred Alternative would result in the diversion of non-truck I-15 freeway 

traffic between Victorville and Las Vegas to the high-speed passenger train. As a 

passenger train, the DesertXpress project would not be expected to affect the amount of 

fleet truck traffic traveling through Barstow, as they would continue to provide their 

commercial transportation services using the roadway network. 

 

47 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010.; Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. 

October 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-26

The Barstow economy is largely driven by taxable retail sales from freeway-related traffic. 

With the shift of non-truck freeway-related traffic to the high-speed passenger train, the 

Preferred Alternative would have an indirect negative growth effect to Barstow’s economy 

during operation. 

Based on the DesertXpress ridership forecast (Appendix F-D), it is estimated that 

annually about two million private automobile passengers and 260,000 bus passengers 

would instead use the Preferred Alternative. This rate of freeway diversion is expected to 

translate into a loss of about $41.6 million of total economic activity from the Barstow 

economy by the 3rd year of operation of the Preferred Alternative.48 This reduction 

represents about a seven percent of Barstow’s economy in 2009. Additionally, the 

Preferred Alternative would cause a 4.6 percent reduction in total City income, a 1.7 

percent reduction in property tax revenue, and a 7.4 percent reduction in total sales tax 

revenue by the 3rd year of operation of the Preferred Alternative.49 The Barstow economy 

would experience a loss in economic activity of approximately $51.9 million by the 18th

year of operation of the Preferred Alternative, and increased losses in income, sales taxes, 

and property taxes.50 This reduction in economic growth from passengers being diverted 

to the high-speed passenger train would result in a loss to the City’s economic base of 

funds that would have flowed into the economy from outside sources. This would result in 

a reduced flow of funds from the retail sector to its local suppliers and service firms. This 

reduction would also reduce the flow of funds from the retail sector and its suppliers and 

service firms to households, thereby lowering the ability for households to spend money in 

the local economy. This cycle could result in further negative indirect growth effects to the 

Barstow economy. 

As a result of this reduction in economic activity, operation of the Preferred Alternative is 

anticipated to result in the loss of 542 jobs within Barstow by the 3rd year of operation. 

This represents a 5.2 percent job loss in Barstow, based on a total of 10,463 jobs reported 

in 2009.51

Over time, the share of Barstow’s economy affected by the Preferred Alternative will slowly 

grow since the high-speed passenger train ridership is expected to increase over time.52 

 

48 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

49 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

50 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

51 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

52 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-27

Table F-3.2-2 summarizes the anticipated long-term potential adverse economic growth 

impacts on Barstow as a result of operation of the high-speed passenger train for Year 1, 

Year 3, and Year 18 operation. 

Overall, the operation of the Preferred Alternative would have a downward influence on 

Barstow’s economic growth, but not change to population. The magnitude of economic 

loss for all sources would be less than 10 percent, ranging from a low of a 1.7 percent loss 

on property taxes by the 3rd year of operation to a high of a 9.25 percent loss on sales taxes 

by the 18th year of operation. While these are potential adverse economic growth impacts 

to Barstow, they are not at a level that would result in secondary physical environmental 

effects, such as urban decay. “Urban decay” is understood to occur when an otherwise 

previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair or becomes decrepit.53

 

Since the negative economic effects to Barstow would not result in urban decay, no 

adverse physical economic growth effects would occur. However, the Applicant has 

proposed a voluntary mitigation measure to address concerns raised by the City of 

Barstow regarding potential economic impacts of the Preferred Alternative. Voluntary 

Mitigation Measure GRO-1 could be applied to reduce the negative economic effects to 

Barstow. 

The potential adverse economic growth impacts during operation of the Preferred 

Alternative could also affect housing values in Barstow. However, historic data indicates 

that the behavior of Barstow’s housing market behavior has been primarily influenced by 

factors other than local economic fluctuations. As such, the loss of jobs in Barstow as a 

result of operation of the Preferred Alternative would not be anticipated to substantially 

affect housing growth.54

While operation of the Preferred Alternative would have a negative growth effect during 

operation, construction of the Preferred Alternative could result in beneficial indirect 

employment and economic growth effects during the three- to four-year construction 

period. Services and associated employment opportunities could become available to 

serve the jobs directly created by the Preferred Alternative construction. Construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would introduce about 2,322 indirect or induced jobs to 

Barstow.55 These new indirect and induced jobs would result in approximately $126.3 

million in indirect salaries, which could have a positive temporary indirect effect on the 

 

53 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

54 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 

55 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-28

economic growth in Barstow.56 These indirect construction effects to employment and 

economic growth in Barstow would, however, be limited to the three- to four-year 

construction time period. 

Indirect Local Effects: Baker 

The Preferred Alternative would not stop along the rail corridor at this location nor would 

the Preferred Alternative remove a barrier to growth; minimal indirect growth is 

anticipated in Baker. Additionally, the small size of the MOW facility, staffing eight 

employees, would be unlikely to induce any indirect growth. 

Indirect Local Effects: Clark County/City of Las Vegas

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station or Central 

Station B) and the Las Vegas MSF would be infill developments, surrounded by existing 

commercial, industrial, and/or institutional uses. The Las Vegas Southern Station and Las 

Vegas Central Station B would have similar indirect growth effects given their similar 

urban context within the metropolitan Las Vegas area and that both stations would 

provide the same number of permanent employment opportunities. There are some 

currently vacant and/or underutilized areas within close proximity to these station and 

facility sites, which could potentially become more intensively developed as a result of 

construction and operation of the passenger station at either site option. This would have 

the potential to indirectly affect the economic vitality of the local economy through the 

addition of new permanent employees. Indirect growth could result from the new salaries 

of these permanent jobs, as the employees would potentially spend in the local economy. 

While there would be potential for indirect growth of business to support riders and 

stations, the urbanized areas surrounding the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site 

options and the Las Vegas MSF are anticipated to see significant positive growth in 

economic vitality with local and regional growth projections. Potential indirect growth 

effects of the Preferred Alternative would therefore be minimal in comparison to the local 

and regional growth projections. 

While the employment growth as a result of the Preferred Alternative is small in scale 

when compared to the anticipated growth rates for the City of Las Vegas and Clark 

County, the Preferred Alternative could have the potential to induce population and 

housing growth as a result of the new employment opportunities. However, such growth 

would occur in an area where tremendous population growth is anticipated by 2030. City 

and County projections through 2030 indicate a continuation of the exponential growth 

patterns each has followed over the past several decades. Therefore, even if the all of the 

 

56 Economic & Politics, Inc. Potential Economic Impact of DesertXpress on the City of Barstow. December 18, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-29

proposed Las Vegas area jobs by buildout (about 250) were to be filled by people who 

would have to migrate to Las Vegas, this migration would be miniscule relative to overall 

anticipated in-migration to the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative could result in beneficial indirect employment 

and economic growth effects to Clark County during the three- to four-year construction 

period. Services and associated employment opportunities could become available to 

serve the jobs directly created by project construction. Construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would introduce a total of 16,432 indirect or induced jobs to Clark County.57

 

These new indirect and induced jobs would result in approximately $852.4 million in 

indirect salaries, which could have a positive temporary indirect effect on the economic 

growth in Clark County.58 These indirect construction effects to employment and 

economic growth in the County would, however, be limited to the three- to four-year 

construction time period. 

3.2.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.2-4 compares the growth effects of the various Action Alternatives evaluated, 

as well as the No Action Alternative. Components of the Preferred Alternative are 

highlighted in yellow. 

The Preferred Alternative would have similar growth effects as the Action Alternatives, 

since the evaluation of direct and indirect growth effects is regional in nature. 

The Action Alternative rail alignments would not result in substantially varied growth 

effects, as they would all provide high-speed passenger rail service between Victorville and 

Las Vegas under the same ridership assumptions. However, the Preferred Alternative 

Segment 2C rail alignment through Barstow would avoid potential negative indirect 

growth effects to planned industrial development in Barstow. Segments 2A/2B would 

cross through land designated by the City of Barstow for future industrial development 

(Barstow Industrial Park), which could have resulted in a loss of future economic growth 

in the industrial sector. The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would avoid 

conflicts with the future development site and associated future potential adverse 

economic growth impacts, as the rail alignment would follow the I-15 freeway. 

The Victorville Station and OMSF site options would also result in similar direct and 

indirect growth effects due to their proximity and location in primarily undeveloped areas 

just north of the urbanized area of Victorville. 

 

57 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 

58 Thomas Carroll & Associates. DesertXpress: Predicted Employment and Economic Impact Analysis. October 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-30

Table F-3.2-4 Alternatives Comparison – Growth Effects 

Alternative

Estimated 

Permanent 

Employment

Removal of Obstacles 

to Growth

Extent of Effects to 

TOD Potential

Extent of Effects to Economic 

Vitality

No Action Alternative None Expected None Expected None Expected None Expected

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A n/a None Expected n/a

Construction Period Employment; 

Negative Economic Growth Effects 

in Barstow During Operation

Segment 2A/2B, 2B n/a None Expected n/a

Construction Period Employment; 

Negative Economic Growth Effects 

in Barstow During Operation

Segment 2C n/a None Expected n/a

Construction Period Employment; 

Negative Economic Growth Effects 

in Barstow During Operation

Segment 3 

Segment 3A n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 3B n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 4 

Segment 4A n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 4B n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 4C n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-31

Alternative

Estimated 

Permanent 

Employment

Removal of Obstacles 

to Growth

Extent of Effects to 

TOD Potential

Extent of Effects to Economic 

Vitality

Segment 5 

Segment 5A n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 5B n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 6 

Segment 6A n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 6B n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 6C n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 7 

Segment 7A n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 7B n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Segment 7C n/a None Expected n/a Beneficial Construction Period 

Employment

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Victorville Station Site 1 

361 to 463 

Permanent Jobs in 

the Victorville Station 

and OMSF, 

Regardless of 

Location

None Expected Beneficial Effect

Beneficial Construction and 

Operational Employment Effects 

Similar for All Victorville Station and 

OMSF Sites

Victorville Station Site 2 None Expected Beneficial Effect

Victorville Station Site 3 None Expected Beneficial Effect

Victorville OMSF 1 None Expected Beneficial Effect

Victorville OMSF 2 None Expected Beneficial Effect
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-32

Alternative

Estimated 

Permanent 

Employment

Removal of Obstacles 

to Growth

Extent of Effects to 

TOD Potential

Extent of Effects to Economic 

Vitality

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station

154 to 251 

Permanent Jobs in 

the Las Vegas Station 

and MSF, Regardless 

of Location

None Expected Beneficial Effect

Beneficial Construction and 

Operational Employment Effects 

Similar for All Las Vegas Station 

and MSF Sites

Las Vegas Central Station A None Expected Beneficial Effect

Las Vegas Central Station B None Expected Beneficial Effect

Las Vegas Downtown 

Station None Expected Beneficial Effect

Sloan Road MSF59 None Expected None Expected

Relocated Sloan MSF None Expected None Expected

Wigwam Avenue MSF None Expected None Expected

Robindale Avenue MSF None Expected None Expected

Frias Substation None Expected None Expected

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way 

Facility 8 Permanent Jobs None Expected None Expected Beneficial Construction and 

Operational Employment Effects

Technology Options, including Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric 

Multiple Unit) n/a n/a n/a n/a

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

59 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF”, located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-33

The Las Vegas Station and MSF site options would also result in similar direct and indirect 

growth effects due to their location within the existing urbanized metropolitan Las Vegas 

area. While the Sloan Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF60 would be located south of 

the major urbanized areas of the Las Vegas area, similar to the other Las Vegas MSF site 

options, they would not result in substantial growth due to the limited numbers of 

employees that would serve any MSF site. 

3.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse direct or indirect growth 

effects at the regional or local levels, no mitigation measures would be required. However, 

the Applicant has proposed a voluntary mitigation measure to address concerns raised by 

the City of Barstow regarding potential economic impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

Voluntary Mitigation Measure GRO-1 : Voluntary Applicant 

Coordination with City of Barstow and San Bernardino County for 

Employment 

The Preferred Alternative includes Victorville OMSF 2, which would be located less 

than 20 miles south of Barstow. The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF will 

require hundreds of skilled railroad labor. The Applicant will coordinate with the 

appropriate City of Barstow and San Bernardino County economic development 

departments to ensure job opportunities at the maintenance facility are made 

available to Barstow residents. 

In addition to permanent jobs during operations, preliminary planning has 

identified Barstow as a key location for staging and construction support services 

during the construction, testing, and commissions phases of the Preferred 

Alternative. The Applicant will work with the City of Barstow to ensure its 

residents are informed of job opportunities both during construction and 

operation of the Preferred Alternative. The Applicant will also work closely with 

the City of Barstow to identify appropriate and beneficial construction and staging 

activities to be located within the City. Additionally, the Applicant will work with 

the City to identify and jointly develop programs for job training and technical 

skills training to support the project in all phases of design, construction, testing, 

and commissioning, and operations. 

 

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

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

completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.2-34

3.2.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in a beneficial economic growth 

effect during the three- to four-year construction period. The Preferred Alternatives 

would result in a temporary increase in the construction industry employment, helping to 

alleviate unemployment levels in the project area. Within California, it is assumed that 

Barstow would experience the greatest economic and employment growth during 

construction of the Preferred Alternative due to its central location along the rail 

alignment. The cities along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment, specifically 

Victorville, Barstow, and Las Vegas, would experience indirect economic benefits to the 

local economies during the temporary construction period. 

The diversion of non-truck I-15 freeway traffic to the high-speed passenger train would 

result in residual potential adverse economic growth impacts to Barstow. While these 

losses would not be considered to result in urban decay or adverse physical environmental 

effects, retail sales previously assumed from non-truck freeway-related traffic traveling 

between southern California and Las Vegas would be lost, thereby resulting in a decline in 

funds entering the local economy during operation of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-1 

3.3 FARMLANDS AND GRAZING LANDS 

This section describes updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential farmland and 

grazing land impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No 

Action and other Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.3.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to farmland and grazing land impacts and provides 

responses to those comments. Substantive updates and changes in response to comments 

on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and strikeout

text. 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.3.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.3.1 describe in detail the 

affected environment for farmland and grazing land impacts for the DesertXpress project. 

Since publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, there has been no change to the affected 

environment regarding farmlands and grazing lands. As a note, the farmland data in the 

Draft EIS was updated as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS. The Draft EIS used 2006 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) data, which was the most current 

available data at the time of publication in March 2009. The California Department of 

Conservation released the 2008 FMMP data in April 2009 (after publication of the Draft 

EIS in March 2009). The Supplemental Draft EIS updated the affected environment 

discussion for farmlands with the 2008 FMMP data. The 2008 FMMP data used in 

Section 3.3, Farmlands and Grazing Lands, of the Supplemental Draft EIS remains 

applicable to this Final EIS and reflects the most current information available from the 

California Department of Conservation. 

3.3.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for farmlands and grazing lands for the DesertXpress project 

is described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.3.1. In addition, no comments received 

during the public review period required changes to the regulatory environment 

discussion in the Draft EIS. This regulatory environment discussion remains applicable to 

this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-2 

3.3.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

One comment on the Draft EIS resulted in changes to the farmland and grazing land 

analysis in this Final EIS as discussed below. 

Comment 184 on the Draft EIS requested clarification of the term “severance payments” 

in Mitigation Measure FAR-2. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft 

EIS, Mitigation Measure FAR-2 in Section 3.3.5 to include the following footnote: 

2 The mitigation measure discusses the potential for the project to have 

"severance" impacts—in other words, dividing an existing parcel in 

current agricultural use such that one or both sides of the divided 

parcel is too small a size to be viably farmed. The mitigation measure 

stipulates that as a first course of action where such severance might 

occur, the Applicant identify ways for the project to avoid dividing 

property in this manner, such as through an underpass. Where such 

solutions are not viable, the mitigation recommends compensation to 

farmers for the economic loss associated with the severance.

3.3.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.3.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.3.2 used to evaluate direct and 

indirect impacts to farmland and grazing lands remains applicable to this Final EIS and 

the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. This same methodology was used in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Direct effects would occur on any farmland or grazing land 

crossed by the rail alignment or on sites proposed for stations or other permanent 

facilities. Indirect effects would occur within a 37.5-foot buffer on either side of the rail 

alignment as a result of parcel severance (including blocking water resources for livestock) 

or cutting off access to a farmed or grazed parcel. 

3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no privately-sponsored high-speed passenger rail system 

would be constructed or operated in the study area. 

This alternative would include roadway widening/expansion projects such as the widening 

of the bridge over the Mojave River in Victorville, widening approximately one mile of the 

freeway to six lanes and reconstruction of an interchange in Barstow, adding several truck 

lanes in California along the highway sections with steep grades, and several roadway 

projects in Nevada. These projects would not directly affect farmland, as there is no 

farmland identified along the I-15 freeway in these areas. However, roadway widening 

and interchange construction in Barstow as well as the addition of truck lanes in steeply 

graded sections of the I-15 freeway in California could result in direct and indirect impacts 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-3 

to farmland. Since development would occur in the ROW of existing roadways, resulting 

effects to farmland would likely be minimal. Subsequent environmental review by the 

project proponent would be conducted to identify the impacts to farmland from each of 

these roadway projects. 

Since the Action Alternatives include all of the actions proposed under the No Action 

Alternative plus construction of the DesertXpress project, the No Action Alternative would 

result in the least amount of development. Overall, farmland would be affected the least 

by the No Action Alternative. 

3.3.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.3.3.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.3.3 describe in detail 

the farmland and grazing land impacts by individual project components. The discussion 

below summarizes the aggregated effect for the components that comprise the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Direct Effects to Farmlands 

Within the project area, farmland occurs only in California and only as far east as 

Newberry Springs. Eastward from Newberry Springs through Las Vegas, there are no 

farmlands in proximity to the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would not 

result in a direct effect to farmlands as there is no Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide 

Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, nor any lands under 

Williamson Act contracts in the project area. Although prime farmland is located near 

Segment 3B (see Figure F-3.3-1), the project would occur within the I-15 freeway 

corridor and this would not entail the direct use of any farmland. 

Indirect Effects to Farmlands 

Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance are located near Segment 3B of 

the Preferred Alternative (see Figure F-3.3-1). The Preferred Alternative would 

potentially result in indirect impacts to Prime Farmland due to the alignment’s proximity 

to a pistachio nut orchard in the Newberry Springs area. Construction activity would 

result in temporary increases in dust that could affect those portions of the orchard closest 

to the proposed rail alignment, (a total of less than 1/1000th of an acre). 

Table F-3.3-1 shows the acreage of the farmland indirectly affected by the Preferred 

Alternative. The direct and indirect impacts are related to the proposed rail alignment 

segments of the Preferred Alternative. None of the proposed sites for stations, 

maintenance facilities, nor TCAs would be located on farmland. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-4 

Table F-3.3-1 Indirect Effects to Farmland 

Farmland Type Indirect Effects (acreage)

Prime Farmland 0.008

Unique Farmland 0

Farmland of Statewide Importance 0

Farmland of Local Importance 0

Total Farmlands Affected 0.008

Lands Under Williamson Act Contract N/A

Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mitigation and Monitoring Program, 2008. 

Direct Effects to Grazing Lands 

Grazing land in the project area only occurs in California (see Figure F-3.3-2). The 

Preferred Alternative would be located on lands under grazing allotments by the BLM. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 442

acres of grazing land to transportation uses. The majority of the permanent conversion 

would occur at the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) which would 

result in approximately 205 acres of grazing land impacted and Segment 4C which would 

result in approximately 176 acres of grazing land impacted in the Mountain Pass area. 

Construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the permanent 

conversion of grazing lands to transportation uses. 

Indirect Effects to Grazing Lands 

Some areas of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would potentially result in indirect 

effects to grazing lands by cutting off livestock access to available water sources or result 

in the removal of livestock fencing, which would allow livestock to trespass, become lost, 

or potentially struck by vehicles on nearby roadways, including the I-15 freeway (see 

Figure F-3.3-3). Within areas to the north of Mountain Pass, the primary sources of 

water for cattle within the joint BLM/NPS grazing allotment area are located within the 

Clark Mountains Allotment of the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve). The Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would thus form a barrier within the allotment, concentrating 

cattle closer to the water sources and thus resulting in overuse of the Clark Mountain Unit 

of the Preserve for grazing activities. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would result in 

adverse indirect effects to existing grazing lands. 

3.3.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Tables F-3.3-2 summarizes the comparison of farmlands and grazing lands effects for 

the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred 

Alternative are highlighted in yellow. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-5 

Farmlands 

Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance are located near Segment 3A/3B. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in minor indirect impacts to the Prime Farmland 

due to Segment 3B’s proximity to a pistachio nut orchard in the Newberry Springs area. 

Segment 3A would also be in the vicinity of the pistachio nut orchard but would be located 

in the median of the I-15 freeway and would not result in any indirect effect, thereby 

avoiding the potential 0.008 acres of indirect effect created by Segment 3B of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Segment 2A/2B would be adjacent to and cross Prime Farmland. This Action Alternative 

would result in increased direct effects to 3.37 acres of farmland when compared to 

Segment 2C of the Preferred Alternative that would avoid farmlands otherwise impacted 

by Segment 2A/2B. 

Grazing Lands 

Segment 4A would greatly reduce the direct effect on grazing lands because it would avoid 

impacts to grazing lands in the Mountain Pass area by following the existing I-15 freeway 

ROW rather than creating a new linear barrier across undeveloped lands. Segment 4A 

would also avoid the indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative on grazing lands in the 

Mountain Pass area. 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Segment 4B would travel through BLM grazing 

allotments and would result in the permanent conversion of grazing lands to 

transportation uses, although the amount of grazing land converted to other uses would be 

less under Segment 4B when compared to Segment 4C. 

VV1 and OMSF 1 site option would avoid BLM grazing allotments altogether and would 

not result in any direct or indirect effects to grazing lands. VV2 would be located on BLM 

grazing allotments and would result in similar direct and indirect effects to grazing lands 

as the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station Site 3. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-6 

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

Alternative Acres of Directly Impacted 

Farmland

Acres of Indirectly Impacted 

Farmland

Potential Severance of Grazing 

Allotment

No Action Alternative None expected None expected None expected

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 None None Yes, would traverse a BLM grazing 

allotment

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 3.37 acres 6.75 acres None

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 3.37 acres 6.75 acres None

Segment 2C None None None

Segment 3 

Segment 3A None 0.3 acres No, adjacent to grazing lands

Segment 3B (Modified) None 0.008 acres No, adjacent to grazing lands

Segment 4 

Segment 4A None None None

Segment 4B None None Yes, would traverse an allotment

Segment 4C None None Yes, would traverse an allotment

Segment 5 

Segment 5A None None None

Segment 5B None None None
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-7 

Alternative Acres of Directly Impacted 

Farmland

Acres of Indirectly Impacted 

Farmland

Potential Severance of Grazing 

Allotment

Segment 6 

Segment 6A None None None

Segment 6B None None None

Segment 6C None None None

Segment 7 

Segment 7A None None None

Segment 7B None None None

Segment 7C None None None

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 None None

All Victorville Station/OMSF Site 

options are on land identified as a 

grazing allotment but are immediately 

adjacent to the I-15 freeway, 

minimizing severance potential

Victorville Station Site 2 None None

Victorville Station Site 3 None None

Victorville OMSF 1 None None

Victorville OMSF 2 None None

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station None None None

Las Vegas Central Station A None None None

Las Vegas Central Station B None None None
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-8 

Alternative Acres of Directly Impacted 

Farmland

Acres of Indirectly Impacted 

Farmland

Potential Severance of Grazing 

Allotment

Las Vegas Downtown Station None None None

Sloan Road MSF1

None None None

Relocated Sloan Road MSF None None None

Wigwam Avenue MSF None None None

Robindale Avenue MSF None None None

Frias Substation None None None

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility None None No, adjacent to grazing lands

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple 

Unit) None None None

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) None None None

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

1 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in the 

Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-9 

3.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures FAR-1, FAR-3, and FAR-4 identified in Section 3.3.5 of the 

Draft EIS and Mitigation Measures FAR-5 and FAR-6 identified in Section 3.3.4 of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS would be applied to all facilities and rail alignments of the 

Preferred Alternative to reduce the adverse effects related to farmlands and grazing lands. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-2 of the Draft EIS would not be required for the Preferred 

Alternative. These mitigation measures are included below. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-1: Direct and Indirect Conversion of 

Protected Farmland 

Prior to construction, the Applicant shall acquire conservation easement(s) over 

agricultural lands of equal quality to mitigate for direct and indirect impacts 

related to the permanent conversion of protected agricultural lands (Prime 

Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, and Farmlands of Statewide and/or Local 

Importance). This conservation easement(s) shall provide for the conservation of 

agricultural uses in perpetuity, and be held in trust by a public agency or other 

appropriate entity. These easements shall be located within the limits of San 

Bernardino County. Lands to be placed under conservation easement shall be 

procured on a ratio of 1 acre for each 1 acre of protected farmland converted 

directly and indirectly to non-agricultural use. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-3: Livestock Access to Water

Prior to issuance of the permit to construct, the Applicant shall consult with BLM 

range resource managers to determine if the Preferred Alternative will affect 

livestock access to water on grazing lands. If BLM range resource managers 

determine that construction would block livestock access to critical water sources, 

the applicant shall provide alternative water sources as approved by the BLM or 

implement Mitigation Measure FAR-6. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-4: Fencing and Gate Modifications

Prior to issuance of the permit to construct, the Applicant shall coordinate with 

BLM range resource managers and permittees to locate range improvements that 

might require special attention when fencing or gates are modified. Gates that do 

not require removal shall be closed directly after construction traffic has passed 

though them. The Applicant shall replace all range improvements damaged or 

removed during construction activities as determined necessary by the BLM. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-10

Mitigation Measure FAR-5: Provide Adequate Cattle Access in Areas of 

the Joint NPS/BLM Grazing Allotment 

Prior to issuance of the permit to construct, the Applicant shall prepare revised 

plans for Segment 4C which include adequate cattle crossings to allow movement 

of cattle within the joint BLM/NPS grazing allotment or implement Mitigation 

Measure FAR-6. The location, number and design of the crossings shall be 

reviewed and approved by the General Manager of the Mojave National Preserve. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-6: Purchase Grazing Allotment

Prior to issuance of the permit to construct, the Applicant shall purchase the rights 

to the grazing allotment(s) directly affected by VV3, OMSF2, and Segment 4C and 

discontinue grazing activities if determined necessary, based on implementation of 

Mitigation Measure FAR-3 and Mitigation Measure FAR-5. The purchase 

of the rights and discontinuing of grazing activities shall be reviewed and approved 

by the BLM and the General Manager of the Mojave National Preserve as 

appropriate. 

3.3.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Implementation of Mitigation Measures FAR-1 and FAR-3 through FAR-6 would 

minimize effects to farmlands and grazing lands, including indirect effects to grazing lands 

and activities. However, even with mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would result in 

the direct conversion of 442 acres of grazing lands to transportation uses. 
ola

Yermo Rd. 15

Segment 3 B

0 3 1.5

Miles

Locator Map

0 6 3

Kilometers

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program

Farmlands within Direct / Indirect Impact Areas, Preferred Alternative - Segment 3B

FIG

F-3.3-1

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

NOTE: Maps depict only those farmlands within

 the direct and indirect impact areas (25-

 and 75-foot buffers on either side of the 

 proposed rail centerline).

Legend

Farmland Types

Prime Farmlands

Statewide Important Farmlands

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 3B

15

Yermo Rd Kathy Lane

Sonoma St

Mojave River
Yermo

Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

Victorville

Segment 2A Segment 3B

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 4C

Segment 5B

Segment 2C

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Baker MOW

1 inch equals 13 miles

NORTH

Source: BLM 2008, DesertXpress 2007,

ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006

Grazing Allotment

FIG

F-3.3-2

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 1 5 0

Miles

0 2 10 0

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Death Valley NP

Victorville

1

Las

Vegas

Grazing Allotment

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Legend

Mojave National Preserve

Tunnels
TCA 10

TCA 4C3

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Primm

Mountain

Pass

Kessler

Springs

Allotment

Jean

Lake

Allotment

Clark

Mountain

Allotment

Valley

View

Allotment

Valley

View

Allotment

Valley

Wells

Allotment

Valley

Wells

Allotment

Clark

Mountain

Allotment

Segment 4 C

Segment 5 B

1 inch equals 13 miles

NORTH

Source: BLM 2008, DesertXpress 2007,

ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006

Preferred Alternative, Segment 4C - Grazing Land Allotments

FIG

F-3.3-3

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 3 1.5

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Death Valley NP

Victorville

1

Las

Vegas

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Mojave National Preserve

Legend

Grazing Allotment

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Tunnels
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.3-14

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-1 

3.4 UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES 

This section describes updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential utilities and 

emergency service impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative compared to the No 

Action and other Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

The potential utility impacts addressed in this section relate to the existing system 

capacities in the project area. Potential impacts to water quality as a result of stormwater 

runoff from the proposed project improvements are discussed in Section 3.8, 

Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Final EIS. 

3.4.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS related to utilities and emergency services and provides responses to those 

comments. Several comments resulted in changes to the analysis of utilities and 

emergency services in the EIS and are discussed below. Substantive updates and changes 

made in response to comments on the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in 

bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.4.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.4.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.4.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for utilities and emergency services for the DesertXpress project. 

The study area for public services and utilities includes the areas in which the track 

infrastructure and associated project stations, maintenance facilities, and other features 

would be constructed and operated. These areas are served by a variety of public and 

private utilities, which provide electricity, natural gas, potable water, wastewater 

conveyance, and solid waste disposal services. The areas are also served by numerous 

entities providing law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services. 

Since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there has been no change 

to the utilities and emergency services providers that would serve the project. Thus the 

affected environment discussions from these previous documents remain applicable to the 

Preferred Alternative. Table F-3.4-1 provides a summary of existing utilities and service 

providers for the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-2 

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for utilities and emergency services for the DesertXpress 

project is described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.4.1. 

Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been no change to the Regulatory 

Environment regarding utilities and emergency services. Thus the regulatory 

environment discussion remains applicable to the Preferred Alternative. In addition, this 

Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.4.1 to include the following discussion of Federal 

requirements for passenger train emergency preparedness: 

Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness

FRA is the Federal agency responsible for promoting the safety of the 

nation’s passenger and freight railroads. FRA fulfills this responsibility 

by developing programs that identify, monitor, and address railroad 

safety issues, and by promulgating and enforcing regulations that 

prescribe minimum rail safety standards. On May 4, 1998, FRA 

published rail safety regulations for the preparation, adoption, and 

implementation of emergency preparedness plans by railroads 

connected with the operation of passenger trains, including railroads 

hosting the operations of rail passenger service. These regulations

became effective on July 6, 1998, and are codified in Part 239 of Title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The DesertXpress project would be subject to the provisions set forth 

in FRA’s most current Guide to Developing a Passenger Train 

Emergency Preparedness Plan.

1

 The Applicant retains the 

responsibility for developing and implementing an emergency 

preparedness plan that complies with the regulations, based on the 

specific circumstances of the proposed railroad’s operations (see 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-7).

 

1

 Federal Railroad Administration. Guide to developing a passenger train emergency preparedness plan. 

January 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-3 

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

Project 

Area/Location

Service Providers

Electric/Gas Water Sewage/Storm 

Water Solid Waste Police Fire/Emergency Response

Victorville 

Passenger 

Station and 

OMSF Site

Southern California 

Edison

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

Victorville Water 

District

Victor Valley 

Wastewater 

Reclamation Authority

San Bernardino 

County Solid 

Waste 

Management 

Division

San Bernardino 

County Sheriff

(includes 

contract 

“Victorville 

Police 

Department”) 

San Bernardino 

County Fire 

Department

Segment 1 LA Department of 

Water and Power

NA NA NA San Bernardino 

County Sheriff 

Barstow Police 

Department

California 

Highway Patrol

Barstow Fire 

Protection District

San Bernardino 

County Fire 

Department

Segment 2C 

Side Running/ 

Segment 2A 

Southern California 

Edison

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

N/A N/A N/A San Bernardino 

County Sheriff

California 

Highway Patrol

Barstow Fire 

Protection District

San Bernardino 

County Fire 

Department

Segment 3B Southern California 

Edison

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

N/A N/A N/A San Bernardino 

County Sheriff

California 

Highway Patrol

San Bernardino 

County Fire 

Department
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-4 

Project 

Area/Location

Service Providers

Electric/Gas Water Sewage/Storm 

Water Solid Waste Police Fire/Emergency Response

Segment 4C Southern California 

Edison

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

NA NA NA San Bernardino 

County Sheriff

California

Highway Patrol

Portion of Segment 

4a only: Mojave 

National Preserve: 

Interagency Fire 

Center 

San Bernardino 

County Fire 

Department

Segment 5B Nevada Power

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

NA NA NA Las Vegas

Metropolitan 

Police 

Department

Nevada 

Highway Patrol

Clark County Fire 

Department

Segment 6B Nevada Power 

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

N/A N/A N/A Las Vegas

Metropolitan 

Police 

Department

Nevada 

Highway Patrol

Clark County Fire 

Department

Las Vegas Fire and 

Rescue

Las Vegas 

Southern 

Station or

Central Station 

B 

Nevada Power

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

Las Vegas Valley 

Water District

Clark County Water 

Reclamation District

Republic 

Services of 

Southern 

Nevada

Las Vegas 

Metropolitan 

Police 

Department

Las Vegas Fire and 

Rescue

Wigwam MSF 

and Frias 

Substation

Nevada Power

Southwest Gas 

Corporation

Las Vegas Valley 

Water District

Clark County Water 

Reclamation District

Republic 

Services of 

Southern 

Nevada

Las Vegas

Metropolitan 

Police 

Department

Las Vegas Fire and 

Rescue

Source: CirclePoint, 2010
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-5 

3.4.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

The Utilities and Emergency Services mitigation measures in Section 3.4, Utilities/ 

Emergency Services, of the Draft EIS and Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency 

Services, of the Supplemental Draft EIS utilized only numbers to identify the mitigation 

measures. To be consistent with the rest of the Final EIS, the mitigation measures in this 

section will hereinafter be numbered in a format that identifies the Final EIS section as 

well as the mitigation number. The following lists the revisions to the numbering of the 

Utilities and Emergency Services mitigation measures in this Final EIS: 

Mitigation Measure 1 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-1

Mitigation Measure 2 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-2

Mitigation Measure 3 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-3 

Mitigation Measure 4 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-4

Mitigation Measure 5 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-5

Mitigation Measure 6 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-6

Mitigation Measure 7 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-7 

Mitigation Measure 8 becomes Mitigation Measure UTIL-8

As discussed above, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.4.1 to include a 

discussion of Federal requirements for passenger train emergency preparedness. 

Consistent with the provisions of these Federal requirements, this Final EIS also amends 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-7 of the Draft EIS to include a discussion of the Applicant’s 

responsibility to conform with FRA’s emergency preparedness plan requirements. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-7 - Develop a comprehensive emergency 

operations plan 

The Applicant shall develop and implement an emergency 

preparedness plan that complies with the provisions set forth in FRA’s 

most current Guide to Developing a Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness Plan.

2 To protect life safety for passengers and people traveling 

in the vicinity of the proposed rail alignments, the project applicant shall develop 

and periodically update and test a comprehensive emergency operations plan. 

This plan shall set forth protocols in the event of train derailments and other 

catastrophic events. The applicant shall be responsible for conducting briefings 

and/or trainings on the plan with all appropriate employees, as well as with 

representatives of local first responders and transportation agencies. This may 

 

2

 Federal Railroad Administration. Guide to developing a passenger train emergency preparedness plan. 

January, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-6 

include a training of local first responders regarding proposed rail facilities, 

including train sets, any catenary structures, and other unique features. The plan 

shall set forth appropriate lines of communication in the event of emergency 

events. The plan shall specifically identify protocols in the event an emergency 

involving a train derailment and blockage of any freeway lanes, an emergency in 

the proposed tunnels within Segment 4C, and emergencies involving loss of 

locomotive power in the event the EMU option is selected. 

The Applicant shall file one copy of the proposed emergency 

preparedness plan with the head of FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety, 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, 

not less than 45 days prior to commencing the passenger train service 

described in the proposed plan. FRA will conduct a review of the 

proposed plan to determine whether the elements prescribed in Part 

239 of Title 49 of the CFR are sufficiently addressed and discussed in 

the proposed plan. FRA must issue a final approval letter to the 

Applicant prior to opening services to the public.

Comments S-320, S-321, and S-322 were received from Southern California Edison (SCE) 

during the public review period for the Supplemental Draft EIS, and assert that further 

coordination will be needed with the Applicant to determine if the company’s existing 

equipment and facility conditions are adequate to serve the future needs of the project’s 

passenger stations [Victorville Station (VV3) and Las Vegas Central Station B]. 

As a result, this Final EIS amends the text on Draft EIS page 3.4-31 as follows: 

Victorville passenger station and OMSF site options, Baker 

Maintenance of Way Facility: All of these proposed facilities would utilize 

natural gas and electricity. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical 

services to the project area. SCE reports sufficient equipment and facility 

conditions that it is able to serve the existing and future needs of the project’s 

passenger station, OMSF, and Maintenance of Way facility. However, further 

coordination with SCE, including formal submittals, will be necessary 

for SCE to determine the precise needs of the project.

The San Bernardino County Land Use Services division submitted comments requesting 

discussion of the potential impacts of train operations related to various public utilities. 

The San Bernardino County Department of Public Works also requested that a discussion 

of the project’s solid waste generation during construction be addressed in the Final EIS. 

As a result, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section3.4.4.2 to include the following 

information: 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-7 

Water Supply and Service 

Railroad Segments 1-7: The proposed rail alignments would not generate 

demand for water. There would not be any landscaping nor any other water 

related use associated with the rail segments that would create an ongoing demand 

for water. The trains would be equipped with restrooms for the 

passengers that would provide a small amount of potable water from a 

closed system in the train. This water would be collected at the 

passenger stations and/or maintenance facility sites. Water usage on 

the trains would be related to potable and lavatory uses and is 

accounted for within the demand assumed for the station building. 

Water usage would be limited to built facilities, discussed below. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Railroad Segments 1-7: As the proposed rail segments would not generate 

demand for water, nor would they produce wastewater or trigger the need for 

wastewater services. The trains would be equipped with a closed water 

system that would provide small amounts of potable water for the 

restrooms on the trains. It is also likely that the restrooms on the 

trains would be equipped with ultra-low flow toilets that would 

generate very small amounts of wastewater. Sewage and wastewater 

from the trains would be stored in the closed system while in 

operation, and would ultimately be released at the passenger stations 

and/or maintenance facilities. The wastewater would be appropriately 

discharged into the wastewater systems that serve the stations and/or 

maintenance facilities. Wastewater generation on the trains is 

accounted for within the assumed demand of the passenger stations 

and maintenance facilities, discussed below. Wastewater would be 

generated only at built facilities, as discussed below.

Solid Waste 

Construction Waste: Construction of the Preferred Alternative would 

generate solid waste. Most of the rail alignment will be located within 

the I-15 right of way and would thus not require substantial demolition. 

Similarly, several built facilities, including the Victorville Station, and 

the Baker Maintenance of Way facility would be constructed on 

substantially vacant and/or undeveloped lands, minimizing the 

potential for demolition related waste. However, the construction of 

the Preferred Alternative can reasonably be assumed to generate a 

mixed waste stream including but not limited to hardscapes, plant 

material, metals, and other wastes. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-8 

Where such materials would not be recycled or reused, area landfills,

in particular the Victorville Landfill and the Apex Regional Landfill, 

each indicate substantial remaining capacity to accept new waste such 

that the one-time generation of project-related construction waste 

could be accommodated. 

Railroad Segments 1-7: The proposed rail alignments would not generate solid 

waste. Daily maintenance-of-way activities may be required to dispose of waste 

items that may have strayed onto the tracks. However, this amount of waste is 

expected to be incidental/negligible. Maintenance of the rail trackway over time 

would generate waste railroad ties and scrap and hardware that would typically be 

recycled. Solid waste generated by the passengers on the trains would is 

assumed to be within the amount of waste anticipated by activity at the

passenger stations and maintenance facilities, which is further 

discussed below.

Draft EIS Section 3.4.4.2 stated that a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was 

recommended by the Victorville Water District (VWD) prior to project construction to 

better determine the size of water facilities needed to adequately serve the Victorville 

Station and OMSF at buildout. However, this requirement was not folded into the 

mitigation measures. As part of this Final EIS, the requirement to prepare a WSA has 

been included as part of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 of Section 3.4, Utilities/ 

Emergency Services. This Final EIS amends the text on Draft EIS page 3.4-41 as 

follows: 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Minimize water usage through the 

incorporation water saving devices wherever required or feasible; 

require drought-tolerant landscaping at all facilities. In addition to the 

preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, stations and maintenance 

facilities will utilize water for consumption, operations, and landscaping purposes. 

Wherever feasible, low water usage practices should be implemented, including in 

restrooms and landscaping. As the stations and maintenance facilities are located 

in regions with very low annual rainfall, any landscaping of such facilities shall 

feature drought-tolerant and/or xeriscape (low- and/or no-water) landscape 

features that will minimize and/or avoid the need for any landscape watering. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 of the Draft EIS did not include descriptive text under the 

main mitigation header. For further clarification of the measure, this Final EIS amends 

Draft EIS Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 to include the following information: 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-5 - Develop appropriate stormwater 

conveyance structures/systems at station and maintenance facility 

sites, as well as points along railroad segments, where it is not possible 

to connect to existing systems: All of the components that comprise the 

Preferred Alternative have the potential to generate additional 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-9 

stormwater requiring discharge. Where it is not possible to connect to 

existing systems, the Applicant shall coordinate with the local agencies 

to develop appropriate stormwater conveyance structures/systems in 

the areas of the proposed improvements. The Applicant shall either 

fund the upsizing of existing facilities or create new facilities that 

comply with local stormwater regulations.

Comment S-324 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that additional language be 

incorporated into the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to clarify that, if 

the adjustment or relocation of any existing utility or pipeline or any permitted 

encroachment is unavoidable, the Applicant shall be responsible for all costs to the utility 

facility. In addition, Comment S-304 requested that additional language be incorporated 

into the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to clarify that, if grading 

activity affects the transmission line access roads, the Applicant shall replace the affected 

access roads using the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Access 

Road Design Criteria, as appropriate. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Mitigation 

Measure UTIL-8 as follows: 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 - Avoid or minimize conflicts with existing 

utility infrastructure: For water, wastewater, communications, local gas 

pipelines, and other physical facilities that the proposed rail alignments and/or 

stations would cross, the following measures in Table F-3.4-2 would avoid or 

minimize any adverse effects. If the adjustment or relocation of any 

existing utility or pipeline or any permitted encroachment is 

unavoidable, the Applicant shall be responsible for all costs to the 

utility facility.

Additional mitigation for electrical transmission lines and major petroleum 

pipelines is provided below. 

Electrical transmission lines: Continue to coordinate closely with all electric 

utilities as design moves forward to ensure that final design meets any design 

requirements that may be set forth for development beneath electrical 

transmission lines. 

When grading activity affects the LADWP's transmission line access 

roads, the Applicant shall replace the affected access roads using the 

LADWP's Access Road Design Criteria.

Petroleum pipelines: Continue to coordinate with pipeline companies into next 

phase of design and construction. Encase/protect all pipelines as needed to 

minimize any possible conflict, including any possible concerns about stray 

electrical current. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-10

3.4.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.4.2.1 Methods of Evaluation

The utilities and emergency services impact methodology described in Draft EIS Section 

3.4.2 remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

As noted above, the study area for utilities and emergency services includes the areas in 

which physical alignments and associated project stations, maintenance facilities, and 

other features would be constructed and operated. 

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

facilities, and solid waste providers. Emergency services evaluated in this section include 

police, fire, and emergency response. The analysis also covers potential physical impacts 

to existing pipelines and electrical transmission infrastructure. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in adverse effects if: 

 Utility or service demands of the Preferred Alternative exceeded the existing or 

planned capacity of existing or planned utility and service systems, or 

 The Preferred Alternative would physically interrupt or otherwise constrain or 

impede existing utilities distribution systems. 

3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the Preferred Alternative. The 

No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation improvement 

projects that would be in place by the year 2030, which primarily include of the expansion 

of existing highways and roadways in and around the I-15 freeway between Victorville and 

Las Vegas. Improvements under the No Action Alternative would be located in the same 

vicinity as the Preferred Alternative, and would thus contend with many of the same 

utilities and emergency services impacts described herein. 

Future changes in demand for utilities and service systems in the study area may still 

occur but would be related to projected population and economic growth in Victorville, 

Las Vegas, and other locations, even if the high-speed rail project is not constructed. See 

Chapter 3.2, Growth, for information on area growth projections. Transportation 

improvements associated with the No Action Alternative would most likely be located 

adjacent to existing highway facilities, posing the potential for a similar degree of conflict 

with utility infrastructure located nearby. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-11

3.4.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.4.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.4.3 each contain 

detailed analysis of potential effects to utilities and emergency services by individual 

project component. The discussion below summarizes the aggregated impact for the 

components that comprise the Preferred Alternative. 

Electricity and Gas Services 

The stations and maintenance facilities would require electrical energy for regular 

operations. Additionally, the EMU technology option that would be implemented under 

the Preferred Alternative would need electricity to power the trains. Draft EIS Section 

3.4.4.2 noted that SCE and Nevada Power reported the ability to serve the existing and 

future needs of the project’s passenger stations.

3,4

 However, further coordination with 

SCE and Nevada Power will be needed with the Applicant to determine if the company’s 

existing equipment and facility conditions are adequate to serve the future needs of the 

project’s passenger stations.

Southwest Gas Corporation (SGC) has provided a “will-serve” letter for the project.5 SGC 

states that current operating conditions are sufficient to serve existing needs plus those 

associated with the project. Therefore, the demands that would be created by the 

Preferred Alternative would not exceed the capacity of service providers. 

The amount of energy needed to operate the Preferred Alternative is evaluated in Draft 

EIS Section 3.4.4.2. Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this Final EIS for a 

discussion of energy use associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

Water Supply and Service 

The track infrastructure would not generate demand for water. There would not be any 

landscaping nor any other water related use associated with the rail segments that would 

create an ongoing demand for water. The trains would be equipped with restrooms for the 

passengers that would provide a small amount of potable water from a closed system in 

the train. This water would be collected at the passenger stations and/or maintenance 

facility sites. Water usage on the trains would be minimal when compared to the 

anticipated water demands of the passenger stations and maintenance facilities, discussed 

below. 

The passenger stations and the maintenance facilities would generate a demand for water. 

Passenger station water demand would be associated with restrooms, restaurant/food 

service uses, and landscaping. At the maintenance facilities, water demand would be 

 

3

 Nancy Jackson, Southern California Edison. Personal communication, January 16, 2007. 

4 Nitin Modi, Nevada Power. Personal communication June 8, 2010. 

5

 Letter from Southwest Gas Corporation, June 12, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-12

associated with train washing and associated maintenance, providing an on-board 

drinking water supply, landscaping, and routine employee usage for consumption and 

restrooms. 

Water for the Victorville Station and maintenance facility (OMSF 2) would be provided by 

the VWD. Water for the Las Vegas Station (Southern Station or Central Station B) and 

maintenance facility (Wigwam MSF) would be provided by the Las Vegas Valley Water 

District (LVVWD). At the direction of the water districts, a water consumption rate based 

on an assumed commercial land use was utilized to determine water demands of the 

proposed passenger stations and maintenance facilities that would be constructed under 

the Preferred Alternative. Refer to Draft EIS Section 3.4.4.2 for detailed water demand 

estimates associated with the project. 

According to VWD and LVWWD, the estimated water demands of the stations and 

maintenance facilities are within the service capabilities of water districts. Although VWD 

would have adequate water supply to serve the Victorville Station and maintenance 

facility, there are no existing pipelines that could deliver water to the site. Consultation 

with VWD following the publication of the Draft EIS clarified that the construction of the 

Victorville Station and OMSF would not be adequately served by existing water facilities 

due to their distance from existing water mains. The nearest existing water facility is 

approximately 7 miles south at a substantially lower elevation. The existing main does not 

extent far enough to serve the station and OMSF. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative 

would require the construction and/or expansion of new water facilities, including storage 

facilities, wells, and/or transmission and distribution pipelines. 

The preparation of a Water Supply Assessment is recommended by the VWD prior to 

project construction to better determine the size of water facilities needed to adequately 

serve the Preferred Alternative at buildout. VWD further encourages that the project 

incorporate low water use desert landscaping, install low flow toilets, and otherwise 

implement water-saving fixtures and devices.6 

LVVWD indicated that the amount of water demanded by the Las Vegas passenger station 

(Southern Station or Central Station B) and MSF would not require the construction of 

additional infrastructure specific to the project.7 However, the LVVWD has established a 

“water commitment” application process, which is included as Mitigation Measure 

UTIL-3. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

The track infrastructure would not generate a significant demand for water, nor would it

produce wastewater or trigger the need for wastewater services. However, as previously 

discussed, the trains would be equipped with a closed water system that would provide 

 

6 Laine Ruzicka, VictorvilleWater District. Personal communication, July 10, 2008. 

7

 Akash Sehdev, LVVWD Engineering. Personal communication, August 8, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-13

small amounts of potable water for the restrooms on the trains. It is also likely that the 

restrooms on the trains would be equipped with ultra-low flow toilets that would generate 

very small amounts of wastewater. Sewage and wastewater from the trains would be 

stored in the closed system while in operation, and would ultimately be released at the 

passenger stations and/or maintenance facilities. The wastewater would be appropriately 

discharged into the wastewater systems that serve the stations and/or maintenance 

facilities. Wastewater generation on the trains would be minimal when compared to the 

anticipated demands of the passenger stations and maintenance facilities, discussed 

below. 

The passenger stations and the maintenance facilities would generate wastewater 

associated with anticipated water usage (restrooms, restaurant/food service use, etc.). 

Wastewater services at the Victorville Station and maintenance facility are provided by the 

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA). Wastewater services at the 

Las Vegas passenger station (Southern Station or Central Station B) and MSF are provided 

by the Clark County Water Reclamation District (CCWRD).

According to VVWRA, the Preferred Alternative would not create a substantial need for 

additional waste water equipment, facilities, or personnel. In its 2005 Sewerage Facilities 

Plan Update, as well as a policy adopted in August 2005 regarding anticipated community 

growth, VVWRA anticipates the robust growth projections forecast for the Victor Valley 

area. Specifically, the sewerage plan projects the City of Victorville’s population will 

double between 2005 and 2025 and that wastewater flows from the City would more than 

double over the same period.8 However, the Victorville Station OMSF is currently outside 

of the established VVWRA service area. A service area expansion would be required to 

serve the Victorville Station maintenance facility. 

In its review of preliminary project plans, CCWRD indicated that it has adequate capacity 

to serve the Las Vegas passenger station and maintenance facilities without any need to 

add personnel, equipment, or other facilities.9

Stormwater 

Rainwater would fall on track infrastructure under the Preferred Alternative, and would 

run off as stormwater. Although rail track beds will have a degree of porosity related to 

the spacing of railroad ties, the proposed alignment areas nevertheless have the potential 

to generate stormwater, particularly during the short in duration, but high intensity 

rainfall events typical in the Mojave Desert. 

 

8 VVWRA 2005 Sewerage Facilities Plan, p. 1-3. 

9 Julie Chadbourn, CCWRD, written correspondence, March 17, 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-14

The components of the rail alignments include culverts, bridges, or aerials at drainage 

crossings to allow the conveyance of surface flows across the rail alignment right-of-way. 

The placement of these drainage crossings would match the existing drainage crossings 

along the I-15 freeway where the rail alignment is within or adjacent to the freeway. 

In locations where the proposed rail alignment is at a distance from the I-15 where 

connection to existing storm drainage facilities is not feasible, there is the potential that 

new railroad alignments could create new stormwater conveyances. Culverts would be 

installed at natural drainage features and at regular intervals to allow for wildlife passage 

under the proposed rail grade. The drainage design for these portions of the rail 

alignment would be developed as part of the project design-build phase. The culverts 

would be designed through coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

BLM, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and NDOT, to address the need 

for wildlife movement (See Appendix F-M, Biological Assessment). 

The areas proposed for the Victorville Station and OMSF, as well as the Las Vegas 

Southern Station, are largely unimproved at present. The construction and operation of 

these facilities will convert unimproved lands to paved and/or built facilities, decreasing 

permeability and potentially creating stormwater runoff. 

However, the Las Vegas Central Station B passenger station and MSF are largely 

developed and would therefore not contribute significant volumes of additional 

stormwater runoff. 

Solid Waste 

The track infrastructure under the Preferred Alternative would not generate solid waste. 

Daily maintenance-of-way activities may be required to dispose of waste items that may 

have strayed onto the tracks. However, this amount of waste is expected to be 

incidental/negligible and would be gathered at a central facility (OMSF, MOW, or MSF) 

for disposal. Maintenance of the rail alignment over time would generate waste railroad 

ties and scrap and hardware that would typically be recycled. Solid waste generated by the 

passengers on the trains would be minimal when compared to the anticipated waste 

generation of the passenger stations and maintenance facilities, discussed below. 

The passenger stations and maintenance facilities would generate solid waste related to 

ongoing operations, including passenger and employee usage, food service, and related 

uses. A waste generation rate for these facilities was estimated based on commercial waste 

disposal rates in the City of Victorville, as estimated by the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board (CIWMB). This rate is a measurement which encompasses waste 

generated from all commercial activities, including from commercial enterprise 

customers. This rate was also used for the Las Vegas facilities, as waste generation rates 

for commercial uses were not available from the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP). Refer to Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS for detailed solid waste 

generation estimates associated with the project. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-15

According to the CIWMB, the nearest landfills to the passenger stations and maintenance 

facilities under the Preferred Alternative (the Victorville Landfill and Apex Regional 

Landfill) appear to have sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the predicted solid 

waste generated by the operation of the project. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would generate solid waste. Most of the rail 

alignment will be located within the I-15 right of way and would thus not require 

substantial demolition. Similarly, several built facilities, including the Victorville Station, 

and the Baker Maintenance of Way facility would be constructed on substantially vacant 

and/or undeveloped lands, minimizing the potential for demolition related waste. The 

geology and geotechnical conditions of the project corridor indicate that, due to the 

relatively high quality of the subsurface matter, most or all of it will be used for fill 

material and sub-ballast for the construction of the Preferred Alternative, thereby 

reducing the amount of wasted fill material from earth-moving and tunneling activities. 

Although reduced, the construction of the Preferred Alternative can reasonably be 

assumed to generate a mixed waste stream including but not limited to hardscapes, plant 

material, metals, and other wastes. 

Where such materials would not be recycled or reused, area landfills, in particular the 

Victorville Landfill and the Apex Regional Landfill, each indicate substantial remaining 

capacity to accept new waste such that the one-time generation of project-related 

construction waste could be accommodated. 

Police Services 

The Victorville Station and OMSF, portions of Segment 1 and 5B, and all of Segments 3B, 

4C would be located in the service area of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s 

Department (SBCSD), which includes the contract “Victorville Police Department.” 

Project alignments immediately adjacent to or within freeway corridors would also receive 

police response services from the California Highway Patrol (CHP). 

The SBCSD anticipates that current and projected staffing would be sufficient to serve the 

Preferred Alternative, but express concern that future high levels of human activity at the 

passenger station could lead to increased needs for police response/services there.10

SBCSD has also expressed concern that a catastrophic event, such as a train derailment, 

could result in a blockage of one or both sides of the I-15 freeway. Such a blockage would 

be especially problematic if it were to occur in remote portions of the I-15 corridor, where 

no secondary access or alternate parallel routes exist. Although unlikely, such a situation 

could occur. 

 

10 Dan Riser, Operations Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Personal communication, 

October 9, 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-16

The Las Vegas passenger station (Southern Station or Central Station B) and MSF facility, 

portions of Segment 5B, and all of Segments 6B would be located under the jurisdiction of 

the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO).11 In addition, the portions of 

Segments 5B and 6B within the I-15 corridor would also be within the jurisdictional area 

of the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP). 

Based on additional consultation with METRO following publication of the Draft EIS, 

METRO indicated that there has been a temporary suspension on the hiring of additional 

police officers due to the economic downtown. Draft EIS Section 3.4.4.2 of noted that 

although METRO is not considered understaffed, it is seeking to hire more personnel to 

meet local initiatives and it is not anticipated that the project would impact service to the 

community.12 With the hiring freeze, the primary concern expressed by the METRO 

following publication of the Draft EIS was that of police services for the Las Vegas Station 

site options because an emergency event could draw officers away from the existing needs 

of the community and that additional officers may be required. 13

 

NHP reports that its current staffing levels are sufficient to handle present needs and that 

the proposed action would not adversely affect NHP’s ability to provide service.14 

However, NHP anticipates that most police service needs associated with the project 

would be provided by METRO.15

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

The Victorville Station and OMSF facility, Segment 1, Segments 3B, 4C, and portions of 

Segments 5B would receive fire and emergency services from the San Bernardino County 

Fire Department (SBCFD). As of July 2008, the City of Victorville dissolved its own fire 

department, opting to contract with the County for fire and emergency response services. 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Draft EIS, the SBCFD has 

indicated that the implementation of the Preferred Alternative would require additional 

staffing, training, equipment, vehicles, and facilities to adequately serve the project in the 

event of an emergency. Specific to Segment 4C, a new station facility may be needed near 

Mountain Pass due the segment’s distance from an existing SBCFD fire station.

The SBCFD also expressed concern of the rail alignment within the I-15 freeway median.16 

While Segment 2C would incorporate cross-median emergency access, the SBCFD 

expressed concern that the use of the median with the rail alignment would affect the 

 

11 The Draft EIS defined the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department as both METO and LVMPD. For the 

purposes of this Supplemental Draft EIS, the acronym METRO will be used in reference to the Las Vegas 

Metropolitan Police Department. 

12 Las Vegas Police Department, Personal Communication, January 2007. 

13 A.J. Delap, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, June 18, 2010. 

14 Ibid. 

15 Personal communication with Trooper Kevin Hones, May 6, 2008. 

16 Pat A. Dennen, San Bernardino County Fire Department. Personal Communication, November 2, 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-17

SBCFD’s ability to use the median during an emergency response. The SBCFD also 

expressed concern regarding access to the track infrastructure where the rail alignment 

would be outside the I-15 freeway corridor or within a tunnel, as it may be difficult to 

pinpoint the exact location of the train in the event of an emergency. 

The portion of the Segment 2C alignment options through Barstow would be served by the 

Barstow Fire Protection District (BFPD). The BFPD has indicated that present staffing 

levels are insufficient to meet present demands. The BFPD indicates that a new facility 

north of the Mojave River would be required to meet acceptable emergency response 

times in the area. Existing and future staff also would need to be trained for fire and other 

emergencies that might be associated with a high-speed passenger train.17 However, the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment through the City of Barstow will be in close proximity 

to the BFPD's existing facilities at 861 Barstow Road and 2600 West Main Street. This 

centrally located alignment would be readily served by existing stations. 

Portions of Segments 5B and 6B would receive fire and emergency response services from 

the Clark County Fire Department (CCFD). Current staffing levels of the department are 

at 0.89 responders per 1,000 residents, which is below CCFD’s desired staffing level. 

CCFD states that implementation of the project would further strain staffing levels and 

require new staff, equipment and most likely, a new station located nearby the I-15 

corridor outside of the right of way in the unincorporated portions of Clark County.18 

The Las Vegas passenger station (Southern Station or Central Station B) and MSF, and 

portions of Segment 5B would be served by Las Vegas Fire and Rescue (LVFR). LVFR 

reports that its staffing levels are sufficient to serve the Preferred Alternative.19

 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

Many of the components that comprise the Preferred Alternative overlap and/or intersect 

with numerous utility conveyance systems, such as gas pipelines, electric transmission 

lines, and water/wastewater infrastructure. Although utilities infrastructure is a common 

feature within both rail and roadway corridors, some of the facilities within the I-15 

corridor are major interstate facilities for the transport of petroleum products, electricity, 

and telecommunications. There is the concern that proposed rail alignments would 

conflict with such utility conveyance in a manner that would limit the effectiveness of the 

conveyance and/or threaten human health or safety. Mitigations are included in Section 

3.4.3, below, to address potential conflicts. 

 

17 Barstow Fire Protection District, Personal Communication, April 2008. 

18 Girard Page, Senior Deputy Fire Chief, Clark County Fire Department. Personal communication, June 8, 

2010. 

19 Letter of inquiry with Las Vegas Fire and Rescue, January 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-18

The Victorville passenger station layout avoids use of the lands under the overhead 

LADWP lines, locating surface parking to areas northwest of the station building. In 

addition, the Victorville OMSF facility would not have the potential to cross any utility 

lines. As a result, no interruption or impediment of utility services would occur. 

3.4.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.4-2 summarizes the comparison of utility and emergency services effects for 

the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred 

Alternative are highlighted in yellow. 

Electricity and Gas Services 

Whereas the EMU locomotive power option would require a substantial supply of 

electricity, the DEMU locomotive power option would not generate a demand for electrical 

service for the rail alignments. 

Under either locomotive power option, the station and maintenance facility alternatives 

would require energy for general operation. Demands associated with the stations and 

maintenance facility options for any of the action alternatives would be similar to the 

Preferred Alternative, and therefore result in similar effects to the electricity and gas 

service providers of the study area. 

Water Supply and Service 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, there are no existing VWD pipelines that could 

deliver water to the other Victorville Station options (VV1 and VV2). The construction of 

either of the Victorville Station options and associated maintenance facilities would not be 

adequately served by existing water facilities due to their distance from existing water 

mains. VWD states that in order to accommodate anticipated water needs for planned 

residential and commercial development in the vicinity of the station and maintenance 

facility site options, substantial expansion of water delivery infrastructure will be 

necessary.20 The extent of necessary expansions would be determined through individual 

water supply assessments and periodic urban water management plans. 

All Las Vegas area station and maintenance facility site options would be located within 

the jurisdiction of the LVVWD. While small differences in the overall footprint of the Las 

Vegas Station options would result in changes in the demand for water services, these 

differences would be minimal. The overall effect on water service from the LVVWD would 

be the same under any of the action alternatives. 

Water demands associated with the track infrastructure and passenger trains under any of 

the action alternatives would be the same as the Preferred Alternative, and are not 

expected to result in substantial demands for water services. 

 

20 Laine Ruzicka, Associate Engineer, Victor Valley Water District. Personal communication, August 9, 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-19

Sewage and Wastewater 

Similar to the Southern Station and Central Station B, Central Station A and the other 

maintenance facility sites considered would be located within the jurisdiction of the 

CCWRD. In its review of preliminary project plans, CCWRD indicated that it has adequate 

capacity to serve the Las Vegas Stations and maintenance facilities proposed under the 

action alternatives, without any need to add personnel, equipment, or other facilities.21

Wastewater services at the Downtown Las Vegas passenger station site would be provided 

by the City of Las Vegas Public Works Department (LVPWD). According to LVPWD, 

existing wastewater treatment facilities are adequate to treat the incremental increase in 

wastewater associated with the Downtown Las Vegas option. Site-specific plans would 

need to be reviewed to determine whether local wastewater infrastructure is sufficient to 

serve the demand associated with the proposed action.22 

Wastewater demands associated with the track infrastructure and passenger trains under 

any of the action alternatives would be the same as the Preferred Alternative, and are not 

expected to result in substantial demands for sewage and wastewater services. 

Stormwater 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the other Victorville Station options (VV1 and VV2) 

are located in largely unimproved areas. With the exception of the Las Vegas Southern 

Station option, the areas proposed for the Las Vegas passenger stations are largely 

developed or are paved over and used for surface parking. The MSF site options are each 

partially developed, with the exception of Sloan Road and the Relocated Sloan Road sites, 

both of which are fully undeveloped. Additional volumes of stormwater would result in 

areas where the proposed facilities would convert pervious undeveloped surfaces to 

impervious surface. While the size of the footprints for these facilities are slightly 

different, creating differences in the overall amount of stormwater generation, the effect 

on stormwater systems from the options under the action alternatives would generally be 

the same as the Preferred Alternative. 

However, because the Las Vegas Southern Station site is undeveloped, selection of this 

station option would result in the generation of larger volumes of stormwater (due to the 

conversion of undeveloped surfaces to impervious surface) when compared to the other 

Las Vegas passenger station options. Section 3.8.2.3 of this Final EIS discusses 

stormwater discharge for the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas stations. 

The rail alignments under the action alternatives would have the same effect on 

stormwater conveyance systems as the Preferred Alternative. Any rail alignment that 

would be adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor would have an opportunity to tie into the 

 

21 Julie Chadbourn, CCWRD, written correspondence, March 17, 2007. 

22 Dan Fischer, LVPWD. Personal communication, July 30, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-20

existing stormwater discharge systems associated with the freeway. Where the rail 

alignments traverse through undeveloped areas, new stormwater conveyance may be 

required. 

Solid Waste 

The waste generation rates for the stations proposed under the action alternative were 

estimated based on disposal rates by employees. Due to the fact that the facilities 

proposed under the either action alternatives or the Preferred Alternative would have 

similar numbers of employees, the overall solid waste generation would be the same. 

Construction waste for the action alternatives would also be generally similar, with the 

exception of Segment 4. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment for Segment 4 (Segment 

4C) is the longest of the Segment 4 routing options and includes three tunnels. Segment 

4B includes two tunnels; there are none associated with Segment 4A. Tunneling activity 

will generate construction debris that would not be generated with Segment 4A. 

Police Services and Fire and Emergency Services 

The facilities proposed under the action alternatives would be within the same police and 

emergency service jurisdictions as the Preferred Alternative, and would result in similar 

effects related to emergency response. Any rail alignment that would be within the 

median of the I-15 freeway corridor would reduce the ability to use the median during an 

emergency response. Because the Preferred Alternative would have the least amount of 

rail alignment running within the I-15 freeway median, it would have lesser effects on this 

type of emergency response than the action alternatives with more median-running 

alignment options. Where the rail alignments would be outside the I-15 freeway corridor 

or within a tunnel, it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the train in the event 

of an emergency. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The overall effects related to utility infrastructure crossings would be the same under the 

action alternatives or the Preferred Alternative. 

Draft EIS Section 3.16.4 noted that Segment 4B would conflict with a proposed solar 

project located to the west of Ivanpah Dry Lake. Because of this potential conflict, the 

Applicant proposed Segment 4C as the Preferred Alternative, which avoids the conflicts 

with the proposed solar project. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-21

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

Alternative

Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: Potential Conflict 

with existing 

utility 

distribution 

systems

Electricity 

and Gas

Water 

Supply

Sewage/

Wastewater Stormwater Solid Waste Police Services

Fire/ 

Emergency

Services

No Action 

Alternative 

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

None 

Expected

Assumed yes, and 

that conflicts can 

be mitigated

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1

Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation

SBCPD 

concern of 

train 

derailment 

emergency

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 2A/2B, 2B

Segment 2C

Segment 3 

Segment 3A Would require 

electrical

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 3B 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-22

Alternative

Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: Potential Conflict 

with existing 

utility 

distribution 

systems

Electricity 

and Gas

Water 

Supply

Sewage/

Wastewater Stormwater Solid Waste Police Services

Fire/ 

Emergency

Services

Segment 4 

Segment 4A Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 4B 

Segment 4C 

Segment 5 

Segment 5A Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 5B 

Segment 6 

Segment 6A Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 6B 

Segment 6C 

Segment 7 

Segment 7A Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion.

No demand 

associated

No demand 

associated

Would require 

connections 

to existing 

and/or new 

facilities

No generation No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Segment 7B

Segment 7C
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-23

Alternative

Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: Potential Conflict 

with existing 

utility 

distribution 

systems

Electricity 

and Gas

Water 

Supply

Sewage/

Wastewater Stormwater Solid Waste Police Services

Fire/ 

Emergency

Services

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station 

Site 1 

No No No

New 

conveyance 

systems 

would be 

required 

No No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated

Victorville Station 

Site 2

Victorville Station 

Site 3

Victorville OMSF 1

Victorville OMSF 2

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas 

Southern Station

No No No No No

New staff

may be 

required

No Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated

Las Vegas Central 

Station A

Las Vegas Central 

Station B

Las Vegas 

Downtown Station

Sloan Road MSF 23 No

New 

conveyance 

systems 

would be 

required

New 

conveyance 

systems 

would be 

required

No No No

 

23 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF”, located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-24

Alternative

Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: Potential Conflict 

with existing 

utility 

distribution 

systems

Electricity 

and Gas

Water 

Supply

Sewage/

Wastewater Stormwater Solid Waste Police Services

Fire/ 

Emergency

Services

Relocated Sloan 

MSF No

New 

conveyance 

systems 

would be 

required

New 

conveyance 

systems 

would be 

required

No No No

No Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated Wigwam Avenue 

MSF No No No No No No

Robindale Avenue 

MSF No No No No No No

Frias Substation No No No No No No

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance 

of Way Facility No No No

New 

conveyance

systems

would be 

required

No No

New staff, 

equipment 

and facility

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated

Technology Options

DEMU (DieselElectric Multiple 

Unit)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EMU (Electric 

Multiple Unit)

Would require 

electrical 

power for 

vehicle 

propulsion

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: CirclePoint, 2011 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-25

3.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The following avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be incorporated to 

reduce adverse effects related to utilities and emergency services. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Payment of connection and or 

user/service/tipping fees 

The costs of any needed connections to utilities and service systems, as well as any 

usage fees, shall be borne by the Applicant, according to fee schedules as may be 

established by each utility/service system. Where such fees have not been 

established, the Applicant shall enter in development agreements with the 

controlling utility/service system. This shall also include fees associated with any 

required annexations to utilities or service districts. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Minimize water usage through the 

incorporation water saving devices wherever required or feasible; 

require drought-tolerant landscaping at all facilities 

In addition to the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, stations and 

maintenance facilities will utilize water for consumption, operations, and 

landscaping purposes. Wherever feasible, low water usage practices should be 

implemented, including in restrooms and landscaping. As the stations and 

maintenance facilities are located in regions with very low annual rainfall, any 

landscaping of such facilities shall feature drought-tolerant and/or xeriscape 

plantings that will minimize and/or avoid the need for any landscape watering. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Obtain a water commitment from the Las 

Vegas Valley Water District during the design phase

The LVVWD has indicated that anticipated water demand associated with the 

proposed action would not exceed regional projections. However, LVVWD will not 

provide any Applicant with an assurance of water availability until the applicant 

obtains a “water commitment” from LVVWD to ensure that the proposed action 

would be served by enough water for usage and to meet fireflow requirements. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: Rail segments within freeway rights-ofway shall tie into existing freeway stormwater conveyance devices

Along the I-15 corridor, stormwater is discharged from roadways and median areas 

primarily through culverts or natural and/or manmade channels. New rail 

segments within the freeway corridor will have the potential to generate additional 

stormwater requiring discharge. The Applicant shall coordinate with the state 

transportation agencies in California and Nevada to ensure that the proposed rail 

alignments connect to existing stormwater discharge facilities. Wherever the 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-26

addition of project-generated stormwater would exceed the capacity of existing 

discharge facilities, the Applicant shall either fund the upsizing of existing facilities 

or create new facilities that comply with local stormwater regulations. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-5: Develop appropriate stormwater 

conveyance structures/systems at station and maintenance facility 

sites, as well as points along railroad segments, where it is not possible 

to connect to existing systems 

All of the components that comprise the Preferred Alternative have the potential to 

generate additional stormwater requiring discharge. Where it is not possible to 

connect to existing systems, the Applicant shall coordinate with the local agencies 

to develop appropriate stormwater conveyance structures/systems in the areas of 

the proposed improvements. The Applicant shall either fund the upsizing of 

existing facilities or create new facilities that comply with local stormwater 

regulations. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-6: Payment of impact fees for police, fire, 

and emergency services 

The proposed action will create incremental demand for additional police, fire, and 

emergency services at proposed stations and maintenance facilities, as well as 

along rail alignments in times of emergencies. For each affected agency, the 

Applicant shall pay any development impact fees that may have been established 

by affected agencies at the time the applicant seeks a permit to construct. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-7: Develop a comprehensive emergency 

operations plan 

The Applicant shall develop and implement an emergency preparedness plan that 

complies with the provisions set forth in FRA’s most current Guide to Developing 

a Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Plan.

24

 This plan shall set forth 

protocols in the event of train derailments and other catastrophic events. The 

applicant shall be responsible for conducting briefings and/or trainings on the plan 

with all appropriate employees, as well as with representatives of local first 

responders and transportation agencies. This may include a training of local first 

responders regarding proposed rail facilities, including train sets, any catenary 

structures, and other unique features. The plan shall set forth appropriate lines of 

communication in the event of emergency events. The plan shall specifically 

identify protocols in the event an emergency involving a train derailment and 

blockage of any freeway lanes, an emergency in the proposed tunnels within 

Segment 4C, and emergencies involving loss of locomotive power. 

 

24 Federal Railroad Administration. Guide to developing a passenger train emergency preparedness plan. 

January, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-27

The Applicant shall file one copy of the proposed emergency preparedness plan 

with the head of FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety, FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, not less than 45 days prior to commencing the 

passenger train service described in the proposed plan. FRA will conduct a review 

of the proposed plan to determine whether the elements prescribed in 49 CFR 239 

are sufficiently addressed and discussed in the proposed plan. FRA must issue a 

final approval letter to the Applicant prior to opening services to the public. 

Mitigation Measure UTIL-8: Avoid or minimize conflicts with existing 

utility infrastructure

For water, wastewater, communications, local gas pipelines, and other physical 

facilities that the proposed rail alignments and/or stations would cross, the 

following measures in Table F-3.4-2 would avoid or minimize any adverse 

effects. If the adjustment or relocation of any existing utility or pipeline or any 

permitted encroachment is unavoidable, the Applicant shall be responsible for all 

costs to the utility facility. 

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

Infrastructure 

Utility Type Intersected/Crossed Mitigation Strategy

Water utilities Protect pipelines/canals in place; span any crossings of open 

canals. 

Local natural gas distribution systems Protect/encase pipelines in place. 

Utilize alternating current if EMU locomotive option is selected.

Fiber optic/communications lines Protect line, as appropriate

Source: CirclePoint, 2010 

Additional mitigation for electrical transmission lines and major petroleum 

pipelines is provided below. 

Electrical transmission lines: Continue to coordinate closely with all electric 

utilities as design moves forward to ensure that final design meets any design 

requirements that may be set forth for development beneath electrical 

transmission lines. 

When grading activity affects the LADWP's transmission line access roads, the 

Applicant shall replace the affected access roads using the LADWP's Access Road 

Design Criteria. 

Petroleum pipelines: Continue to coordinate with pipeline companies into next 

phase of design and construction. Encase/protect all pipelines as needed to 

minimize any possible conflict, including any possible concerns about stray 

electrical current. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.4-28

3.4.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The incorporation of mitigation measures would minimize permanent effects related to 

the adequate provision of services and conflicts from utility crossings. Where proposed 

modifications and additions require the expansion of utility infrastructure, their location 

would be determined during the final design phase of the project. Separate environmental 

review of the water facilities’ construction and operation would be required if additional 

facilities were located outside of the footprint of the project features or were 

fundamentally different in nature to previous proposals. Additionally, if groundwater 

wells or other sources of water are considered during project operation or construction, 

development of these features would be subject to subsequent environmental review. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-1 

3.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

This section describes the changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential traffic and 

transportation impacts related to the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action 

Alternative and other Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.5.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to traffic and provides responses to those comments. 

However, no comments received during the public review period required changes to the 

traffic and transportation analysis contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.5-3 and S-3.5-4 have been updated to include 

turning movement volumes at intersections surrounding Victorville passenger station 

(VV3). These revised figures are shown as Figure F-3.5-1 and F-3.5-2 at the end of this 

section. This Final EIS also includes new figures illustrating the future turning movement 

volumes at the intersections surrounding the Las Vegas passenger station options 

(Southern Station or Central Station B). These new figures are shown as Figures F-3.5-5 

through F-3.5-12 at the end of this section. 

Safety Analysis 

FRA, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT) has conducted additional safety analysis of the Preferred Alternative. The safety 

analysis is included in Section 3.5.2.3 below. It is recognized that the level of this 

analysis reflects the conceptual design completed to evaluate the alternatives considered, 

and that additional information will be provided as further project development activities 

continue. 

The Applicant has prepared a separate Highway Interface Manual to identify the design 

requirements, regulations, and guidance that would be applied to reduce potential safety 

risks for drivers on I-15. The document describes the protection against intrusion and 

emergency access aspects noted in this section, as well as providing typical sections that 

show the median and side running conceptual designs. The Highway Interface Manual 

has undergone several revisions, with the latest version attached as Appendix F-B to this

Final EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-2 

Given the proposed design-build procurement/construction method anticipated for the 

project, minor refinements to these provisions may be necessary over time. Any changes 

from the current concepts will be compared to those used for the basis of this 

environmental analysis, and additional review provided to assure that highway safety 

concerns continue to be addressed. 

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.5.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5.1 describe in detail the 

affected environment for traffic and transportation for the DesertXpress project. 

There have been no substantive changes in the study area roadways and baseline 

conditions since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. As such, there 

has been no change to the Affected Environment regarding traffic and transportation. 

In addition, no comments were received during the public review period that required 

changes to the traffic and transportation affected environment discussions contained in 

the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus, the previous affected environment 

discussions remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

3.5.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for traffic and transportation for the DesertXpress project is 

described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.5.1. Since publication of the Draft EIS, there 

has been no change to the regulatory environment regarding traffic and transportation. In 

addition, no comments were received during the public review period that required 

changes to the traffic and transportation regulatory environment discussion contained in 

the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus the regulatory environment discussions 

from these previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

3.5.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

An additional mitigation measure has been added that encompasses the conclusions of a 

safety evaluation conducted for the project by the cooperative effort of FRA, FHWA, and 

the Applicant. 

Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: Conduct a Design Review within the 

Parameters Defined in the Highway Interface Manual

The Applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, NDOT, and FHWA for the 

design review and approval of specific project components within the 

existing I-15 right-of-way. The design review shall be conducted within 

the parameters defined in the Highway Interface Manual (see 

Appendix F-B). The procedures for the design review shall be agreed to 

by the Applicant and transportation agencies in a separate agreement. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-3 

The design review shall be used to determine the following:

 Permanent placement of visual barriers from a motorist 

perspective; 

 Need for standard highway work area traffic control measures both 

within and beyond the clear zone; and 

 Appropriate protocols for access to the railroad from I-15, for 

operations, maintenance, or operations, and ensure meet codes.

Project components within the I-15 right-of-way that require approval 

by the highway agencies for traffic safety, and to avoid vehicle 

intrusion into the railroad right-of-way, include the following: 

 Clear zone modifications

 Barriers 

 Bridges and tunnels 

 Vertical clearance

 Retaining walls

 Drainage

 Median crossings

 Sight distance

 Security plans 

 Fencing

 Visual screening

 Locked-gate access

 Temporary construction access

 Freeway interchanges or 

ramps and modifications

 Signing and striping

 Emergency preparedness plans

No comments were received during the public review period that required changes to the 

traffic and transportation analysis contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.5.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the potential traffic and transportation impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative based on information contained in the previous environmental documents 

(inclusive of errata discussed above in this section), the rail ridership study, and Traffic 

Impact Analysis (TIA) reports prepared as part of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS (see Appendix F-G of this Final EIS). 

3.5.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The traffic and transportation impact methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.5.2

remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Estimated traffic levels for the project were based on projections of expected ridership (see 

Appendix F-D of this Final EIS).1 These traffic levels were in turn added to existing and 

expected future traffic levels on freeway segment and at local intersections. 

 

1

 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. DesertXpress Ridership Forecast Review. February 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-4 

The traffic analysis focused on three separate areas, which were selected based on likely 

changes in traffic patterns. One focus area is the I-15 freeway mainline, which would 

experience a reduction in traffic due to implementation of the DesertXpress project. The 

other two focus areas are around the proposed passenger station sites in Victorville and 

Las Vegas; specifically, the local roadway intersections in these areas. Stations would 

result in increased numbers of vehicles on local roadways around proposed station sites. 

Scenarios Evaluated 

Under the impact methodology described in Section 3.5.2 of the Draft EIS, two horizon 

years were selected for the traffic analysis: 2013 and 2030. The year 2013 was selected 

because it was the year the DesertXpress high speed passenger train was expected to begin 

operations at the time when the Draft EIS was being prepared. The year 2030 was 

selected to evaluate cumulative conditions because it is roughly 20 years after the start of 

construction and because it was the farthest year in the future for which regional travel 

forecasts were available for the metropolitan Las Vegas area. The traffic analysis for 2030 

also includes an increase in vehicles diverted from the I-15 freeway to the DesertXpress 

project when compared to the 2013 traffic analysis. This is due to an assumed increase in 

ridership over time often referred to as a “ramp up” period as travelers learn about the 

new high speed rail project. 

In order to maintain consistency in the evaluation of project modifications and additions, 

the two horizon years were retained in the Supplemental Draft EIS. However, due to a 

longer than expected environmental review process, 2013 may no longer be the opening 

year for the project. However, this Final EIS assumes this minor change of opening year 

to be less than significant and continues to use the existing 2013 traffic analysis in the 

evaluation of project impacts. It is not anticipated that substantially different findings 

would result under an opening year of 2014 or 2015. Similarly, regional travel forecasts 

for the year 2030 remain applicable to this Final EIS and also provide consistency 

between the previous Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS documents. 

Level of Service 

The same Level of Service (LOS) thresholds used in Section 3.5.2.2 the Draft EIS are 

used here. 

Victorville Area 

According to the City of Victorville and the San Bernardino County Congestion 

Management Plan (CMP), the LOS at the study intersections for this analysis would be 

considered unacceptable if it falls below LOS D or adds five percent or more to the peak 

hour traffic volumes of an intersection. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-5 

Las Vegas Area 

As determined by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), an 

LOS at an intersection would be considered unacceptable if it falls below LOS D. 

Forecasting Methodology 

In order to determine traffic effects from the project in the two horizon years, future 

background traffic volumes were obtained (see Section 3.5.3.2 of the Draft EIS). The 

predicted traffic volumes generated by the action alternatives were then added to the 

future background traffic volumes. With this information, comparisons of I-15 mainline 

and intersection operations were made between the action alternatives and No Action 

Alternative scenarios. The comparison results are discussed in Sections 3.5.2.2 through

3.5.2.4 below. A discussion of effects under the Preferred Alternative is included in 

Section 3.5.2.3. 

3.5.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation 

improvement projects that would be in place by the year 2030, which primarily include of 

the expansion of existing highways and roadways in and around the I-15 freeway between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. Section 3.16.2.2 of this Final EIS provides a detailed 

discussion of the transportation projects that were assumed would be made between the 

year 2013 and 2030. In the future, I-15 is anticipated to remain in its existing 

configuration for most the distance between Victorville and Las Vegas, except for capacity 

improvements in the urban areas. 

The 2013 and 2030 baseline conditions presented in the Tables F-3.5-1 through F-3.5-

5, below, are intended to demonstrate conditions along the freeway sections and selected 

intersections in the event that no high speed passenger rail system with stations is 

constructed and operated. Both the Las Vegas and Victorville areas have experienced high 

population growth rates over the past decade, and the forecasts show a continuation of 

this trend (see Section 3.2, Growth). This growth generates increases in traffic volumes 

in these areas that result in adverse effects to the intersections near the proposed 

passenger stations as well as along the I-15 mainline. 

Passenger Station Areas

Several of the identified intersection impacts evaluated under the Preferred Alternative 

would also occur under the No Action Alternative. However, the No Action Alternative 

would result in overall lesser impacts to the intersections in the proposed passenger 

station areas than compared to the Preferred Alternative (see Tables F-3.5-1 through 

Table F-3.5-4).
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-6 

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

Intersection

2013 Baseline 

Conditionsa

2013 Baseline Plus 

Project Conditionsa

2030 Baseline 

Conditionsa,e

2030 Baseline Plus 

Project Conditionsa,e

LOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS Delayb

1

I-15 Northbound Ramps & Dale Evans 

Parkway B (NB)c

12.0 F(NB)c

--- C 30.8 F 162.3

2

I-15 Southbound Ramps & Dale 

Evans Parkway C (SB)c

15.5 F(SB)c

--- C 24.3 F 150.6

3

Station Access #1 & Dale Evans 

Parkway NA NA F(NB)c

65.1 NA NA C 31.4

4

Station Access #2 & Dale Evans 

Parkway NA NA B(NB)c

13.0 NA NA B 13.6

5 Future Street & Dale Evans Parkway C (SB)c16.0 F(NB)c

--- D 49.3 E 58.7

6 Future Street & Station Access #3

d

B (EB)c11.9 D(EB)c29.9 A 7.4 A 9.5

7 Future Street & Station Access #4

d

B (EB)c13.2 E(EB)c

40.7 B 12.4 B 15.8

8 Future Street & Station Access #5 NA NA B(WB)c12.0 NA NA A 8.2

Source: AECOM. DesertXpress Traffic Impact Report—Victorville Station Location Option 3. April 2010. 

Notes: 

a) LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

b) Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

c) NB = Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB=Westbound 

d) Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 and 2030 Baseline conditions 

e) Signalization of all intersection occurs only under 2030 Baseline conditions 

Bold text indicates unacceptable conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-7 

Table F-3.5-2 2013, & 2030 Baseline plus Project – LOS Conditions on I-15/Dale Evans Parkway Ramp 

Junctions 

Ramp Junction

2013 Baseline 2013 Baseline Plus 

Project 2030 Baseline 2030 Baseline Plus Project

LOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS Densityb

1

I-15 NBa Off-ramp to Dale Evans 

Parkway B 18.8 C 25.3 D 28.2 C 21.2

2

I-15 SBa Off-ramp to Dale Evans 

Parkway D 28.8 D 29.1 E 35.5 E 35.7

3

I-15 NBa On-ramp from Dale 

Evans Parkway B 18.8 C 23.6 D 29.1 D 33.7

4

I-15 SBa On-ramp from Dale 

Evans Parkway D 29.6 D 34.8 F 41.6 F 46.5

Source: AECOM. DesertXpress Traffic Impact Report—Victorville Station Location Option 3. April 2010. 

Notes: 

a) SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound 

b) Density, reported in vehicles per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) 

Bold text indicates unacceptable conditions 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-8 

Table F-3.5-3 2013 & 2030 Baseline plus Project- LOS Conditions at Las Vegas Southern Station 

Intersectionc

2013 Baseline 

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus 

Project Conditions

2030 Baseline 

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus 

Project Conditions

LOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS Delayb

1 W. Tropicana/S. Valley View E 70.3 E 76.4 F 425.2 F 422.4

2 W. Tropicana/ Dean Martin Dr E 59.8 E 76.7 F 80.0 F 103.2

3 W. Tropicana/I-15 NBa Ramps C 31.3 C 31.6 E 78.3 E 78.4

4 Dean Martin Dr/ Circulation C (EB)a18.2 C (EB)a19.0 C (EB) a24.9 D (EB) a26.5

5 Circulation-Aldebaran/W. Hacienda B (SB)a13.8 F (NB) a

- C (SB) a

17.3 F (SB) a

-

6 W. Hacienda/Polaris Ave F (NB)a

336.9 F (NB) a- F (NB) a- F (NB) a-

7 W. Hacienda/S. Valley View D 35.2 D 42.4 F 618.8 F 617.2

8 W. Russell/Polaris D 52.9 F 550.8 F 81.3 F 818.7

9 W. Russell/I-15 SB

a Ramps F 83.1 F 94.9 F 144.1 F 164.8

10 W. Russell/I-15 NBa Ramps D 36.4 D 38.9 E 67.7 F 103.6

11 W. Tropicana/I-15 SBa Ramps B 16.2 B 19.0 C 20.7 C 25.3

Source: AECOM. Final Report—DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis. February 2009. 

Notes: 

a) SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound; EB = eastbound 

b) Delay reported in seconds per vehicle. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach. 

c) All intersections are signalized 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-9 

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

Intersectionc

2013 Baseline 

Conditions

2013 Baseline plus 

Project Conditions

2030 Baseline 

Conditions

2030 Baseline plus 

Project Conditions

LOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS DelaybLOS Delayb

1 W. Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.0 F 293.4 D 39.1 F 301.2

2 Flamingo/I-15 SBaA 7.5 A 7.7 A 8.6 A 9.0

3 Flamingo/I-15 NBa C 29.0 D 45.5 D 37.9 E 64.4

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 24.5 F 87.6 C 26.6 F 87.0

5 W. Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave C 20.6 C 25.7 B 18.7 C 27.5

6 W. Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 12.7 C 26.5 B 17.6 D 35.0

7 W. Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr E 60.2 F 149.7 F 80.2 F 181.2

8 Tropicana/I-15 SBa Ramp B 16.2 B 15.4 C 20.7 C 20.1

9 Tropicana/I-15 NBa Ramp C 31.2 D 35.7 E 77.0 F 87.6

10 W. Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.6 C 23.7 B 11.8 C 23.8

Source: AECOM. Final Report—DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis. February 2009. 

Notes: 

a) SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound 

b) Delay reported in seconds per vehicle. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach. 

c) All intersections are signalized 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-10

Table F-3.5-5 Freeway Mainline Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus Project Conditions 

Section Peak 

Hour

2013 Baseline Conditions 2013 Baseline plus Project

Conditions 2030 Baseline Conditions 2030 Baseline plus ProjectConditions

NBaSBa NBaSBa NBaSBa NBaSBa

LOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS DensitybLOS Densityb

1

North Stoddard 

Wells to Junction 

I-40

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 C 18.8 B 15.3 D 27.4 C 22.2 C 18.7 B 14.4

PM B 14.7 D 33.3 B 11.7 D 28.1 B 17.8 F >45.0 A 10.1 D 30.4

2

Junction I-40 to 

Nevada State line

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 C 20.3 B 16.3 E 35.8 D 27.0 C 19.6 B 14.5

PM B 16.7 E 43.6 B 12.2 D 32.2 C 21.0 F >45.0 A 9.5 E 35.6

3 Primm to Sloan

AM D 26.9 D 30.5 C 23.3 D 26.2 E 40.6 F >45.0 D 29.0 E 40.3

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 E 39.3 D 32.6 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

4 Sloan to I-215

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0

Source: AECOM. Final Report—DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis. February 2009. 

Notes: 

a) SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound 

b) Density, reported in vehicles per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) 

Bold text indicates unacceptable conditions 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-11

I-15 Mainline 

As shown in Figure F-3.5-3, Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline conditions were evaluated for 

the following sections for weekday AM and PM peak hours.2 

1. North Stoddard Wells to Junction Interstate 40 (I-40) (California) 

2. Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line (California) 

3. Primm to Sloan (Nevada) 

4. Sloan to I-215 (Nevada) 

Even with planned and programmed transportation improvement projects that would be 

in place by the year 2030, the No Action Alternative is expected to result in a deterioration 

of future I-15 mainline operations. The adverse impacts to freeway mainline operations 

under the No Action Alternative would be greater than when compared to the impacts 

under the Preferred Alternative (see Table F-3.5-5).

3.5.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.5.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5.3 describe in detail 

the traffic and transportation impacts by individual project component. The discussion 

below summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that comprise the Preferred 

Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative would have no interface with passengers or employees (e.g. 

station or maintenance facility) other than those at the Victorville and Las Vegas Stations 

(VV3, and in Las Vegas, either the Southern Station or the Central Station B) and the 

maintenance facilities (OMSF 2 and Wigwam MSF). No at-grade crossings of roadways 

would be created, nor would the project require modifications or changes to existing 

roadways that would affect existing capacity. Therefore, the project’s impact on traffic and 

transportation would be limited to roadways surrounding passenger stations, 

maintenance facilities, and the I-15 freeway mainline. 

The number of trips generated by the Victorville OMSF would be less than 50 peak hour 

trips in 2013 and less than 100 peak hour trips in 2030. Based on the San Bernardino 

County CMP and Caltrans guidelines, intersection analysis would not be necessary at the 

Victorville OMSF. The number of trips generated by the Las Vegas MSF would be 

approximately 30 peak hour trips under both 2013 and 2030 conditions. The Las Vegas 

MSF is not located in a high traffic volume area and while the RTC in Nevada does not 

 

2

 These sections do not correspond to the railway segments of the Preferred Alternative and should be 

considered separately. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-12

have guidelines on the minimum number of trips required for analysis, based on the 

location of the Las Vegas MSF and criteria used in California for this project, a trip 

generation of 30 peak hour trips would not warrant intersection analysis. 

I-15 Mainline 

Operation of the Preferred Alternative would reduce traffic volumes on I-15, thereby 

improving traffic conditions. This reduction would be approximately 500 vehicles per 

peak hour in the peak direction in 2013, increasing to 1,400 vehicles in 2030. Table F3.5-4 shows future plus project conditions on the I-15 freeway mainline. 

The Preferred Alternative would improve unacceptable LOS on several freeway segments 

to acceptable conditions. Segments that would experience beneficial effects are: 

 Junction of I-40 to Nevada State Line, in southbound direction during the PM 

peak hour 

 Primm to Sloan, in southbound direction during the PM peak hour 

Victorville Station Area 

Dale Evans Parkway is the only existing street that would serve the proposed station site. 

Figures F-3.5-1 and F-3.5-2 show that the intersection geometry surrounding the 

Victorville Station would change between 2013 and 2030, with the addition of station 

access roads. Figure F-3.5-4 shows the overall trip distribution for the station. 

The following intersections were evaluated under future conditions: 

 Intersection 1: I-15 Northbound (NB) Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 2: I-15 Southbound (SB) Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 3: Station Access #1/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 4: Station Access #2/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 5: Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 6: Future Street/Station Access #3 

 Intersection 7: Future Street/Station Access #4 

 Intersection 8: Future Street/Station Access #5 

Table F-3.5-1 shows future conditions at the intersections listed above under both 

baseline (No Project) and with project conditions of the Preferred Alternative. Table F3.5-2 summarizes the future conditions at the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway ramp junctions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-13

2013 Plus Project – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2013 Baseline Conditions 

would change LOS from acceptable to unacceptable at five study area intersections, 

resulting in adverse effects. The affected intersections would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, Station Access #1/Dale Evans 

Parkway, Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway, and Future Street/Station Access #4 

intersections. As shown in Table F-3.5-1, all other study intersections would continue to 

operate at acceptable LOS. 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative with the proposed Victorville Station site 

would worsen delays at the I-15 and Dale Evans Parkway ramp junctions in year 2013. 

However, the LOS would still remain acceptable at all ramp junctions. 

2030 Plus Project – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2030 Baseline Conditions 

would change LOS from acceptable to unacceptable at three study area intersections, 

resulting in adverse effects. The affected intersections would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, and Future Street/Dale Evans 

Parkway intersections. As shown in Table F-3.5-1, no cumulative effects would occur at 

the other study intersections since they would continue to operate at acceptable LOS. 

Under the 2030 Baseline Conditions, NB ramp junctions are expected to operate at 

acceptable conditions (LOS D), while SB ramp junctions would operate at unacceptable 

conditions (LOS E and F). When compared to the 2030 Baseline Conditions, the SB ramp 

junctions would continue to operate at unacceptable conditions with implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative, while the NB ramp junctions would continue to operate at an 

acceptable LOS D. 

Las Vegas Station Area: Southern Station 

Figure F-3.5-5 shows the intersection geometry surrounding the Las Vegas Station 

(Southern Station). Auto access to the Southern Station would be via I-15 ramps located 

at West Russell Road. Figure F-3.5-6 shows the overall trip distribution for the station. 

Figures F-3.5-7 and F-3.5-8 show how intersection turning volumes at the Southern 

Station would change between 2013 and 2030. 

The following intersections were evaluated under future conditions with the Southern 

Station: 

 Intersection 1: W. Tropicana/S. Valley View 

 Intersection 2: W. Tropicana/ Dean Martin Dr 

 Intersection 3: W. Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps 

 Intersection 4: Dean Martin Dr/ Circulation 

 Intersection 5: Circulation-Aldebaran/W. Hacienda 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-14

 Intersection 6: W. Hacienda/Polaris Ave 

 Intersection 7: W. Hacienda/S. Valley View 

 Intersection 8: W. Russell/Polaris 

 Intersection 9: W. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

 Intersection 10: W. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

 Intersection 11: W. Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramps 

Table F-3.5-3 shows future conditions at the intersections listed above under both 

baseline (No Project) and with project conditions of the Preferred Alternative, assuming 

the Southern Station is the rail terminus. 

2013 Plus Project (Terminating at Southern Station) – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2013 baseline conditions 

would result in failing LOS operations at two study intersections: Circulation-Aldebaran 

Avenue/West Hacienda Avenue and West Russell Road/Polaris Avenue. 

In 2013, the Preferred Alternative would contribute to traffic at the following already 

failing intersections: 

 Intersection 1: W. Tropicana/S. Valley View 

 Intersection 2: W. Tropicana/ Dean Martin Dr 

 Intersection 6: W. Hacienda/Polaris Ave 

 Intersection 9: W. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

The Preferred Alternative would contribute additional traffic at these already failing 

intersections, thereby contributing to cumulative adverse effects. 

2030 Plus Project (Terminating at Southern Station) – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2030 baseline conditions 

would result in failing LOS operations at the intersection of Circulation-Aldebaran 

Avenue/West Hacienda Avenue. 

In 2030, the Preferred Alternative would contribute to cumulative adverse effects at the 

following intersections: 

 Intersection 1: W. Tropicana/S. Valley View 

 Intersection 2: W. Tropicana/ Dean Martin Dr 

 Intersection 3: W. Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps 

 Intersection 6: W. Hacienda/Polaris Ave 

 Intersection 7: W. Hacienda/S. Valley View 

 Intersection 8: W. Russell/Polaris 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-15

 Intersection 9: W. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

 Intersection 10: W. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

Las Vegas Station Area: Central Station B 

Figure F-3.5-9 shows the intersection geometry surrounding Las Vegas Station Central 

Station B. Auto access to the Central Station B would be via I-15 ramps located at 

Flamingo Road and Tropicana Avenue. Figure F-3.5-10 shows the overall trip 

distribution for the station. Figures F-3.5-11 and F-3.5-12 show that the intersection 

turning volumes at Central Station B would change between 2013 and 2030. 

The following intersections were evaluated under future conditions with Central Station B: 

 Intersection 1: W. Flamingo Road/Hotel Rio Drive 

 Intersection 2: Flamingo/I-15 SB Ramps 

 Intersection 3: Flamingo/I-15 NB Ramps 

 Intersection 4: Hotel Rio Drive/Dean Martin Drive 

 Intersection 5: W. Harmon Avenue/Polaris Avenue 

 Intersection 6: W. Tropicana Avenue/Polaris Avenue 

 Intersection 7: W. Tropicana Avenue/Dean Martin Drive 

 Intersection 8: Tropicana Avenue/I-15 SB Ramp 

 Intersection 9: Tropicana Avenue/I-15 NB Ramp 

 Intersection 10: W. Harmon Avenue/Aldebaran Avenue 

Table F-3.5-4 shows future conditions at the intersections listed above under both 

baseline (No Project) and with project conditions of the Preferred Alternative, assuming 

Central Station B is the rail terminus. 

2013 Plus Project (Terminating at Central Station B) – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2013 baseline conditions 

would result in failing LOS operations at two study intersections: Flamingo Road/Hotel 

Rio Drive and Hotel Rio Drive/Dean Martin Drive. 

In 2013, the Preferred Alternative would contribute to traffic at the already failing 

intersection of West Tropicana Avenue/Dean Martin Drive, thereby contributing to 

cumulative adverse effects. 

2030 Plus Project (Terminating at Central Station B) – Adverse Effects

The addition of traffic generated by the Preferred Alternative to 2030 baseline conditions 

would result in failing LOS operations at three study intersections: Flamingo Road/Hotel 

Rio Drive, Flamingo Road at I-15 northbound ramps, and Hotel Rio Drive/Dean Martin 

Drive. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-16

In 2030, the Preferred Alternative would contribute to cumulative adverse effects at the 

West Tropicana Avenue/Dean Martin Drive and Tropicana Avenue/I-15 northbound 

ramps intersections. 

Safety Analysis 

FHWA identified potential risks to freeway traffic created by locating DesertXpress within 

the I-15 ROW. Existing freeway conditions were considered, as well as other planned and 

programmed transportation improvement projects, and compared to the proposed 

alignment of the high speed passenger railroad. 

Traffic accident history was reviewed, using data supplied by both Caltrans and NDOT, to 

determine if there were any locations where the proposed alignment of the railroad posed 

a greater safety risk to users of the freeway. It was recognized that I-15 is a heavily 

traveled rural route for much of the DesertXpress alignment, with traffic accident patterns 

that will continue with or without the proposed project. The traffic accident history 

generally reflected run-off-road crashes typical of rural interstates, but also include 

congestion-related crashes from the peak travel demand in this corridor. Similar issues 

were found in the urban portions, where more congestion-related crashes occur. The 

safety analysis was therefore concerned with the changes resulting from the project. 

As shown in Highway Interface Manual developed for the project (Appendix F-B), plans 

for the Preferred Alternative show a concrete barrier, and at some locations, a wall 

between the railroad and the freeway. At locations where the alignment of the railroad is 

elevated, the aerial structures include bridge piers. These facilities would be new obstacles 

on the roadside and present a potential increase in the severity of run-off-road crashes. 

They may also obstruct drivers’ sight distances, thus reducing the amount of time drivers 

have to perceive and react to changing roadway conditions. The presence of trains 

running in the highway right-of-way, and especially the train lights, could become a visual 

distraction for motorists where none exist today. 

Clear Zone 

The highway engineering concept of the “clear zone” was used in this analysis. The term 

clear zone refers to the distance between the edge of the travel lane and any obstacles, 

including steep slopes, and reflects actual paths should a vehicle leave the roadway. Most 

drivers are able to regain control within the clear zone and avoid any obstacles beyond it. 

Risks associated with run-off-road crashes are significantly reduced when the width of the 

clear zone increases, with a 30 foot clear zone often expected on freeways. A more 

conservative value of 40 feet was used for the DesertXpress review that recognized the 

high speeds of traffic in this corridor. It was the consensus of the highway agencies that in 

locations where the DesertXpress facilities were more than 40 feet from an existing or 

planned highway travel lane the potential increase in safety risk was considered negligible. 

For locations where the DesertXpress facilities are within 40 feet, crash data were 

reviewed to identify clusters of crashes that would indicate areas where the alignment of 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-17

the railroad poses a greater safety risk to users of the Interstate. These locations are 

shown in Table F-3.5-6, and were subject to site-specific discussions that considered the 

contributing factors of the crashes and evaluated options. 

Table F-3.5-6 Areas along I-15 with less than 40-foot-width Clearance 

Location Description Stationing Approximate 

Post-Mile

Length Segment

Begin End Begin End Feet Mile

California

3 Dale Evans Pkwy. 

(North) STA 730+00 STA 794+00 52.7 54.0 6,400 1.21 Segment 1

5 Wild Wash Rd. 

(South) STA 816+00 STA 832+00 54.4 54.7 1,600 0.30 Segment 1

8 Wild Wash Rd. 

(North) STA 906+00 STA 928+00 56.1 56.5 2,200 0.42 Segment 1

17 End of Segment 2C STA 2070+00 STA 2090+60 78.1 78.5 2,060 0.39 Segment 2

18 End of Segment 2C STA 2240+00 STA 2264+00 78.5 79.0 2,400 0.45 Segment 2

30 Harvard Rd. to 

Field Rd. STA 3204+00 STA 3540+00 96.8 103.2 33,600 6.36 Segment 3

47 Zzyzx Rd. (West) STA 4930+00 STA 4948+00 129.5 129.9 1,800 0.34 Segment 3

51 Zzyzx Rd. (East) STA 5038+00 STA 5050+00 131.6 131.8 1,200 0.23 Segment 3

58 Baker Blvd. 

(overcrossing) STA 5412+00 STA 5420+00 138.6 138.8 800 0.15 Segment 3

60 Halloran Springs 

Rd. (East) STA 6006+00 STA 6016+00 149.9 150.1 1,000 0.19 Segment 3

66 Bailey Rd. (West) STA 6994+00 STA 7008+00 168.6 168.9 1,400 0.27 Segment 3

70 Bailey Rd. (West) STA 7092+00 STA 7122+00 170.5 171.0 3,000 0.57 Segment 3

72 Bailey Rd. (East) STA 7154+00 STA 7170+00 171.6 171.9 1,600 0.30 Segment 3

Nevada

83 West Silverado 

Ranch (South) STA 9470+00 STA 9597+00 214.6 217.0 12,700 2.41 Segment 6

Source: DesertXpress and FHWA 2011. 

The vast majority of the nearly 200-mile project alignment is beyond the 40-foot clear 

zone. However, a total length of 15.8 miles at various locations along the I-15 corridor 

would have less than 40’ of spacing between the freeway travel lanes and the DesertXpress 

barrier. In the five years of crash data collected for the corridor, 12 locations were 

identified where there were records of any run-off-the-road crashes. A total number of 65 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-18

run-off-the road crashes occurred at those locations during that time period. Of those 65 

crashes, 19 resulted in an impact with a fixed object, and 35 resulted in an overturned 

vehicle. 

Each site was considered individually to identify patterns or clusters of crashes and 

features of the highway that, when combined with the proposed DesertXpress project, may 

increase the safety risk on the I-15 corridor. At locations where there were increased 

numbers of run-off-the-road crashes, it was determined that DesertXpress cross-section 

could be narrowed or shifted to provide some additional space between the freeway and 

barrier. It was determined that the safety risk at other locations could be appropriately 

mitigated with various measures to be determined through coordination during the design 

phase (See Mitigation Measure TRAF-4). These potential measures include: 

Installing rumble strips on the I-15 shoulder 

Installing delineators on the barrier or along roadside 

Wider lane or shoulder striping 

The design guidelines and standards for these measures are outlined further in a project 

Highway Interface Manual included in Appendix F-B. 

In addition to the clear zone analysis for the permanent facilities, the highway agencies 

had concerns for the temporary reduction in both horizontal and vertical clearances 

during the construction phase of the project. These reductions are often seen in 

traditional highway construction projects. However, standard highway work area traffic 

control measures can be employed to protect both motorists and workers within the clear 

zone. Construction activity beyond the clear zone but within the freeway right-of-way 

would undergo similar review to assure highway safety would not be compromised. 

Clear zone requirements were also discussed for the maintenance and operations phases 

of the project, and during any emergencies. FRA and FHWA were concerned that the 

safety needs of the travelling public, both on the railroad and on the freeway, be of prime 

importance. Consideration of rail maintenance and operations on the highway will be part 

of the design review process, as well as the emergency plan development (see Mitigation 

Measure UTIL-7). 

Drivers’ Sight Distance

The possible reduction in drivers’ sight distance was investigated in the review of the 

Preferred Alternative. The additional preliminary design drawings were found not to 

reduce the widths of any existing or planned travel lanes or shoulders, producing no 

decrease in sight distances. The planned locations of barriers, walls and bridge piers 

beyond the edge of the shoulders are not likely to reduce the sight distance below the 

standards for the main lanes of the freeway. Bridge piers and walls may have an impact 

on sight distance for ramp intersections at some interchanges. Any DesertXpress aerial 

structures have the potential to restrict sight distance to highway signs, both overhead and 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-19

ground mounted. However, the final placement of any DesertXpress facilities will be 

determined during design and can be adjusted to provide adequate sight distance. No 

degradation in highway safety is anticipated. 

Visual Distraction 

The highway agencies’ concerns over the potential for visual distractions of drivers from 

the nearby high speed trains was initially raised due to the proximity of both modes in the 

median running alternative, which also had more encroachments within the clear zone. 

The side running option of the preferred alternative moves the modes further apart, 

lowering the potential for visual distractions. The relative speeds of the two modes was a 

concern as well, with trains expected to reach speeds of 150 miles per hour (mph), and 

highway traffic at 70 mph or higher. Highway traffic would therefore be passed at 80 

mph, and closing speeds could be over 220 mph. Daytime distractions could be evident 

for some drivers. At night, the presence of high speed train lights could be a distraction as 

well. FHWA’s discussions with the Applicant and FRA indicated that deployments of high 

speed rail systems have not resulted in a degradation of highway safety. However, to 

minimize the possibility of such an occurrence along I-15, it was agreed that visual 

screening be placed on the top of the barrier between the freeway and the railroad along 

corridor. Analysis during the design phase will determine the specific details for the 

screening and if there are locations where it may not be needed. 

The purpose for visual screening is to block the glare from headlights observed by drivers 

approaching from the opposite direction. The screens often have gaps or openings that 

only partially obstruct sight lines when viewed from the side. However, when viewed from 

an oblique angle, such as a driver would be looking ahead while driving, the screen blocks 

the view. Similarly, the screen blocks the light from traffic that is travelling parallel, or 

near parallel, to the screen. A solid fence or wall may also be used for screening; however, 

it would block all views from any angle and would be subject to wind loads. 

Various products have been used for this purpose in highway applications between 

opposing highway traffic. Examples include a series of paddles set on top of concrete 

barrier, and expanded metal mesh fence, as shown in Figure F-3.5-13. There are some 

unique characteristics of glare conditions with the DesertXpress project that will need 

verification during design. The position of train headlights is significantly higher than in 

highway vehicles. Therefore, the height of the screening will probably need to be 

increased to screen the glare of the train headlights. Additionally, the train follows a 

different vertical alignment than the freeway and is elevated in places. As such, there are 

locations where the elevated train would be travelling on a downgrade, allowing the train 

headlight to shine down over a screen into the eyes of a driver on the highway. These 

locations will have to be identified during design and the specifications for the screen will 

need to be tailored to the site conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-20

Section 3.6, Visual Resources, includes provisions for the installation of visual 

screening that would be placed on the top of the crash barriers to mitigate any potential 

visual distraction to motorists from the trains and train lights (see Mitigation Measure 

VIS-1). Installation of visual screening would avoid potential safety risks associated with 

the visual distraction of the passing trains. 

3.5.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.5-7 summarizes the comparison of traffic and transportation effects for the No 

Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred Alternative 

are highlighted in yellow. 

The action alternatives would involve the construction and operation of rail alignments 

and associated facilities similar to those described above under the Preferred Alternative. 

The greatest potential safety risks would be created by the barriers and overpasses 

associated with the rail alignments within the I-15 right-of-way. Given that the 

components of the action alternatives would occur largely in the same area as the 

Preferred Alternative, safety impacts associated with the rail alignments would be similar. 

Victorville Station Area 

All three station site options (VV1, VV2, and VV3) would result in local intersection 

impacts (unacceptable level of service) under 2030 plus project conditions. In general, 

these impacts can be mitigated by adding signalization and/or adding lanes to the 

intersection approaches. Table F-3.5-8 summarizes the mitigation measures 

recommended for VV3 station option under the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, for VV2, 

Section 3.5.5 of the Draft EIS included mitigation measures to reduce intersection 

impacts at year 2030 to less than significant conditions. 

However, under the VV1 station option, implementation of the mitigation measures 

developed as part of the Draft EIS would not reduce the 2030 traffic impacts at the 

Stoddard Road intersections to less than significant conditions. 

Las Vegas Station Area 

The traffic impacts of the Las Vegas Station (Southern Station or Central Station B) on 

surrounding streets are generally similar to those of Central Station A and the Downtown 

station alternative, in that all stations would result in several intersections surrounding 

the stations operating at unacceptable LOS under 2030 traffic conditions. However, for 

all Las Vegas station site options, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce 

the impacts so that all intersections surrounding the station areas would operate at 

acceptable LOS under 2030 traffic conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-21

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

Alternative

Result in substantial traffic increases:

Freeway Mainlines Station Area Intersections

No Action Alternative LOS would degrade from D to F 

between Victorville and I-40 None expected

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, and 

Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Between Victorville and I-40, traffic 

reduction associated with either 

technology option would reduce 

freeway volumes and positively 

affect LOS

N/A

Segment 1

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 

Segment 2C 

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 

Segment 3B 

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 

Segment 4B 

Segment 4C 

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 

Segment 5B 

Segment 6 

Segment 6A 

Segment 6B 

Segment 6C 

Segment 7 

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

Segment 7C
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-22

Alternative

Result in substantial traffic increases:

Freeway Mainlines Station Area Intersections

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 

Between Victorville and I-40, traffic 

reduction associated with either 

technology option would reduce 

freeway volumes and positively 

affect LOS

Delays would worsen at 4 

intersections (EMU and DEMU)

Victorville Station Site 2

Delays would worsen at 2 

intersections (EMU) 

Delays would worsen at 1 

intersections (DEMU)

Victorville Station Site 3

Delays would worsen at 3 

intersections (EMU) 

Delays would worsen at 5 

intersections (DEMU)

Victorville OMSF 1 Same as VV1

Victorville OMSF 2 Same as VV2

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station

Between Victorville and I-40, traffic 

reduction associated with either 

DEMU or EMU levels of traffic 

would reduce freeway volumes 

and positively affect LOS

Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 2 intersections 

and contribute to failing LOS at 

others

Las Vegas Central Station A

Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 3-4 

intersections depending on the 

technology option and 

contribute to failing LOS at 

others

Las Vegas Central Station B

Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 2 intersections 

and contribute to failing LOS at 

others

Las Vegas Downtown Station

Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 1 intersection 

and contribute to failing LOS at 

others

Sloan Road MSF3n/a n/a

Relocated Sloan Road MSF n/a n/a

Wigwam Avenue MSF n/a n/a

 

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

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

completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-23

Alternative

Result in substantial traffic increases:

Freeway Mainlines Station Area Intersections

Robindale Avenue MSF n/a n/a

Frias Substation n/a n/a

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility n/a n/a

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit) Up to 1100 vehicles/hour in peak 

hours by 2030

At least 2 California interactions 

plus at least 24 Nevada 

intersections would degrade in 

service

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) Up to 1400 vehicles/hour during 

peak hours by 2030

At least 3 California interactions 

plus at least 28 Nevada 

intersections would degrade in 

service

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

3.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The traffic analysis indicates that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would 

result in a reduction in traffic on I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas, when compared 

to the No Action Alternative. As a result, the Preferred Alternative would result in a 

beneficial effect on I-15 mainline traffic volumes. No mitigation is required. 

In the areas around the proposed stations, the Preferred Alternative would result in higher 

traffic volumes at local intersections. In general, these higher volumes can be mitigated by 

adding signalization and/or adding lanes to the intersection approaches. Table F-3.5-8

summarizes the mitigation measures recommended for Victorville and Las Vegas Station 

areas. Mitigation for impacts at ramp junctions near the Victorville station area are the 

same as the mitigation listed for the Victorville site option intersections. The Applicant 

shall be required to contribute to these mitigation measures equal to their fair-share of the 

adverse effect associated with the Preferred Alternative, as determined by the appropriate 

jurisdictional authority. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-24

Table F-3.5-8 Preferred Alternative Traffic Mitigations 

Station Site Option Intersection 2013 2030

Mitigation TRAF-1: 

Victorville Station 

Site Option 3

The Project 

Applicant shall be 

responsible to 

contribute to these 

mitigations equal to 

their fair-share of the 

adverse effect as 

determined by the 

appropriate

jurisdictional 

authority. 

1. I-15 Northbound 

Ramps/Dale Evans 

Parkway

 Add two northbound left turn 

lanesa

 Add northbound left 

turn lanea

2. I-15 Southbound 

Ramps/Dale Evans 

Parkway

 Add eastbound right turn lane

 Add second westbound through 

lane

 Add westbound left turn lane

 Add second eastbound 

right turn lane

3. Station Access 

#1/Dale Evans

Parkway

 Signalize

 Add second westbound left turn 

lane

N/A

5. Future 

Street/Dale Evans 

Parkway

 Signalize

 Add second westbound left turn 

lane

 Add third westbound 

left turn lane

7. Future 

Street/Station 

Access #4

 Signalize N/A

Mitigation TRAF-2: 

Las Vegas 

Southern Station

The Project 

Applicant shall be 

responsible to 

contribute to these 

mitigations equal to 

their fair-share of the 

adverse effect as 

determined by the 

appropriate 

jurisdictional 

authority.

1. Tropicana/

Valley View

 Add exclusive southbound free 

right turn lane.

 Add exclusive 

westbound right turn 

lane.

 Add second 

southbound left turn 

lane.

2. Tropicana/Dean 

Martin DriveIndustrial

 Optimize signal offset along 

Tropicana

 Add fourth eastbound 

through lane.

 Add fourth westbound 

through lane.

3. Tropicana/I-15 

NB Ramps

N/A  Add second 

northbound right turn 

lane.

6. Hacienda/Polaris  Signalize this intersection. N/A

7. Hacienda/Valley 

View

N/A  Add second eastbound 

left turn lane.

 Add exclusive 

eastbound right turn 

lane.

 Add third eastbound 

through lane.

 Add exclusive 

westbound right turn 

lane.

 Add third westbound 

through lane.

 Add second 

northbound left turn 

lane.
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-25

Station Site Option Intersection 2013 2030

7. Hacienda/Valley 

View, continued.

 Add third northbound 

through lane.

8. Russell/Polaris  Add exclusive westbound right 

turn lane.

 Add exclusive northbound right 

turn lane.

 Add southbound dual left turn 

lanes.

 Add exclusive southbound right 

turn lane.

 Add third southbound 

left turn lane.

9. Russell/I-15 SB 

ramps

 Optimize signal offset along 

Russell Road

N/A

10. Russell/I-15 

NB ramps

N/A  Optimize signal offset 

along Russell Road.

Mitigation TRAF-3: 

Las Vegas Central 

Station B

The Project 

Applicant shall be 

responsible to 

contribute to these 

mitigations equal to 

their fair-share of the 

adverse effect as 

determined by the 

appropriate 

jurisdictional 

authority.

1. W. Flamingo 

Road/Hotel Rio 

Drive

 Add fourth eastbound through 

lane.

 Add second westbound left turn 

lane.

 Add fourth westbound through 

lane.

 Add second northbound right turn 

lane.

 Stripe existing 

northbound through 

lane as a share 

through/right turn lane.

3. W. Flamingo/I-15 

NB ramps

N/A  Add fourth westbound 

through lane.

4. Hotel Rio 

Drive/Dean Martin 

Drive

 Modify eastbound right turn to 

have overlap phasing.

 Add second 

northbound left turn 

lane.

7. W. Tropicana 

Avenue/Dean 

Martin Drive

 Add exclusive eastbound right 

turn lane.

 Add exclusive westbound right 

turn lane.

 Add exclusive northbound right 

turn lane.

 Add third southbound left turn 

lane.

 Add fourth eastbound 

through lane.

 Add fourth westbound 

through lane.

9. Tropicana 

Avenue/I-15 NB 

Ramp

N/A  Add second 

northbound right turn 

lane.

Source: AECOM. DesertXpress Traffic Impact Report—Victorville Station Location Option 3. April 2010. 

Note: The number of each improvement needed corresponds with the intersection numbers as discussed in the body of this 

section and in the referenced 2010 TIA. 

a

 The 2013 geometry at intersection 1 is assumed to be unsignalized (the same as existing geometry) and the 2013 

mitigation measure reflects what is needed to improve the intersection under these conditions. By 2030, the intersection 

geometry would change and the intersection is expected to be signalized with one left-turn lane and two through lanes. 

The 2030 mitigation reflects changes needed to the anticipated 2030 intersection geometry. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-26

Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: Conduct a Design Review within the 

Parameters Defined in the Highway Interface Manual 

The Applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, NDOT, and FHWA for the design 

review and approval of specific project components within the existing I-15 rightof-way. The design review shall be conducted within the parameters defined in the 

Highway Interface Manual (see Appendix F-B). The procedures for the design 

review shall be agreed to by the Applicant and transportation agencies in a 

separate agreement. 

The design review shall be used to determine the following: 

 Permanent placement of visual barriers from a motorist perspective; 

 Need for standard highway work area traffic control measures both within and 

beyond the clear zone; and 

 Appropriate protocols for access to the railroad from I-15, for operations, 

maintenance, or operations, and ensure meet codes. 

Project components within the I-15 right-of-way that require approval by the 

highway agencies for traffic safety, and to avoid vehicle intrusion into the railroad 

right-of-way, include the following: 

 Clear zone modifications

 Barriers 

 Bridges and tunnels 

 Vertical clearance

 Retaining walls

 Drainage

 Median crossings

 Sight distance

 Security plans 

 Fencing

 Visual screening

 Locked-gate access

 Temporary construction access

 Freeway interchanges or ramps and 

modifications

 Signing and striping

 Emergency preparedness plans

3.5.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The mitigation measures identified in Table F-3.5-7 would reduce the delay at the 

affected intersections so that the LOS would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or 

better) at all intersections. Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 would reduce any potential 

transportation safety impacts. Therefore, all potential traffic and transportation effects 

can be successfully reduced through the implementation of the mitigation measures. No 

residual impacts from the project are anticipated after implementation of mitigation. 
* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to include

 turning movement volumes at intersections surrounding VV3 station site for year 2013.

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.5-3:

Future Year 2013 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volume, Victorville Station (VV3)

Source: AECOM, 2009

F-3.5-1

2

3

4

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Access #5

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

Future Road

5

Station

Access #4

Station

1

NOTES:

Station Accesses at intersections #3, #4, #6, #7 and #8

exist under project conditions only. 

DALE EVANS

PARKWAY

N

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 NB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 SB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Future Road

Access # 3

Future Road

Access # 4

Future Road

5 # sseccA

Future Road

995

237

87

701

128

0

176

504

115

456

0

334

356

188

29

17

458

3

27

69 98

138

337

4

185

92

55

0

0

76

0

0

921

9

0

19 14

509

0

12

620

80

28

0

57 46

418

0

41

487

110

73

250

81

333

833

0

95

0

79

618

501

534

0

0

400
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.5-4

Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volume, Victorville Station (VV3)

Source: AECOM, 2010.

F-3.5-2

2

3

4

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Access #5

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 3

Future Road

5

Station

Access #4

Station

1

NOTES:

Station Accesses at intersections #3, #4, #6, #7 and #8

exist under project conditions only. 

DALE EVANS

PARKWAY

N

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 NB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 SB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Future Road

Access # 3

Future Road

Access # 4

Future Road

5 # sseccA

Future Road

1210

616

321

1149

446

0

318

1040

115

1287

0

1754

1867

188

153

89

17

798

141

363 515

722

662

20

969

485

55

0

0

76

0

0

921

48

0

99 71

1796

0

65

1986

80

145

0

297 239

1644

0

216

1758

110

176

538

266

668

993

0

427

0

79

1154

501

1365

0

0

400

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to include

 turning movement volumes at intersections surrounding VV3 station site for year 2030.
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Freeway Sections Evaluated

Source: DMJM Harris, 2008.

F-3.5-3

Future Year 2030 Lane Configuration

Number of lanes in each direction
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Trip Distribution

Victorville Station (VV3)

Source: AECOM, 2009.

F-3.5-4

VICTORVILLE 

STATION

(VV3)
South Geometry rev1.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

VALLEY VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

AUDRIE ST

KOVAL LN

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

KNARF

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH CENTURY

PARK

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

Las Vegas

Station

(Southern 

Station)

1 2 3

4

7 6 5

8 9 10

11

Tropicana Av

1

Valley View Bl

160’

130’

170’

100’

600’

190’

190’

175’

175’

175’

Tropicana Av

2

Dean Martin Dr

230’

230’

140’

100’

155’

155’

Tropicana Av

470’

470’

110’

600’

600’

3

I-15 NB Ramps

Aldebaran

4

Dean Martin Dr

Hacienda Av

5

Aldebaran

Hacienda Av

6

Polaris Av

115’

75’

115’

115’

80’

80’

Hacienda Av

7

Valley View Bl

Russell Rd

115’

175’

150’

8

Polaris Av

160’

560’ 250’

250’

360’

360’

Russell Rd

160’

9

I-15 SB Ramps

230’

230’

Russell Rd

10

I-15 NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

11

SB Ramps

700’

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Existing Intersection Geometry

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) F-3.5-5

Source: AECOM, 2011.
South Study Trip Distribution.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

VALLEY VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

AUDRIE ST

KOVAL LN

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

KNARF

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH CENTURY

PARK

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

10%

10%

15%

(I-15)

(I-15)

10%

5%

5%

10%

25%

10%

Las Vegas

Station

(Southern 

Station)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) Trip Distribution F-3.5-6

Source: AECOM, 2011.
South Geometry rev1.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

VALLEY VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD WYNN RD

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

B SAGEV SAL LVD

RD NITRAM NAED

KNARF

KNARF

SINA RD ART

SINA RD ART

ELUOB SAGEV SAL V S DRA

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH YRUTNEC

PARK

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

1 2 3

4

7 6 5

8 9 10

11

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

Tropicana Av

3

I-15 NB Ramps

Aldebaran

4

Dean Martin Dr

Russell Rd

8

Polaris Av

Russell Rd

9

I-15 SB Ramps

Russell Rd

10

I-15 NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

11

SB Ramps

Hacienda Av

7

Valley View Bl

Hacienda Av

6

Polaris Av

Hacienda Av

5

Aldebaran

Tropicana Av

2

Dean Martin Dr

Tropicana Av

1

Valley View Bl

407

2066

430

1666

766

1369

627

583

1813

1489 270

50

59

571

51

109

456

1307

4

57

94

12

56

1611

4

62

1324

37

169

1782

63

278

467

216

342

443

287

196

1845

125

45

1714

290

278

111

556

226

190

464

379

445

31

123

1052

32

56727

116

909

40

91

4

838

199

204

904

190

119694

193

801

128

284

145

1792

89

37

1711

457

7596

141

215

99

134

653

1073

1679

337

661

428

1744

1333

1573

636

832

16

428

219

Las Vegas

Station

(Southern 

Station)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Future Year 2013 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station) F-3.5-7

Source: AECOM, 2011.
South Geometry rev1.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

VALLEY VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD WYNN RD

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

B SAGEV SAL LVD

RD NITRAM NAED

KNARF

KNARF

SINA RD ART

SINA RD ART

ELUOB SAGEV SAL V S DRA

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH YRUTNEC

PARK

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

1 2 3

4

7 6 5

8 9 10

11

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

Tropicana Av

3

I-15 NB Ramps

Aldebaran

4

Dean Martin Dr

Russell Rd

8

Polaris Av

Russell Rd

9

I-15 SB Ramps

Russell Rd

10

I-15 NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

11

SB Ramps

Hacienda Av

7

Valley View Bl

Hacienda Av

6

Polaris Av

Hacienda Av

5

Aldebaran

Tropicana Av

2

Dean Martin Dr

Tropicana Av

1

Valley View Bl

449

2275

532

2060

047

1351

2101

1725 436

619

942

58

69

726

65

115

506

1438

6

110

57

14

71

1996

6

83

1121

32

143

1801

64

281

505

237

375

1320

856

585

1939

131

47

1941

329

308

141

664

266

211

503

421

572

39

142

1403

43

58532

123

920

47

96

5

2614

620

637

1205

228

158907

276

351

142

315

154

2107

95

43

1926

464

84

166

103

253

103

144

687

1235

1921

421

857

567

2094

1472

1985

832

921

21

586

258

Las Vegas

Station

(Southern 

Station)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station)

Source: AECOM, 2011.

F-3.5-8
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Existing Intersection Geometry

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) F-3.5-9

Source: AECOM, 2011.

Las Vegas

Station

(Central

Station B)
Las Vegas

Station

(Central

Station B)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Trip Distribution

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) F-3.5-10

Source: AECOM, 2011.
C YRTNUOC L BU P DARA

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

P

P

A

IND

E

O

15

HIGHLAND RD

CINDER LN

W. VIKING RD

W. TWAIN AV

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR RIO

E. FLAMINGO RD

S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

VIEW BLVD

VA ADI

VA KCINNIW

VA TREBLA

VA SDNAS

HUGHES

HOWARD

DEAN MARTIN DR

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

VA NOMRAH

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH SIRALOP AV NARABEDLA AV

SSENISUB

NL

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

Y VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

B SAGEV SAL LVD

NITRAM NAED

KNARF

SINATRA

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

Central Volumes - Alt 2.ai

1

4

2 3

5 10

6 7 8 9

ROCHELLE AV

ARVILLE ST

MANHATT TS NA

9

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

W. Harmon Av

10

Aldebaran Av driveway

Flamingo Rd

3

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

8

SB Ramps

Flamingo Rd

2

SB Ramps

Tropicana Av

7

Dean Martin Dr

Tropicana Av

6

Polaris Av

W. Harmon Av

5

Polaris Av

W. Flamingo Rd

1

Hotel Rio Dr

Hotel Rio Dr

4

Dean Martin Dr

1908

111

303

2018

395

52151

404

949

157

48

404

34

11

21

84

17

31314

6

91

12

304

59

1818

114

30

1984

336

50

45

15

63

139

24

317

1998

125

45

1771

461

222

111

954

941

190

427

764

711

180

588

945

404

790

21

116

6

20

246

1020

6

12

93

14

477

807

2535

455

633

2341

2363

2265

668 577

760

572

483

2450

430

610

2120

1831

2142

1479 384

550

583

Las Vegas

Station

(Central

Station B)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Future Year 2013 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) F-3.5-11

Source: AECOM, 2011.
C YRTNUOC L BU P IDARA

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

P

P

AL

IND

E

O

15

HIGHLAND RD

CINDER LN

W. VIKING RD

W. TWAIN AV

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR RIO

E. FLAMINGO RD

S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

VIEW BLVD

VA ADI

VA KCINNIW

VA TREBLA

VA SDNAS

HUGHES

HOWARD

DEAN MARTIN DR

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

VA NOMRAH

VA NOMRAH VA NOMRAH SIRALOP AV NARABEDLA AV

SSENISUB

NL

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

Y VIEW BLVD

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOV NL LA

TS EIRDUA

B SAGEV SAL LVD

NITRAM NAED

KNARF

SINATRA

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

Central Volumes - Alt 2.ai

1

4

2 3

5 10

6 7 8 9

ROCHELLE AV

ARVILLE ST

MANHATT TS NA

9

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

W. Harmon Av

10

Aldebaran Av driveway

Flamingo Rd

3

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

8

SB Ramps

Flamingo Rd

2

SB Ramps

Tropicana Av

7

Dean Martin Dr

Tropicana Av

6

Polaris Av

W. Harmon Av

5

Polaris Av

W. Flamingo Rd

1

Hotel Rio Dr

Hotel Rio Dr

4

Dean Martin Dr

1796

105

288

2064

404

52253

421

962

145

45

375

847

2642

515

563

2606

2468

2489

746 835

793

828

696

167

604

995

522

1004

40

13

25

86

20

36319

8

106

14

317

69

1911

117

32

2248

343

57

53

18

74

149

28

345

2093

131

47

1998

499

251

141

765

981

211

466

805

526

2659

532

683

2515

1812

2387

1681 550

542

942

25

135

8

24

250

1124

8

14

96

16

480

Las Vegas

Station

(Central

Station B)

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry and Turning Volumes

Las Vegas Station (Central Station B) F-3.5-12

Source: AECOM, 2011.
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Examples of Visual Screening

Source: Gulf Industries, Inc, 2011; Steellong, 2011.

F-3.5-13

Paddle Screen

Expanded Metal Mesh
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.5-40

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-1 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

This section describes updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential visual impacts 

associated with the Preferred Alternative in comparison with the No Action and other 

Action Alternative and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.6.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

Section 4.3, Response to Public and Agency Comment on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to visual quality impacts and provides responses to those 

comments. Several comments resulted in changes to the visual analysis in the EIS and are 

discussed below. Substantive updates and changes in response to comments on the Draft 

and Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.6.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.6.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.6.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for visual quality and visual resources for the DesertXpress 

project. 

Since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there has been no change 

to the affected environment regarding visual resources. The urban, built-up visual 

elements remain concentrated within Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, Sloan, and the 

metropolitan Las Vegas area. The portions between these urbanized areas are primarily 

characterized by undeveloped lands with low lying shrubs and desert soils and the I-15 

transportation corridor. The affected environment discussion from these previous 

documents remains applicable to this Final EIS and the Preferred Alternative. 

3.6.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment related to visual resources for the DesertXpress project is 

described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.6.1. 

Comments S-328 and S-330 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that the EIS include 

a discussion of the NDOT Landscape and Aesthetics Master Plan (LAMP). To address 

these comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.6.1.5 to include a discussion 

of the LAMP as follows: 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Landscape and Aesthetics 

Master Plan

The Nevada Department of Transportation adopted the Landscape and 

Aesthetics Master Plan (LAMP) in June 2002. The LAMP seeks to 

establish a landscape and aesthetics program for the Nevada state 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-2 

highway system to provide aesthetically pleasing highways that are safe 

and cost effective. 

The LAMP also includes planning guidelines related to urban freeways, 

city streets, rural highways, open spaces, rest areas, gateways, and 

transportation art. Aesthetic guidelines for urban freeways include 

guidelines related to slope treatments, bridges and interchanges, and 

sound walls and retaining walls. The aesthetic guidelines for rural 

highways include, but are not limited to, incorporating the roadway 

into the curves and hills of the land, blending cut-and-fill slopes, using 

earth toned design coloring, and maintaining natural vegetation. The 

aesthetic guidelines also seek to protect the high visual sensitivity of 

designated scenic byways within rural settings.

Funding issues and revenue sources associated with landscape and 

aesthetic treatments are also presented. NDOT requires that three 

percent of the total project construction cost on new construction and 

capacity improvements be allocated to landscape and aesthetic 

treatments, with NDOT funding the consultant cost for landscape and 

design.

3.6.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Several comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS resulted in changes to the 

visual analysis in the EIS and are discussed below. 

Comment 440 on the Draft EIS requested that the reference to Segment 2A as the 

preferred action alternative should be deleted since a preferred action alternative was not 

identified at the time of publication of the Draft EIS. To address this comment, this Final 

EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.6.2.2 under the heading Segments 2A/2B, paragraph 4 

as follows: 

Segments 2A and 2B would diverge about 1⁄4-mile west of Fort Irwin Road. 

Segment 2A (the preferred action alternative within segment 2) would traverse a 

generally flat desert region with sparse vegetation, including an area where several 

alluvial fans converge. This area has patches of rural residential development, 

including buildings, billboards/signs, and utility lines.1 This area has a moderate 

visual sensitivity, particularly in undeveloped portions. 

 

1

 Detailed information on land use can be found in Section 3.1, Land Use and Community Impacts, of 

this Final EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-3 

Comment S-329 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested a revision to the description of 

the location of the Segment 6B rail alignment with AAA 8 to clarify that the rail alignment 

would not be immediately adjacent to the I-15 mainlines. To address this comment, this 

Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.6.3, under the heading “Alignment 

Adjustment Areas” and the subheading “Evaluation under BLM Criteria,” paragraph 1 as 

follows: 

Portions of AAA 8 Within I-15 Freeway Corridor: Although 

implementation of AAA 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B to the west, much of 

the rail alignment would remain within the existing I-15 freeway corridor. The 

rail alignment would be located at the westernmost edge within the I-15 

ROW. (immediately adjacent to I-15 southbound travel lanes). The rail 

alignment shift in this area would not result in new visual effects beyond those 

previously considered for Segment 6B in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Although passing trains in this area would temporarily block views from the 

freeway, this effect would be temporary and AAA 8 would not dominate views for 

motorists on I-15. Since greater visual change is allowed by BLM Class IV lands, 

the portions of AAA 8 within the I-15 freeway corridor would not be inconsistent 

with the existing urban visual landscape. 

In response to comments from the Cooperating Agencies, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.6.5, Mitigation Measures VIS-1 and VIS-6 to provide additional clarifying 

text as follows: 

Mitigation Measure VIS-1: Rail Features 

Rail features, including pillars, raised tracks, trains, catenary structures, crash 

barriers, and embankments, shall be designed to blend with or represent the 

surrounding desert environment. Features shall be created in muted desert colors. 

Bright colors and highly reflective materials shall be avoided. Rail features defined 

in the design-build process shall include visual elements, which create a sense of 

place and a memorable experience for both motorists and pedestrians. Concrete 

shall be embossed with symbols or patterns, where appropriate, which create a 

visual link between rail features and the surrounding communities and/or the nonurbanized landscape. Visual screening shall be placed on the top of the 

crash barriers along the entire project corridor to mitigate any 

potential visual distraction to motorists from the trains and train 

lights. Analysis during the design-build process shall determine the 

specific details for the screening and if there are locations where it may 

not be needed. The design of rail features in the I-15 freeway ROW shall be 

reviewed by Caltrans or NDOT as appropriate. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-4 

Mitigation Measure VIS-6: Educational Displays 

Within California, the Applicant shall Pprovide interpretive displays and 

artwork in station pedestrian areas in order to create a coherent pedestrian 

landscape and sense of place. Such displays shall be consistent with the Desert 

Managers Group’s Caltrans Safety Roadside Rest Stop Interpretive Exhibit Design.

To further address Comments S-328 and S-330 on the Supplemental Draft EIS regarding 

the NDOT LAMP, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.6.5.2 as follows to 

incorporate additional requirements to the freeway landscaping mitigation: 

Mitigation Measure VIS-10: Freeway Landscaping 

The Applicant shall replace landscaping that will be removed during construction 

as directed by Caltrans or NDOT as appropriate. Landscaping in Nevada along the 

I-15 freeway shall follow NDOT’s I-15 Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan, 

2005. Replacement landscaping shall occur in the median, along the shoulder, and 

in other ROW areas along the I-15 freeway, as appropriate within six months of the 

completion of construction. In accordance with the NDOT LAMP, up to 

three percent of the total construction cost of the DesertXpress project

may be allocated to landscape and aesthetic treatments, with NDOT 

funding the consultant cost for landscape and design.

3.6.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.6.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The same methodology used in Draft EIS Section 3.6.3 remains applicable to this Final 

EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. This methodology sets forth a 

comparison of existing visual character to conditions following implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative. The same blended methodological approach of incorporating key 

aspects of BLM and FHWA visual guidance documents and regulations is utilized. FRA, 

FHWA, and BLM identify the visual quality and sensitivity of visual landscapes using 

ratings of low, medium (or moderate), and high. Figures F-3.6-1 through F-3.6-5 show 

the visual quality and sensitivity surrounding the Preferred Alternative. 

The BLM also established visual management land classifications, using ratings of Class I 

through Class IV. Class I and II lands are relatively undisturbed and have vistas towards 

undeveloped natural areas. The objective of these classes of lands is to preserve and retain 

the existing visual character of the landscape. Class III lands include areas with 

established transportation corridors, but which look out onto landscaped area with 

moderate to low visual disruption. The objective of this class is to partially retain the 

existing character of the landscape. Class IV lands represent visually disturbed areas and 

look out onto other visually disturbed areas. The objective of this class is to provide for 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-5 

management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the 

landscape. Intrusion into Class I and II lands would generally be considered to result in 

adverse visual effects. 

The BLM also established a number of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

throughout the desert region.2

 Refer to Draft EIS Section 3.6.2.1 for more information 

on ACEC. The BLM considers Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) to also be an 

ACEC. Visual intrusions into an ACEC would generally be considered to result in adverse 

visual effects. 

The FHWA assesses visual impacts by considering the vividness, intactness, and unity of 

the landscape. Vividness refers to the memorability of the visual impression received from 

contrasting landscaped elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual 

pattern. Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape, 

especially as it relates to intrusive encroachment. Unity is the degree to which the visual 

resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. 

The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the severity of resource 

changes with the degree to which people are likely to oppose the change. Intrusions into 

areas of high vividness, intactness, and/or unity would generally be considered to result in 

adverse visual effects, depending on the extent of available viewer duration. 

The area of analysis for effects related to visual quality and resources includes the 

available viewshed, or the visible environment, surrounding the Preferred Alternative. 

The visual evaluation of the Preferred Alternative considers views from the proposed rail 

alignment and station and maintenance facilities as well as from publicly accessible 

viewpoints toward these project features. The available viewsheds from any given 

viewpoint depend on the surrounding topography and existing level of development. In 

flat, undeveloped areas, the viewshed is typically larger than the available viewshed in a 

dense urban environment with existing buildings or an area with substantial changes in 

topography, such as hills or mountains. 

FRA selected multiple key viewpoints for visual representation in this Final EIS based on 

BLM and FHWA guidance. The key viewpoints were selected to reflect a variety of 

criteria, including different project segments, population centers, known areas of visual 

sensitivity, and locations where stations or maintenance facilities are proposed. The key 

viewpoints illustrate the existing visual conditions in the specific viewshed. Key 

viewpoints were selected based on the public accessibility of the viewpoint, angle of 

observation, number of viewers, length of time the project is in view, relative project size, 

season of use, and light conditions. Visual simulations were prepared for the key 

viewpoints to provide a comparison of the visual features before and after construction of 

 

2 The BLM’s West Mojave Plan established Areas of Critical Environmental Concern as a land use overlay 

designation indicating the presence of one or more sensitive resources. ACEC are designated to protect 

biological, cultural, and scenic resources. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-6 

the DesertXpress project. The visual simulations depict the relative scale and extent of the 

project from the available viewshed. The key viewpoints and visual simulations are used 

to evaluate potential changes to color, line, form, and the texture of the viewshed. 

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no high-speed passenger railroad would be constructed 

and operated and, therefore, no rail infrastructure and associated facilities would be built. 

The No Action Alternative would include roadway widening/expansion projects. Section 

2.3.1 of this Final EIS provides a summary of these planned and programmed 

transportation improvements. All of these improvements would occur to accommodate 

future traffic volumes. Visual impacts from these transportation projects would occur in 

Victorville, Baker, and along the I-15 freeway in Nevada. However, little to no change is 

anticipated to occur along the majority of the alignment in California by 2030, as no 

freeway expansion is contemplated between Barstow and the California/Nevada state line. 

Since the Preferred Alternative includes all of the actions proposed under the No Action 

Alternative plus construction of the DesertXpress project, the No Action Alternative would 

result in the least amount of development. Overall, the visual impacts from the No Action 

Alternative would be less severe than the Preferred Alternative since the No Action 

Alternative would result in the least amount of visual change to the existing environment. 

3.6.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.6.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.6.3 each contain 

detailed analyses of visual quality effects by individual project component. The discussion 

below summarizes the aggregated visual effects for the components that comprise the 

Preferred Alternative. 

The analysis is divided into an evaluation of the visual effects outside of the existing urban 

areas crossed by the Preferred Alternative, such as Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, and 

metropolitan Las Vegas, and an analysis of the visual effects within these existing urban 

areas. 

Development of the Preferred Alternative would create a new rail alignment through a 

variety of existing landscapes, primarily within existing freeway corridors. Visual effects 

would vary depending on the existing visual quality and the design of the railway at any 

particular location (raised, at grade, or within retaining walls). At grade portions of the 

rail alignment would appear less visually dominant than raised track portions, but would 

include highly visible components such as crash barriers and graded areas along the side 

of the I-15 freeway. Since the rail alignment would be completely grade-separated, 

overpasses or underpasses would be constructed at intersections with existing roadways. 

Raised portions of track would be elevated on pillars or an embankment. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-7 

The Preferred Alternative train technology option would typically require 25-foot-tall 

catenary supports and overhead wiring along the entire rail alignment. The 25-foot-tall 

narrow, metallic catenary structures would stand out in color, pattern, and form from the 

surrounding landscape in undeveloped areas along the majority of the rail alignment, 

which are characterized by non-urbanized lands with low lying shrubs and desert soils and 

rolling dunes. In many areas the catenary structures would also decrease the vividness 

and intactness of existing views. These catenary features would be located primarily 

within the existing I-15 transportation corridor since the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would generally follow the existing I-15 freeway. These catenary features would 

present a developed and utilitarian visual element into the non-urbanized landscape 

outside existing urban areas. 

The Preferred Alternative would also include autotransformers along the rail corridor, as 

well as three substations.3 Autotransformers would include junction boxes, circuit 

breakers modules, and control buildings fit within a fenced area approximately 3,000 

square feet in size. Autotransformers would be located about every 10 miles along the rail 

alignment. Figures F-2-1 through F-2-5 show the approximate locations of the 

autotransformers. Appendix F-C shows the specific autotransformer locations. 

Autotransformers would include poles, wires, and cabinet-like control buildings 

immediately adjacent to the proposed rail alignment areas. Similar to the overhead 

catenary structures in areas outside of existing urban environments, the autotransformers 

have the potential to stand out from the surrounding non-urbanized lands and potentially 

decrease the vividness and intactness of existing views of low lying shrubs, desert soils, 

and rolling dunes. 

The Preferred Alternative would create a new viewer group of approximately four to five 

million train passengers per year. These new passengers would be considered a more 

sensitive viewer group than motorists since train passengers would not need to focus on 

driving, but could instead concentrate on views from the window. Train passengers would 

have very different views depending on their location in the train. Passengers on one side 

of the train would have views of the I-15 freeway in the foreground and the landscape in 

the background. Passengers on the other side of the train would have relatively 

uninterrupted views of the existing landscape, particularly when the rail alignment is 

outside of existing urban areas (i.e., Barstow, Baker, and Las Vegas). Any views from the 

I-15 freeway that would be altered, partially blocked, or degraded by development of the 

Preferred Alternative would be visible in their current condition from the train. Views 

from the train would be especially scenic where the alignment travels through the Clark 

Mountains. 

 

3

 Two substations would be incorporated with the Victorville OMSF and the Baker MOW. The third 

substation, the Frias Substation, would be located in the southern metropolitan Las Vegas area. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-8 

Outside Existing Urban Areas 

Motorists traveling on the I-15 freeway would be primary viewers of the Preferred 

Alternative in the non-urbanized areas outside of Barstow, Baker, and Las Vegas where 

the rail alignment would follow the existing I-15 freeway. Where the rail alignment would 

divert from the I-15 freeway, such as the area north of the Clark Mountains between 

Mountain Pass and the California/Nevada state line, readily accessible vantage points of 

the Preferred Alternative would be limited to views from the wilderness areas of the 

Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) to the west, from the air, or from the peaks of the 

Clark Mountains. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

The Preferred Alternative would reduce the vividness of the existing landscape in areas 

outside of existing urbanized areas. In areas where the rail alignment would be adjacent 

to the existing I-15 freeway, the concrete barriers, trackway, bridges, overpasses, 

underpasses, and passing trains would detract from the vividness, intactness, and unity of 

views from the I-15 freeway towards the non-urbanized lands with low lying shrubs, desert 

soils, and rolling hills. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be visible to 

motorists traveling in either direction on the I-15 freeway and would decrease the visual 

quality in these undeveloped areas. The overhead catenary features and fencing structures 

would hinder views of the existing low lying shrubs, desert soils, dunes, and distant 

mountains. However, since the majority of these views would remain relatively 

unobstructed when a train is not present, the overall visual quality rating for the 

undeveloped portions of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would remain moderate. 

In the vicinity of the I-15 freeway/Halloran Springs interchange the rail alignment would 

cross over the I-15 freeway as it transitions from the north side to the south side of the 

freeway. The rail alignment would then be depressed about 10 feet below grade for a 

distance of about 1⁄2-mile. As the rail alignment heads east it would then cross back under 

the I-15 freeway to the north side in an open retained cut in the vicinity of the I-15 

freeway/Halloran Summit interchange. While the rail alignment would be visible as it 

crosses over the I-15 freeway in this area, it would quickly become less visible when it 

would be located in a depressed or retained cut configuration. Associated trackway would 

not be highly visible to motorists traveling on the I-15 freeway with only the walls and 

upper portions of the overhead catenary features being visible to motorists on the I-15 

freeway. Views towards the distant mountains to the north and west would remain 

unchanged and highly vivid. As a result the existing visual quality in the Halloran Springs 

to Halloran Summit area would remain moderate. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not generally be visible to motorists 

traveling on the I-15 freeway in areas where the rail alignment would deviate from the I-15 

freeway through the Clark Mountains, just north of Mountain Pass to the 

California/Nevada state line. The northern portions of this segment of the Preferred 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-9 

Alterative rail alignment (Segment 4C) would be visible to motorists on the I-15 freeway, 

as the rail alignment would approach the I-15 freeway corridor near the California/Nevada 

state line. The rail alignment could also be seen from wilderness areas of the Preserve to 

the west, from aerial views, or from the peaks of the Clark Mountains. Views of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment from these locations would be seen in the distant 

background and the rail alignment would be a distinctly subordinate visual feature in the 

overall landscape. Regardless, the intactness, unity, and vividness of the existing 

environment would be slightly diminished due to the placement of a rail alignment in a 

generally undeveloped area within proximity to the Preserve, thereby reducing the existing 

high quality visual environment to a moderate visual environment, representing an 

adverse effect. According to the NPS, this portion of the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would negatively affect the Preserve’s scenery, aesthetic, and wilderness 

values.4

The Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) and OMSF (OMSF 2) would reduce the vividness of 

the existing non-urbanized landscape visible to the west from the I-15 freeway. Figure F3.6-6 shows a visual comparison of the existing Victorville Station site and the conceptual 

development of the Victorville Station. The facilities would not result in a change to the 

already low unity of the visual environment due to the presence of the overhead electric 

transmission lines and adjacent I-15 freeway transportation corridor. However, the 

associated light and glare would result in a less intact desert setting, thereby decreasing 

the intactness of the existing setting. Due to the brief viewer duration from motorists on 

the I-15 freeway, visual effects from lighting would not be considered adverse.

Evaluation under BLM Criteria

The rail trackway, concrete pillars, and trains associated with the Preferred Alternative 

would contrast with the form, color, and texture of the open desert areas and hillsides 

within the undeveloped areas surrounding the project area. The majority of these lands 

are also designated as BLM Class II and III lands, which intend to retain the existing 

character of the landscape. BLM Class I lands are also present on portions of the Mojave 

National Preserve within close proximity to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

While these visual elements would attract attention, the Preferred Alternative would not 

dominate the landscape due to its small size relative to the non-urbanized landscape. 

In areas where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be located adjacent to the 

existing I-15 freeway, the I-15 freeway already creates a substantial contrast in the visual 

environment and the rail alignment would not constitute a substantially new visual feature 

within the existing landscape. The Preferred Alternative would maintain the intended 

purpose of the I-15 freeway as a transportation corridor. Passing trains would briefly 

 

4 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The DesertXpress High-Speed Train and the Mojave 

National Preserve Memorandum. February 9, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-10

block views from the I-15 freeway; however, this view blockage would be for only short 

durations due to the expected train frequency and speeds, resulting in a minor effect on 

views from the I-15 freeway. 

Portions of the trackway, passing trains, and roadway overcrossings near the Preserve 

would be visible from wilderness areas within the Preserve, posing a notable contrast to 

the BLM Class I land. 

A portion of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would also be located within BLM 

Class I lands where the rail alignment would deviate from the I-15 freeway through the 

Clark Mountains north of Mountain Pass to the California/Nevada state line. The rail 

alignment would traverse diverse landscapes, including rocky hills, mountains, open 

desert terrain and a mesa just north of the Ivanpah Dry Lake bed. While this portion of 

the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would contrast with the natural landscape of the 

non-urbanized area, the rail line would be located in a generally remote area. The 

northern portions of this segment of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment (Segment 

4C) would be visible to motorists on the I-15 freeway, as the rail alignment would 

approach the I-15 freeway corridor near the California/Nevada state line. 

While the Preferred Alternative would contrast with the existing natural, non-urbanized 

landscape in this location, the California Energy Commission approved the Ivanpah Solar 

Electric Generating System (ISEGS) project in August 2010 for the same area. The ISEGS 

project would introduce future utilitarian visual features into the existing undeveloped 

visual landscape. Figure F-3.6-7 shows a visual simulation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric 

Generating System in this area from the Clark Mountain range (from Benson Mine), as 

well as a simulation with the addition of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment to the 

future viewshed. The Preferred Alternative would be a subordinate visual feature with 

implementation of the ISEGS. Refer to Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this 

Final EIS for further discussion of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System and the 

associated cumulative visual effects. 

The Victorville Station and OMSF would dominate the middle ground, partially 

obstructing views to distant hills and non-urbanized lands with low lying shrubs and 

desert soils for motorists on the I-15 freeway. Figure F-3.6-6 shows a visual comparison 

of the existing Victorville Station site and the conceptual development of the Victorville 

Station. However, with the presence of the I-15 freeway and overhead electric 

transmission lines, the facilities would not substantially detract from the existing, 

somewhat degraded landscape. The Victorville Station and OMSF would also be located 

approximately six miles north of central Victorville and would not be visible from the 

City’s more developed/populated portions, resulting in very few stationary, non-motorist 

views of the station. The Victorville Station and OMSF would also be located within close 

proximity to a Victorville landfill, which is a prominent urban visual feature in the area. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-11

Within Existing Urbanized Areas (Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, Las Vegas) 

Motorists traveling on the I-15 freeway would be the primary viewers of the Preferred 

Alternative. Motorists and pedestrians on the local roadways would also represent 

primary viewers groups where the Preferred Alternative traverses through existing urban 

areas. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

Within Barstow, the Preferred Alternative would introduce railway elements such as 

elevated trackways and passing trains into motorists’ views from the I-15 freeway. 

Although these elements would change existing views, they would not block scenic views 

or break up the intactness of the urban landscape. Figure F-3.6-8 shows that the 

elevated crossing at the I-15 freeway/Main Street interchange in central Barstow would 

disrupt the unity of the existing visual environment, as a new overhead trackway and 

concrete pillars would be visible. Existing views in central Barstow from the I-15 freeway 

are not highly vivid, as manmade development, including residential and commercial 

developments and billboards, dominate the views. The Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment would not substantially degrade the relatively low visual quality of the I-15 

freeway area. 

Within Baker, the MOW facility, which would include a mix of building and ancillary 

facilities, would be visible from the northbound and southbound I-15 freeway. 

Development of the MOW facility would be consistent with the existing visual character 

and would not substantially alter the existing moderate quality of views since views of 

scattered development are already visible from the I-15 freeway in Baker. Viewer duration 

of the MOW facility would also be brief due to the high travel speeds on the I-15 freeway. 

However, the utility corridor connecting the Baker MOW facility to an existing power 

source would degrade the existing visual quality since 95 to 135 foot metal utility towers 

and power lines would run through the community of Baker. The tall metal towers would 

disrupt views from local roadways northerly towards undeveloped areas, thereby resulting 

in an adverse effect to visual quality. 

Within Primm and Jean, the rail alignment, crash barriers, and quickly passing highspeed trains would be visible from the I-15 freeway. These features would not block scenic 

views or breakup the intactness or unity of the landscape. Existing views from I-15 

freeway are not very vivid, manmade development appears randomly placed, and natural 

elements are present in the background. The addition of rail elements would not lower 

this already low level of visual quality. 

Within the metropolitan Las Vegas area, the Preferred Alternative would travel through an 

area of low visual quality. The existing visual environment along the I-15 freeway consists 

of many buildings, lights, billboards, and other manmade elements of varying colors, 

shapes, and sizes. Since the existing scene is not unified or intact, the addition of the 

Preferred Alternative would not detract from the intactness or unity of the view. Vividness 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-12

of views from the I-15 freeway would change as passing trains block views of developed 

areas to the west. However, view blockage would be temporary and the overall visual 

quality would remain low. If the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site 

option is ultimately selected as the Las Vegas Station, approximately 1.8 miles of elevated 

railway would not be constructed, further reducing the extent of visual effects. 

While the Preferred Alternative Frias Substation would be located immediately adjacent to 

the I-15 corridor, views of the substation from motorists traveling on I-15 would be 

blocked in part by a concrete wall constructed along the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment. The substation would introduce new overhead electric transmission lines; 

however, these new transmission lines would be immediately adjacent to existing 

overhead transmission lines that cross I-15 near West Frias Avenue. The Frias Substation 

would also be visible to motorists and/or pedestrians traveling on nearby residential 

streets, including West Frias Avenue, West Haleh Avenue, and South Dean Martin Drive. 

Views of the substation would also be available from nearby single-family homes. While 

the substation would introduce new utility towers, the towers would be of the same scale, 

form, and color as the existing overhead electric transmission lines that parallel West 

Frias Avenue and cross over just north of the Frias Substation site. Further, the I-15 

transportation corridor is already visible from these locations and the addition of new 

substation would not represent a substantial contrast from the existing environment. Due 

to the disturbed nature of views at this location with the presence of suburban 

development and overhead electric transmission lines, the addition of the Frias Substation 

would not introduce a new type of development to the area. The vividness, intactness, and 

unity of the visual environment would remain low with the addition of the substation. The 

Frias Substation would be a co-dominant element in the landscape and no adverse visual 

effect would occur. 

Neither of the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station or

Central Station B) would have an adverse effect on visual quality. The two station site 

options would be visible from the I-15 freeway, as well as from other surrounding 

roadways. Views from the I-15 freeway are dominated by extensive urbanized 

development, including brightly lit buildings, billboards, and the expanse of other 

roadways. The existing vividness, intactness, and unity would remain low and 

implementation of the station structures would not substantially alter existing views and 

no adverse effect would occur. 

Similarly, the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) would not 

have an adverse effect on visual quality since the facility would be built within an existing 

metropolitan area with existing urban structures, billboards, and utilitarian visual features 

such as overhead transmission lines. Figure F-3.6-9 shows the visual comparison of the 

existing visual character of the proposed MSF site and the conceptual development of the 

Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF. The existing vividness, intactness, and unity would 

remain low and existing views would not be substantially altered. No adverse effect would 

occur. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-13

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

The majority of lands within the urbanized areas are designated as BLM Class III or IV, 

which allow for partial to major modifications to the existing character of the landscape, 

respectively. 

Within Barstow, the Preferred Alternative would be highly visible to motorists on the I-15 

freeway but would not be out of character with the surrounding urban landscape. Figure 

F-3.6-8 shows that the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be visible in the 

foreground for motorists, pedestrians, and visitors near the I-15 freeway/Main Street 

interchange. The elevated trackway would be highly visible in this commercial and urban 

landscape but would not block significant views. The rail alignment bridge crossing over 

the Mojave River would be immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway bridge and 

would not stand out or create a substantial new visual element in the immediate 

landscape. 

Within Baker, the MOW facility would be located on BLM Class II land since it is 

immediately adjacent to the highway in an undeveloped area. The Baker MOW facility 

would be consistent with the I-15 freeway visual character. However, the MOW facility 

would be visible from wilderness areas in the Preserve, which are classified as BLM Class I 

lands, and would introduce contrast under BLM criteria. The MOW signal tower would 

also be visible at night, which would contrast with nighttime views from the Preserve. 

Within Primm and Jean, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would maintain 

consistency with the BLM Class IV lands since the rail alignment would be within the 

existing transportation corridor of the I-15 freeway in a highly developed area. 

As previously stated, the Frias Substation would not be seen by motorists on I-15 but 

would be seen by motorists on surrounding roadways. Due to the proximity to the singlefamily homes and lands designated for future commercial and residential development, 

the Frias Substation could create some limited visual incompatibility with surrounding 

uses. However, the I-15 transportation corridor is already visible from these locations and 

the addition of new substation would not represent a substantial contrast from the 

existing environment. 

Within the Las Vegas metropolitan area, the Preferred Alternative would be located on 

Class III and IV lands. The existing visual character would be partially retained since the 

rail alignment would be located along the existing I-15 transportation corridor. The 

alignment would not conflict with any natural landscape features because this area is 

already highly developed. If the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site 

option is ultimately selected as the Las Vegas Station, approximately 1.8 miles of elevated 

rail alignment would not be constructed, further reducing the extent of visual effects. 

Neither the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options nor the Las Vegas MSF 

would dominate existing views or change the existing landscape, as these facilities would 

be surrounded by numerous manmade elements and would blend with the urban 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-14

character of Las Vegas. As such, these elements would be consistent with the BLM Class 

IV criteria, which allows for changes to the landscape character. 

Construction Period Effects 

TCAs are located along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment as an area to concentrate 

temporary construction equipment and activities. Construction activities would involve 

the use of heavy equipment, stockpiling of soils and materials, and other visual signs of 

construction. 

Construction activities would likely take place in phases such that the entire Preferred 

Alternative would not be under construction all at one time. It is assumed that the phases 

would occur through the earthmoving and grading, track construction, and testing and 

operation stages of construction. The Preferred Alternative construction period visual 

effects would vary over time and would depend on the location of the construction 

activities. 

Construction of the passenger stations and maintenance facilities would be similar to the 

construction of typical commercial/industrial facilities and would include site preparation 

and foundation work, framing and structural construction, and finishing work. These 

facilities will also include construction of track way connecting the station to the rail 

alignment, where construction period visual effects would be similar to those noted above 

for the rail alignment. 

All construction-related visual changes associated with the Preferred Alternative would be 

temporary in nature. 

3.6.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.6-1 compares the visual effects of the various Action Alternatives evaluated, as 

well as the No Action Alternative. Components of the Preferred Alternative are 

highlighted in yellow. 

Rail Alignment Options 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would primarily implement Action Alternative B 

options, where the rail alignment would be located immediately adjacent to the existing I15 freeway within the I-15 freeway ROW. The Alternative B, I-15 side running rail 

alignment would result in greater visual effects than the Action Alternative A rail 

alignment options. The Action Alternative A rail alignment options would obstruct 

motorists’ views from either side of the highway when they are looking towards the center 

of the freeway due to its location within the median of the I-15 freeway. The change in 

visual character would be minimal, however, since the center of the I-15 freeway is already 

a developed transportation corridor. In contrast, many areas adjacent to the I-15 freeway, 

specifically those areas outside of existing urbanized areas, are non-urbanized landscapes 

with low lying shrubs, desert soils, and distant views of mountains. Motorists looking 

towards the Action Alternative B rail alignment, especially from the side of the highway 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-15

adjacent to the rail alignment, would experience a greater disruption of existing views, 

since views of the non-urbanized landscapes would be partially blocked by the rail 

alignment. While both the Action Alternative A and B rail alignments would be at grade 

for the majority of the corridor outside of the existing urbanized areas, the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would have greater visual effects than the Action Alternative A 

rail alignments. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would avoid adverse visual effects 

associated with Segment 2A/2B. Segments 2A/2B would traverse through moderate to 

high visual quality areas of western and northern Barstow. These areas do not contain 

dense urban development and are surrounded by non-urbanized lands with views towards 

distant mountains. Segments 2A/2B would reduce the areas of high visual quality to 

moderate visual quality, representing an adverse effect. The Preferred Alternative 

Segment 2C would follow the existing I-15 freeway and would avoid traveling through 

areas of high visual quality. The existing visual quality through central Barstow is 

considered low and the placement of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment within the 

existing transportation corridor would not degrade the low visual quality. All three rail 

alignment options in Segment 2 would require the construction of a new crossing over the 

Mojave River. The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would cross over the 

Mojave River adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway bridge. Given this location, this new 

bridge would not stand out or create a substantial new visual element in the immediate 

landscape. However, Segments 2A/2B would require the construction of a bridge over the 

Mojave River in an area where no major transportation corridors exist, thereby 

introducing a substantially new visual element into the landscape. Overall, the Preferred 

Alternative Segment 2C would have lesser visual effects through Barstow than would 

Segments 2A/2B. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 3B rail alignment would result in lesser visual effects 

than would Segment 3A. The Segment 3A rail alignment would be located within the I-15 

freeway median and would disrupt views to the south for southbound motorists on the I15 freeway and views to the north for northbound motorists on the I-15 freeway. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C would result in greater visual effects than would 

Segment 4A. According to the NPS, the Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment 

would negatively affect the Mojave National Preserve scenery, aesthetic, and wilderness 

values.5 The Segment 4A would also result in negative effects to the visual quality of the 

Preserve, but the area proposed for the Segment 4A rail alignment has already been 

disturbed and used for a local mine and as ROW for several underground utilities.6

 The 

 

5

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The DesertXpress High-Speed Train and the Mojave 

National Preserve Memorandum. February 9, 2011. 

6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The DesertXpress High-Speed Train and the Mojave 

National Preserve Memorandum. February 9, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-16

Segment 4A rail alignment would also remain within close proximity to the I-15 freeway 

corridor, rather than traversing through undisturbed desert resources, as would the 

Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C 

rail alignment and Segment 4B rail alignment would have similar visual effects, given their 

close proximity in the area north of the Clark Mountains outside of the I-15 freeway 

corridor. 

Passenger Stations and Maintenance Facilities 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would have similar visual effects 

as VV1, VV2, and OMSF 1. While all Victorville Station and OMSF site options would 

decrease the vividness of the existing undeveloped landscape visible from the I-15 freeway 

corridor, the facilities would not be incongruous in character with the existing 

transportation corridor, existing railroad facilities (near VV1 and OMSF 1), and existing 

overhead transmission lines (VV2, VV3, and OMSF 2). The Victorville Station and OMSF 

site options would remain somewhat consistent with the existing visual environment and 

the visual quality would remain moderate. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station or Central 

Station B) would have similar visual effects as the Central Station A and Downtown 

Station. Each station would be considered infill development and would be surrounded by 

existing urban features, such as tall buildings, billboards, and overhead utility 

transmission lines. Visual effects would be the same for all Las Vegas Station site options 

since all of these sites are within similar highly urbanized, complex visual landscapes. The 

Las Vegas Station site options would remain consistent with the existing visual 

environment and the visual quality would remain low. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would have similar visual effects as the 

Robindale Avenue MSF, but lesser visual effects than the Sloan Road MSF and Relocated 

Sloan MSF. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF and the Robindale Avenue MSF 

would be developed within similar highly urbanized visual landscape immediately 

adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor. These MSF site options would remain consistent 

with the existing visual landscape and the visual quality would remain low. The Sloan 

Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF site options would be located within an undeveloped 

visual landscape adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor, surrounded by vacant lands with 

desert soils and shrubs. However, an existing utility corridor is located within proximity 

of both MSF sites. Given that motorists, traveling at freeway speeds of about 65 mph, 

would only view the Sloan Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF for several seconds and 

that a utility corridor already existing in the general vicinity, these MSF site options would 

be somewhat consistent with the existing character and would only slightly reduce the 

visual quality. Regardless, the visual quality would remain moderate at these locations. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-17

Table F-3.6-1 Alternatives Comparison – Visual Resources 

Alternative Consistency with BLM Criteria Consistency with FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity

No Action Alternative Consistent if Impacts Remain in Existing 

Corridor Consistent if Impacts Remain in Existing Corridor

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Would Reduce From Moderate to Low

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Somewhat Consistent

Visual Quality Reduced from Moderate/High to Moderate 

Outside Existing Urban Areas. Visual Quality Remains 

Low/Moderate Within Existing Urban Areas.

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Somewhat Consistent

Visual Quality Reduced from Moderate/High to Moderate 

Outside Existing Urban Areas. Visual Quality Remains 

Low/Moderate Within Existing Urban Areas. 

Segment 2C Somewhat Consistent Somewhat Consistent – Visual Quality Remains 

Low/Moderate

Segment 3 

Segment 3A Somewhat Consistent. Not Consistent Near 

Mojave National Preserve Wilderness Areas

Visual Quality Reduced from High to Moderate in Mojave 

National Preserve. Visual Quality Reduced from 

Moderate/High to Moderate Outside Mojave National 

Preserve.

Segment 3B Somewhat Consistent. Not Consistent Near 

Mojave National Preserve Wilderness Areas

Visual Quality Reduced from High to Moderate in Mojave 

National Preserve. Visual Quality Reduced from 

Moderate/High to Moderate Outside Mojave National 

Preserve.

Segment 4 

Segment 4A Not Consistent

Visual Quality Reduced from High to Moderate within 

Mojave National Preserve. Visual Quality Remains 

Moderate Outside Mojave National Preserve. 

Segment 4B Not Consistent Visual Quality Reduced from High to Moderate
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-18

Alternative Consistency with BLM Criteria Consistency with FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity

Segment 4C Not Consistent Visual Quality Reduced from High to Moderate

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 

Consistent Within Existing Urban Areas. 

Somewhat Consistent Outside Existing 

Urban Areas.

Visual Quality Remains Moderate, With Slight Reduction in 

Quality

Segment 5B 

Consistent Within Existing Urban Areas. 

Somewhat Consistent Outside Existing 

Urban Areas.

Visual Quality Remains Moderate, With Slight Reduction in 

Quality

Segment 6 

Segment 6A 

Consistent Within Existing Urban Areas. 

Somewhat Consistent Outside Existing 

Urban Areas.

Visual Quality Remains Low

Segment 6B 

Consistent Within Existing Urban Areas. 

Somewhat Consistent Outside Existing 

Urban Areas.

Visual Quality Remains Low

Segment 6C Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Segment 7 

Segment 7A Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Segment 7B Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Segment 7C Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate

Victorville Station Site 2 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate

Victorville Station Site 3 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate

Victorville OMSF 1 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate

Victorville OMSF 2 Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-19

Alternative Consistency with BLM Criteria Consistency with FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Las Vegas Central Station A Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Las Vegas Central Station B Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Las Vegas Downtown Station Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Sloan Road MSF7

Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate, With Slight Reduction 

in Quality

Relocated Sloan MSF Somewhat Consistent Visual Quality Remains Moderate, With Slight Reduction 

in Quality

Wigwam Avenue MSF Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Robindale Avenue MSF Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Frias Substation Consistent Visual Quality Remains Low

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility Somewhat Consistent. Visual Quality Remains Moderate

Technology Options, Including Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple 

Unit) N/A N/A

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)

Greater Visual Effects from Overhead 

Catenaries, Autotransformers, and Utility 

Corridors

Greater Visual Effects from Overhead Catenaries, 

Autotransformers, and Utility Corridors

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

7 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF”, located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-20

3.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-10 identified in Draft EIS Section 3.6.5

would be applied to the Preferred Alternative to reduce and avoid adverse effects to visual 

resources. These mitigation measures relate to the operational and construction period of 

the Preferred Alternative and are provided below. 

3.6.3.1 Operational Period Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation Measure VIS-1: Rail Features 

Rail features, including pillars, raised tracks, trains, catenary structures, crash 

barriers, and embankments, shall be designed to blend with or represent the 

surrounding desert environment. Features shall be created in muted desert colors. 

Bright colors and highly reflective materials shall be avoided. Rail features defined 

in the design-build process shall include visual elements, which create a sense of 

place and a memorable experience for both motorists and pedestrians. Concrete 

shall be embossed with symbols or patterns, where appropriate, which create a 

visual link between rail features and the surrounding communities and/or the nonurbanized landscape. Visual screening shall be placed on the top of the crash 

barriers along the entire Preferred Alternative rail corridor to mitigate any 

potential visual distraction to motorists from the trains and train lights. Analysis 

during the design-build process shall determine the specific details for the 

screening and if there are locations where it may not be needed. The design of rail 

features in the I-15 freeway ROW shall be reviewed by Caltrans, NDOT, and 

FHWA, as appropriate (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-3). 

Mitigation Measure VIS-2: Victorville Station Features 

The Victorville Station and associated elements, such as the parking garage and 

pedestrian walkways, shall be developed with architecture, muted colors, and 

landscaping that reflect the surrounding non-urbanized aesthetic. The 

landscaping plan shall include the use of drought resistant desert plants, gravel, 

and stone. Pedestrian elements such as pathways and portals in both the station 

building and the associated garage shall incorporate desert elements such as 

landscaping, muted colors and the use of desert-related symbols and patterns. 

Signage shall be consistent with the scale and character of the site and 

surroundings and avoid the use of highly reflective materials or bright neon lights. 

Mitigation Measure VIS-3: Maintenance Facility Features 

Maintenance facilities shall be designed to be aesthetically appropriate for the 

surrounding non-urbanized landscape through the use of muted colors and desert 

landscaping. The use of highly reflective materials shall be avoided. Concrete may 

be embossed with desert symbols and patters. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-21

Mitigation Measure VIS-4: Contour Grading 

Where feasible contour grading techniques should be employed to reduce the 

visual appearance of cuts and fill slopes. Grades, cuts, and fills shall be shaped so 

as to appear consistent and continuous with the natural landscape forms. 

Mitigation Measure VIS-5: Light and Glare Reduction 

Lighting at stations and maintenance facilities outside of metropolitan Las Vegas 

shall be designed to minimize disruption of the natural dark at night in the nonurbanized landscape. The final lighting plan for these stations and maintenance 

facilities shall incorporate light and glare screening measures such as the use of 

plantings to screen well-lit areas, use of downward cast lighting, and the use of 

motion sensor lighting where appropriate. 

Mitigation Measure VIS-6: Educational Displays 

Within California, the Applicant shall provide interpretive displays and artwork in 

station pedestrian areas in order to create a coherent pedestrian landscape and 

sense of place. Such displays shall be consistent with the Desert Managers Group’s 

Caltrans Safety Roadside Rest Stop Interpretive Exhibit Design.8

3.6.3.2 Construction Period Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation Measure VIS-7: Construction Site Management 

Construction shall be maintained in an orderly manner, including proper 

containment and disposal of litter and debris to prevent dispersal onto adjacent 

properties or streets. 

Mitigation Measure VIS-8: Construction Site Lighting 

Construction crews working at night shall direct any artificial lighting onto the 

work area to minimize the spillover of light or glare onto adjacent areas. Where 

feasible, construction lighting shall be screened from viewer groups - such as 

motorists on the freeway or residents in nearby towns and communities to prevent 

visible lighting overflow into the natural dark of the desert at night. 

Mitigation Measure VIS-9: Visual Screening 

Visual screening shall be erected along construction and staging areas as 

appropriate. 

 

8 The geographic scope of this mitigation is limited to California, insofar as the Las Vegas Station (Southern 

Station or Central Station B) –would be the only station in Nevada – is not bound by the Caltrans criteria 

referenced above. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-22

Mitigation Measure VIS-10: Freeway Landscaping 

The Applicant shall replace landscaping that will be removed during construction 

as directed by Caltrans or NDOT as appropriate. Landscaping in Nevada along the 

I-15 freeway shall follow NDOT’s I-15 Landscape and Aesthetics Corridor Plan, 

2005. Replacement landscaping shall occur in the median, along the shoulder, and 

in other ROW areas along the I-15 freeway, as appropriate within six months of the 

completion of construction. In accordance with the NDOT LAMP, up to three 

percent of the total construction cost of the Preferred Alternative may be allocated 

to landscape and aesthetic treatments, with NDOT funding the consultant cost for 

landscape and design. 

In addition to Mitigation Measure VIS-10 above, effects from tree and plant removal 

will be mitigated through Mitigation Measure BIO-6, which ensures that disturbed 

areas of native vegetation will be restored to preconstruction site conditions. See Section 

3.14.3 of this Final EIS for a complete discussion of this mitigation measure. 

3.6.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Despite the incorporation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the Preferred 

Alternative would result in the permanent introduction of new elements to the project 

area, ultimately resulting in a permanent visual change within the viewshed. 

The primary residual impacts would be expected to occur in areas with the greatest visual 

quality and sensitivity, such as areas designated as having high visual quality or areas 

designated as BLM Class I and II lands. These areas are generally located outside of the 

existing urbanized areas and outside of the I-15 freeway. While the majority of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be within the I-15 freeway, residual visual 

impacts to the sensitive visual environments north of Yermo and north of the Clark 

Mountains would experience the greatest residual visual effects. 
Segment 2C

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

TCA 1B

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

TCA 1B

NOTE: TCA 1B is located

entirely within OMSF 2

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (1)

FIG

F-3.6-1

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations
Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 2C 

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A

Geografika Consulting 01.11.11

4

5

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (2)

FIG

F-3.6-2

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations
NEVADA

CALIFORN

15 IA

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Baker Blvd.

TCA 9 15

Baker

Segment 3B

Baker

MOW

127

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (3)

FIG

F-3.6-3

Tunnels

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles

Primm
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada

California

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (4)

FIG

F-3.6-4

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Tunnels
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Segment 6B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.28.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E. Tropicana Ave

L

a

s

Ve

g

a

s

Blv

d

W. Russell Rd

Segment 6 B

Robindale Ave.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

160

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (5)

FIG

F-3.6-5

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2 1.25 .5

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles
Source: Environmental Vision, 2009 FIG

F-3.6-6 View Comparison,

Victorville Station (VV3)

Geografika Consulting 01.10.11

Visual simulation of Victorville Station (VV3)

Existing view from I-15 eastbound

DesertXpress

Final EIS
FIG

View Comparison, North of Clark

Mountains (With Approved Ivanpah

Solar Electric Generation System)

Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

Visual simulation of Victorville Station 3

Existing view from I-15 eastbound

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Simulated Existing Conditions: Ivanpah Solar Electric

Generation System from Mojave National Preserve

Visual Simulation - DesertXpress Segment 4C and 

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation System

Proposed Alignment

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Source: CH2M Hill

F-3.6-7
Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

View Comparison, Central Barstow

FIG

F-3.6-8

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Existing view, City of Barstow, Main Street looking southeast

Visual Simulation of Segment 2C Side Running

at Main Street Overcrossing
FIG

F-3.6-9

View Comparison,

Preferred Alternative

Las Vegas MSF

Source: Environmental Vison, 2008.

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Existing View from Westbound I-15 of Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF)

Visual Simulation of Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) 

Federal Railroad

Administration
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.6-32

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-1 

3.7 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes updates /changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS related to potential cultural and paleontological impacts 

resulting from the DesertXpress project. This section also describes the cultural and 

paleontological impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No 

Action and other Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.7.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS related to cultural and paleontological impacts and provides responses to those 

comments. Substantive updates and changes from comments on the Draft and 

Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.7.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.7.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.7.1 describe in detail the 

affected environment for cultural and paleontological resources for the DesertXpress 

project. The prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic context related to the study area has 

not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. However, 

minor shifts in the Segment 3B rail alignment have occurred following the publication of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS to reduce potential impacts to a known resource in the project 

area. Table F-3.7-1, below, provides a summary of the cultural and paleontological 

resources located within the area of potential effect (APE) for the Preferred Alternative. 

Updates and changes related to cultural resources within the APE are shown in bold

underline and strikeout text within Table F-3.7-1. 

3.7.1.2 Regulatory Environment

The regulatory environment for cultural and paleontological resources for the 

DesertXpress project is described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.7.1. Since publication 

of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there have been no changes to the 

Regulatory Environment regarding cultural and paleontological resources. In addition no 

comments were received during the public review period that required changes to the 

cultural and paleontological resources regulatory discussion contained in the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus the regulatory environment discussions from these 

previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-2 

3.7.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

As discussed in Section 2.4.1 of this Final EIS, additional consultation following 

publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS led to a further modification of Segment 3B to 

avoid sensitive resources. This modification of Segment 3B in the vicinity of the Halloran 

Springs/Halloran Summit area resulted in a change of the APE for the Preferred 

Alternative. See also Section 3.15.4.5 of this Final EIS. 

Several comments related to cultural resources were received during the public comment 

period for the Draft EIS. These comments generally requested additional information 

regarding the status of the project’s Section 106 compliance and related agency and tribal 

consultation updates. None of the comments identified the need for any correction or 

additions to the information presented in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

The Preferred Alternative would not affect any historic architectural resources because 

there are no historic architectural resources with the APE for the Preferred Alternative. 

However, because various action alternative elements evaluated in the Draft EIS (e.g. 

Segment 7 routings and the Las Vegas Downtown Station) would have been in proximity 

to historic architectural resources, the Draft EIS included Mitigation Measure CR-4 to 

address potential adverse effects on historic architectural resources. Since the Preferred 

Alternative does not include Segment 7 nor the Las Vegas Downtown Station, this 

mitigation measure is no longer applicable and has not been carried forward into this 

Final EIS. 

Mitigation Measure CR-4 has been replaced by the following mitigation measure 

which requires preconstruction training as set forth in the Programmatic Agreement (PA), 

which is included as Appendix F-H of this Final EIS. 

Mitigation Measure CR-4: Preconstruction Meeting and Worker 

Awareness Training

The Applicant shall ensure that all persons meeting the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards who are supervising 

activities conducted as prescribed in the PA and all contracted field 

personnel, including construction workers, meet with one or more 

Consulting Tribes for a briefing on traditional customs and culturally 

sensitive protocols and procedures.

In addition, the following reporting requirements from the Programmatic Agreement 

developed for the project have been called out as mitigation measures. 

Mitigation Measure CR-5: Annual Reporting

Consistent with Administrative Stipulation IV.B of the PA, FRA shall 

require the Applicant to submit an annual report documenting the 

completion status of the stipulations outlined in the PA. The Annual 

Report shall include, at a minimum:
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-3 

a. A list of all studies, reports, actions, evaluations, or monitoring 

reviewed or generated under the Stipulations of this PA. 

b. Efforts to identify and/or evaluate potential historic properties, 

monitoring efforts, archaeological management assessments or 

research designs, and treatment of historic properties. 

c. Any recommendations to amend this PA or improve 

communications among the parties. 

d. A discussion of any inadvertent effects to historic properties 

occurring during the course of the year. 

FRA shall ensure that the annual report is made available to the public 

and that members of the public are invited to provide comments to 

FRA, as well as to the ACHP and SHPOs. 

Mitigation Measure CR-6: Quarterly Reporting

FRA shall require the Applicant to prepare quarterly progress reports 

on the status of project construction. As lead agency, FRA will be 

responsible for coordinating and submitting the report to Tribal 

representatives. The Quarterly report shall include, at a minimum, 

anticipated needs for Tribal representative monitors in the upcoming 

months.

In an effort to consolidate and streamline project requirements, the mitigation measures 

presented in the cultural resources section of the Draft EIS were reorganized. Draft EIS 

Mitigation Measures CR-5, CR-6, and CR-7, regarding paleontological resources, 

were combined into one overarching requirement for further evaluation of the geologic 

units in the study area. Subsequent measures were renumbered accordingly. The 

following lists the revisions to the numbering of the cultural and paleontological 

mitigation measures in this Final EIS: 

Draft EIS Final EIS 

Mitigation Measure CR-1 No change 

Mitigation Measure CR-2 No change 

Mitigation Measure CR-3 No change

Mitigation Measure CR-4 Replaced (Training) 

Mitigation Measure CR-5 Replaced (Annual Reporting) 

Mitigation Measure CR-6 Replaced (Quarterly Reporting) 

Mitigation Measure CR-7 Revises Mitigation Measure CR-6

from Draft EIS 

Mitigation Measure CR-8 No change 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-4 

Mitigation Measure CR-9 No change 

Mitigation Measure CR-10 No change 

Mitigation Measure CR-11 No change 

Consistent with these changes, the text on starting on Draft EIS page 3.7-70 has been 

revised as follows: 

Mitigation Measure CR-5: Site-Specific Confirmation of Impact 

Potential

The project sponsor will ensure that the site-specific engineering geologic studies 

prepared for project construction confirm all geologic units potentially affected by 

each segment of the project, including Quaternary and bedrock units. This 

information will be used to guide mitigation requirements on a site-specific basis 

during construction and during maintenance activities that require ground 

disturbance, as follows.

 Mitigation Measure CR-7 will apply to all ground-disturbing construction and 

maintenance activities, although this measure will likely only need to be 

implemented once, during project design.

 Mitigation Measures CR-8, CR-9, and CR-11 will apply to all ground-disturbing 

construction and maintenance activities. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-10 will apply to all ground-disturbing construction 

activities that affect geologic units identified as highly sensitive for 

paleontological resources, and to all maintenance activities that would involve 

new or extended ground disturbance in highly sensitive units.

Mitigation Measure CR-67: Further Evaluation of Geologic Units with 

“Undetermined” Sensitivity

Before ground-disturbing activities begin, the Applicant shall retain a qualified 

paleontologist as defined by the SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995) or other appropriate 

personnel (e.g., California licensed professional geologist with appropriate 

experience and expertise) to conduct further literature review and discussion with 

subject area experts in order to resolve the paleontological sensitivity of the 

geologic units identified in Table 3.7-2 as ―undetermined‖ and the areas with 

strata of Holocene age exposed at the surface. If site-specific engineering 

geologic or geotechnical studies for the project identify additional units likely to be 

affected by project construction and not included in Table 3.7-2, they shall also be 

evaluated for paleontological sensitivity under this measure. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-5 

This information shall be used to guide mitigation requirements on a 

site-specific basis during construction and during maintenance 

activities that require ground disturbance, as follows.

 Mitigation Measures CR-8, CR-9, and CR-11 shall apply to all 

ground-disturbing construction and maintenance activities. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-10 shall apply to all ground-disturbing 

construction activities that affect geologic units identified as 

highly sensitive for paleontological resources, and to all 

maintenance activities that would involve new or extended 

ground disturbance in highly sensitive units.

The results of the evaluation conducted for this mitigation measure will be used to 

guide the application of mitigation during project construction and maintenance 

activities.

Mitigation Measure CR-7: Evaluation of Site-Specific Impact Potential 

in Areas of Holocene Substrate

The project sponsor will retain appropriately qualified and licensed personnel (e.g., 

California licensed professional geologist with appropriate experience and 

expertise) to evaluate the potential for impacts on paleontologically sensitive strata 

that may be present in the subsurface in areas with strata of Holocene age exposed 

at the surface. The evaluation will be based on available geologic and geotechnical 

information; project design; proposed construction and/or maintenance methods, 

including anticipated depth of disturbance; and existing site conditions, including 

pre-existing disturbance, if any. In areas where highly sensitive strata would be 

involved in project-related ground disturbance, Mitigation Measures CR-9, CR-10, 

and CR-11 will apply.

Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS includes an updated 

discussion of the Section 106 interagency meetings and tribal consultations over the 

course of the project. 

3.7.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cultural resources customarily include archaeological resources, such as artifacts and 

archaeological sites; ethnographic resources; and those of the historic built environment 

(historic architectural resources). Paleontological resources, which include the fossilized 

remains of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants, as well as fossil tracks and trackways, 

are also considered in this section. 

Information in this section is based on the archaeological, architectural, and 

paleontological resources investigations described in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft EIS. As 

part of the Supplemental Draft EIS, project archaeologists conducted field surveys of the 

expanded study area, consistent with methods described in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-6 

EIS. Additional archaeological resources surveys were also conducted as part of this Final 

EIS in order to identify any resources present in the area of the Segment 3B shift near 

Halloran Springs Road. Information from the archaeological surveys conducted after the 

publication of the Draft EIS has been incorporated into this section of the Final EIS. 

Programmatic Agreement 

As discussed in Draft EIS Section 3.7.1.1, the FRA and the cooperating agencies, with 

input from DesertXpress Enterprises, Inc. and Native American Tribes, developed a 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the project in compliance with Section 106 (see 

Appendix F-H) to identify the process for formal determination of the eligibility of 

cultural resources. For NEPA purposes, survey work was conducted for all alternatives, all 

potentially affected cultural resources have been considered, and an assumption of their 

eligibility has been presented in the EIS to inform the selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The purpose of the PA for the project is multi-fold. The PA sets forth numerous 

requirements intended to ensure appropriate treatment of historic resources is employed 

during project construction. The PA also stipulates protocols for how and when formal 

eligibility determinations would be made. Specifically, while extensive efforts have 

occurred to identify potential historic resources, the PA describes a phased 

implementation approach consistent with 36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(2) permitting formal 

eligibility determinations to be made after the Preferred Alternative is identified and 

ratified by the lead and cooperating agencies via Records of Decision on the proposed 

action. Eligibility determinations will be made by the appropriate agency (in this region, 

either BLM or a SHPO) based on information presented in completed state-appropriate 

site records forms. 

3.7.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The cultural and paleontological resource impact methodology described in Section 

3.7.2 of the Draft EIS remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the 

Preferred Alternative. A summary of the methods of evaluation is provided below. This 

information was integrated from the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, and is 

summarized here for the convenience of the readers. No new methodology was 

introduced as part of this Final EIS. 

Area of Potential Effect 

The APE is defined in 36 CFR § 800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any such properties exist. As described in Draft EIS Section 3.7.2.1, the 

APE was defined for the project consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). FRA, in consultation with BLM, STB, and the California and 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), has defined the APE as all areas of 

ground that would be disturbed by construction or construction staging of the Preferred 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-7 

Alternative. This includes up to 200 feet on either side (up to a total of 400 feet) of the 

rail alignment centerline, which includes the actual construction area and buffer, or to the 

nearest paved area (freeway shoulder). In most locations, the total width of the finished 

rail alignment will be 60 feet. The APE includes areas that were left undisturbed by 

Interstate construction within the I-15 right-of-way and within the I-15 median (i.e., 

medians of great width, rights-of-way that extend well beyond the shoulder or rest areas, 

etc.). The APE also includes the facility footprints for stations, maintenance and storage 

facilities, and areas to be used for TCAs. The APE also includes transformer and 

autotransformer sites, as well as up to 100 feet on either side of the proposed electrical 

utility corridors. 

For the purposes of the analysis of the Preferred Alternative, the APE as a whole has been 

divided into areas of potential direct and indirect effects. 

The Direct APE has been defined as follows: 

 Rail alignments: 115 feet on either side of rail alignment centerlines. 

 Stations/maintenance facilities: facility footprint. 

 Utility corridors: 50 feet on either side of utility corridors. 

The Indirect APE has been defined as follows: 

 Rail alignments: 116 to 200 feet on either side of rail alignment centerlines. 

 Utility corridors: 51 to 100 feet on either side of utility corridors. 

Significance Criteria 

NEPA and NHPA require Federal agencies to consider the effect of their undertakings on 

significant resources, known as historic properties. The Federal significance of an 

archaeological site or an architectural resource is defined by the National Register of 

Historic Places (National Register). These criteria, defined in 36 CFR § 60.4, state that a 

resource must be at least 50 years old (unless meeting exceptional criteria) and possess 

the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and 

culture and is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that possess 

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and 

meet one or more of the following criteria: 

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of history; 

2. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; 

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or 

represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-8 

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

If a particular resource meets one of these criteria and retains integrity, it is considered as 

an eligible ―historic property‖ for listing in the National Register.1 To comply with Section 

106 of the NHPA, any effects of the proposed undertaking on properties listed in or 

determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register must be analyzed by applying 

the Criteria of Adverse Effect, as follows: 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National 

Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration is given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been 

identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National 

Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. 

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: 

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

 Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped 

access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties and applicable guidelines; 

 Removal of the property from its historic location; 

 Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the 

property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance; 

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity 

of the property’s significant historic features;

 Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural 

significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and 

 Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without 

adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long term 

preservation of the property’s historic significance.

 

1 ―Integrity‖ refers to the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical 

characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-9 

After undertaking the resource investigations described in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft EIS, 

project archaeologists made preliminary assessments of the eligibility of the resource 

identified within the APE for the National Register. These preliminary assessments were 

made in close consultation with the appropriate BLM field office (Barstow, Needles, or Las 

Vegas). 

All cultural resources were assigned a preliminary assessment of eligibility as follows: 

 Eligible: Previously identified sites for which eligibility was previously and 

formally established are noted as ―eligible.‖

 Not Eligible: Previously identified sites for which non-eligibility had been 

previously and formally established were noted as ―not eligible.‖ 

 Assumption of Eligibility: Newly discovered resources (for which no previous, 

formal determination had been made) were deemed ―assumed eligible.‖

The assumption of eligibility relates to the use of a PA to fulfill Section 106 obligations. 

Appendix F-H includes the executed PA for the DesertXpress project. 

Impacts on paleontological resources were evaluated following guidelines published by the 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).2 Paleontological resources can be affected from 

soil disturbing activities during construction. Construction of the project would likely 

result in adverse effects on paleontological resources in the following two situations: 

 Where the proposed rail alignment or facility crosses paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units exposed at the surface. 

 Where the rail alignment or facility is situated on Holocene materials that overlie 

highly sensitive materials, and ground disturbance would be deep enough to affect 

underlying sensitive strata. 

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no privately-sponsored high speed passenger rail system 

would be constructed or operated in the project area. However, under the No Action 

Alternative, public agencies in California and/or Nevada are anticipated to move forward 

with physical and/or operational roadway improvements to increase the capacity of the I15 corridor. Given that the planned improvements under the No Action Alternative would 

occur largely in the same area as the Preferred Alternative, impacts associated with 

cultural resources would likely be similar. Project-specific environmental review to be 

undertaken by the sponsoring lead agency/agencies would more precisely determine the 

environmental effects associated with such improvements. 

 

2

 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee, 1995 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-10

3.7.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Cultural Resource Setting 

The following discussion summarizes the cultural resources within the APE of the 

Preferred Alternative. The majority of the information provided in the following tables 

was integrated from the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and summarized here for 

the convenience of the readers. However, as described in Section 2.4.1 of this Final EIS, 

a shift to the Segment 3B was developed to avoid a sensitive resource area. This shift 

causes a corresponding shift to the APE. Field visits to the revised APE identified other 

resources not associated with the previous APE. Table F-3.7-1, further below, provides a 

summary of the cultural and paleontological resources related to the location of the 

Preferred Alternative, including the shift of the Segment 3B rail alignment 

Archaeological Resources 

As a result of the records search and field surveys conducted for the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites were identified 

within the APE. A total of 254 sites were identified within the APE for the Preferred 

Alternative as part of the records search and field survey work conducted for the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS. Of these 254 sites, 193 are historic, 54 are prehistoric, and 7 

contain a mix of prehistoric and historic resources. While final determinations of 

archaeological resource eligibility for the National Register will occur after the 

environmental document is completed (through the PA), a preliminary evaluation 

indicates that 99 of the sites are assumed eligible, 36 have previously been determined 

eligible, and 119 would not be eligible. 

Table F-3.7-1 provides a summary of these resources related to the location of the 

components that comprise the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-11

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

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

VV3

JSA-CS-S-005H Historic Habitation site with foundation, refuse deposits, and 

privy. Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-073H Historic Historic fence line Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-074H Historic Domestic refuse deposit with glass, ceramics and 

metal Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-076H Historic Habitation site with road, mound, fire ring, and 

refuse deposits Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-212H Historic Habitation site with refuse deposits, privy, chimney 

remnant, and rock alignments Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-213H Historic US BLM cadastral marker Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-214H Historic Segment of historic dirt road Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-215H Historic Domestic refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-216H Historic

Refuse deposit associated with construction of 

National Register eligible transmission line (CASBR-7694H)Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-3161H Historic Habitation site with rock alignments, privy, cellar, 

and refuse deposits Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-7694H Historic Boulder power transmission line Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-10315H Historic Boulder to Hoover power transmission line Eligible Direct

Victorville OMSF

JSA-CS-S-86H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-87H Historic Prospector Pit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-88H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

Segment 1

CA-SBR-10315H Historic Power Transmission Line Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-9358H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-9359H Historic Mine Site Not Eligible Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-12

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

CA-SBR-8700H Historic Mine, habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-3H Historic Mine, Refuse Deposit and Rock Cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-4H Historic Mine and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-5H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-6H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-7H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-8H Historic Survey Marker Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-9H Historic Survey Marker Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-10H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-11H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-12H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-13H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-14H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-15H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-16H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-TC-S-8H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-TC-S-19 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-TC-S-20H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-76H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-78H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-88H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-KT-S-2H Historic Marker Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-KT-S-3H Historic Marker Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-KT-S-4H Historic Hearth Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

Temporary Construction Area #1B

JSA-CS-S-086H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-87H Historic Prospector’s pit with two spoils piles Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-88H Historic Domestic refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-13

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

Segment 2C – Side Running

JSA-CS-S-229H Historic Homestead site with tree lines and redeposited trash 

and structural debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-230H Historic Concrete road monument Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-231H Historic Segment of transmission line Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-232H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-233 Prehistoric Cobble quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-234H Historic Historic refuse deposit containing cans, wire, metal 

and glass Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-235H Historic Foundation and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-236H Historic Foundation and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-237H Historic Foundation and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-238H Historic Foundation and scatter of debris and artifacts Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-239H Historic Redeposited refuse deposit of glass, ceramics, and 

metal Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-240H Historic Two foundations and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-241H Historic Foundation and scatter of debris and artifacts Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-242H Historic Foundation and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-243H Historic Foundation and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-244H Historic Foundation, fence line and light scatter of debris Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-245H Historic Redeposited residential debris Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-246H Historic Dense refuse deposit with cans, ceramics, metal, 

glass, and firearm cartridges Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-2910H Historic Segment of Route 66, part of the old National Trails 

Highway Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-3485 Prehistoric

Prehistoric lithic quarry and reduction site; 

contributing element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-3486 Prehistoric

Prehistoric lithic quarry and reduction site; 

contributing element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District

Eligible Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-14

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

CA-SBR-3548 Prehistoric Prehistoric rock rings Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-4525H Historic Road Segment Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-6693H Historic Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroad Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-8313H Historic Fence line Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-8321 Prehistoric

Prehistoric lithic quarry and reduction site; 

contributing element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District

Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-8322 Prehistoric

Prehistoric lithic quarry and reduction site; 

contributing element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District

Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-9361H Historic Sidewinder Road wagon trail Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P-36-13644 Prehistoric Lithic scatter and reduction site Eligible Direct

P-36-20375 Prehistoric Sidewinder Quarry Archaeological District, with 45 

identified contributing elements Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-10398H Historic Road Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-4085H Historic Railroad Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-32 Prehistoric Prehistoric quarry site Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-34 Prehistoric Quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-39H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-40H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-45H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-47/H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-48/H Historic / 

Prehistoric Refuse Deposit and Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-49H Historic Rock Cairn and Rock Alignment Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-50H Historic Rock Cairn and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-52H Historic Hearth Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-53H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-54H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-55H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-57H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Indirect
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-15

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

JSA-CS-S-58H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-59H Historic Rock Alignment Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-63H Historic Rock Cairn and Road Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-64H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-65H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-68H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-69H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-72H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-101H Historic Berm Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-218H Historic Rock Rings and historic refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-219H Historic Concrete foundation Note Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-222H Historic Residential refuse deposit with cans, glass, 

ceramics, and faunal remains Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-RN-S-5H Historic Flume Assumption of Eligibility Direct

Temporary Construction Area #2C1

None

Temporary Construction Area #5

None

Segment 3B (Modified)

PSBR-64H Historic Water Transmission Line Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-7694H Historic Power Transmission Line Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-2129 Prehistoric Quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-4272H Historic Spanish Trail Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-2591 Prehistoric Quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-2092 Prehistoric Cobble Reduction Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-223 Prehistoric Quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-10315H Historic Power Transmission Line Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-3694 Prehistoric Village Site Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-4198 Prehistoric Habitation site with pottery, lithics, fire affected rock, 

faunal remains, and ground stone Assumption of Eligibility Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-16

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

CA-SBR-5128 Prehistoric Habitation site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-5329 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

PSBR-52 Prehistoric Trail System Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P2044-12H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-7689H Historic Segments of the Arrowhead Trail Highway Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-885 Prehistoric Rock alignment Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-4054/H Historic/

Prehistoric Refuse Deposit / Groundstone Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P2262-2H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-541 Prehistoric Quarry Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-2340H Historic Railroad Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P2284-6H Historic Town Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P2272-2

*

Prehistoric Rock Art Area Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-2532 Prehistoric Pottery Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

P2271-2H Historic Town Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-1074H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-42H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-43H Historic Rock Cairn and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-44H Historic Refuse Deposit and Well Not Eligible Direct

JSA-RN-S-3H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-RN-S-4H Historic Habitation Site Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-46H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-124 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-125 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-126H Historic Construction Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-129H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-130H Historic Well Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-131 Prehistoric Cobble Reduction Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-132H Historic Rock Cairn Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-133 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-17

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

JSA-CS-S-134 Prehistoric Cobble Reduction Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-135 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-136 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-137H Historic Power Transmission Line Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-138 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-144H Historic Fence line Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-145H Historic Prospector Pit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-146H Historic Cadastral Marker Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-151 Prehistoric Hearth Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-152 Prehistoric Hearth Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-153 Prehistoric Trail Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-154 Prehistoric Trail Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-250H Historic Mine Site and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-251H Historic Prospector’s Pit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-252H Historic Mine Site and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-253H Historic Dirt Road and Scattered Refuse Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-254H Historic Utility Line Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-255H Historic Fence Line and Historic Pictograph Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-256H Historic Residence Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-257H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-258H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-259H Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-260H Historic Road Monuments Not Eligible Indirect

JSA‐CS‐S‐261H Historic Road Monuments and Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-262H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-263H Historic Road Monument Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-264H Historic Road Monument Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-RN-S-6H Historic Well Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-RN-S-7H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-RN-S-8H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-18

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

JSA-RN-S-9H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-RN-S-14H Historic Claim Marker Not Eligible Direct

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility

JSA-CS-S-196H Historic Habitation Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

Temporary Construction Area #6

CA-SBR-2131 Prehistoric Lithic Reduction Site Assumption of Eligibility Direct

Temporary Construction Area #7

None

Temporary Construction Area #8

None

Temporary Construction Area #9

None

Temporary Construction Area #10

None

Segment 4C

JSA-CS-S-108H Historic Road segment Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-109H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-111H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-112H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-113H Historic Road segment Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-116H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-117H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-118H Historic Rock cairn Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-200H Historic Utility pole Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-201H Historic Rock cairns Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-203H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-204H Historic Mining site with adit and rock cairn Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-205H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-206H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-19

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

JSA-CS-S-207H Historic Cobble support for water conveyance pipe Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-208H Historic US GLO cadastral marker Not Eligible Direct

JSA-CS-S-210H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-3048H Historic Road segment and refuse deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-6835H Historic Survey marker, part of Von Schmidt Line Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-6955/H Multicomponent

Prehistoric habitation site with lithics, hearth 

features, and a projectile point; and a historic refuse 

deposit and fire ring

Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-7098/H Multicomponent

Prehistoric habitation site with lithics, ground stone 

and hearth ; historic well and refuse deposits Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

CA-SBR-7347H Historic Road segment Assumption of Eligibility Direct

CA-SBR-10315H Historic Boulder to Hoover power transmission line Eligible Direct

CA-SBR-10872 Prehistoric Habitation site with lithics, projectile points, ground 

stone, and pottery. Eligible Indirect

Temporary Construction Area #4C1

None

Temporary Construction Area #4C2

None

Temporary Construction Area #4C3

JSA-CS-S-201H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct

Temporary Construction Area #4C4

None

Temporary Construction Area #4C5

None

Segment 5B

26CK3540 Historic Railroad Camp Eligible Direct

26CK3541 Historic Railroad Construction Camp Eligible Direct

26CK5685 Historic Railroad Grade Eligible Direct

26CK3808 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Direct

26CK3820 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Indirect
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-20

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

26CK3821 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Indirect

26CK3822 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Direct

26CK3823 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Indirect

26CK3824 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Indirect

26CK3825 Prehistoric Habitation Eligible Direct

26CK3832 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Direct

26CK3833 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Direct

26CK3834 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Direct

26CK3836 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Indirect

26CK4958 Historic Road Eligible Indirect

26CK5180 Historic Transmission Line Eligible Direct

26CK6715 Prehistoric/ 

Historic Railroad Construction Camp and Groundstone Eligible Direct

26CK7166 Prehistoric / 

Historic Habitation Site Eligible Direct

26CK7167 Prehistoric Habitation Site Eligible Indirect

26CK7181 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Indirect

26CK7212 Historic Road Eligible Direct

26CK7214 Historic Road Not Eligible Indirect

26CK7217 Historic Road and Refuse Deposit Eligible Indirect

26CK7218 Historic Road Eligible Direct

26CK7223 Historic Transmission Line Not Eligible Indirect

26CK8273 Historic Mine Site Not Eligible Indirect

26CK8276 Historic Refuse Deposit Not Eligible Indirect

26CK8347 Historic / 

Prehistoric Railroad Construction Camp and Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-160H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

JSA-CS-S-161H Historic Habitation Site and Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-162H Historic Refuse Deposit Assumption of Eligibility Direct

JSA-CS-S-163H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-21

Site Number Period Type National Register

Eligibility

Impact 

(Direct or Indirect)

JSA-CS-S-164H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-165H Historic Rock Cairn Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-166H Historic Cobble Piles Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-190H Historic Railroad Camp Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

Segment 6B

26CK3542 Historic Railroad Berm Not Eligible Indirect

26CK5369 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Indirect

26CK5374 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Indirect

26CK1995 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible Indirect

JSA-CS-S-167H Historic Cadastral Marker Assumption of Eligibility Indirect

Temporary Construction Area #13

None

Temporary Construction Area #22

None

Las Vegas Southern Station

None

Las Vegas Central Station B

None

Wigwam MSF

None

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008; EDAW, 2008; ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010.

Notes: Direct APE impacts would relate to resources located within 115 feet of either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline, within 50 feet on either side of 

the utility corridors, and within the footprint of project facilities. Indirect APE impacts, related to construction, relate to resources within 116 to 200 feet on either side 

of the DesertXpress alignment centerline and within 51 to 100 feet on either side of the utility corridor. 

* P2272-2 was a preliminary identifier used to indicate a site that is more properly identified as CA-SBR-2535. This site was within the APE for alternatives 

contemplated in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. However, this site is outside the APE for the Preferred Alternative, owing to project modifications.
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-22

Historic Architectural Resources 

No National Register-eligible historic architectural resources were identified within the 

project APE. The APE between the Mojave River, near Victorville in California and Sloan 

in Nevada contains little development aside from I-15 and areas around Barstow, Baker, 

Primm and Jean. Segment 2C traverses central Barstow, which includes several notable 

architectural features. However, as discussed in Supplemental EIS Section 3.7.1, none of 

these structures are National Register-eligible or assumed eligible historical architectural 

resources. Through Baker, the APE for Segment 3 parallels I-15 and would be east of the 

developed areas, which includes a nearby cluster of abandoned residences that were 

determined to be ineligible for the National Register. A more urban environment occurs 

along Segment 6, which extends into suburban Clark County and into the City of Las 

Vegas proper. However, none of the existing structures in this area were determined to be 

National Register-eligible. 

Paleontological Resources 

Table F-3.7-2 lists the geologic units potentially involved in construction along each 

segment of the Preferred Alternative; identifies their paleontological resources, if any; and 

evaluates their paleontological sensitivity based on the SVP criteria.3 Geology along the 

project alignment is shown in the figures in Section 3.9, Geology and Soils. 

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

Segment 

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

1

(See Draft EIS 

Figure 3.9-3 )

Q, Qa 

Younger alluvial valley 

sediments

Holocene

Low sensitivity. Materials of Holocene age (i.e., those 

younger than about 10,000 years) are not typically 

considered sensitive for paleontological resources 

because biological remains are not considered fossils 

unless they are older than 10,000 years. However, 

note that materials of Holocene age may occur as a 

thin veneer covering more paleontologically sensitive 

older units in the subsurface.

Qw 

Younger alluvial river/wash 

deposits

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally

overlie more sensitive deposits in the subsurface.

Qo, Qoa, Qod 

Older alluvial valley and fan 

sediments

Pleistocene

High sensitivity. Pleistocene non-marine deposits are 

almost universally considered highly sensitive for 

paleontological resources in California, because of 

their potential to contain vertebrate materials. 

California is home to the type sections for the two 

North American Land Mammal Stages within the 

Pleistocene (Rancholabrean, type section in the Los 

Angeles area; and Irvingtonian, type section in 

 

3

 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee, 1995. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-23

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

Qo, Qoa, Qod (continued). Fremont), and the literature is rich in examples of 

vertebrate faunas unexpectedly discovered as a result 

of excavations in Pleistocene materials.

Strata mapped as Qo, Qoa, and Qod are may be at 

least in part correlative with deposits of Pleistocene 

Lake Mojave/Lake Manix, which include numerous 

scattered localities with mammalian remains, including 

horses, mammoths, and cotton rat (e.g., Bowen 1954, 

Reynolds and Reynolds 1994, Scott et al. 1997, and 

Walker et al. 2002). 

Qof 

Older fanglomerate deposits Pleistocene

High sensitivity. Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qof may be at least in part 

correlative with deposits of Pleistocene Lake 

Mojave/Lake Manix, discussed above. 

KJqm, Qm, Gqm, Hd 

Quartz monzonite and allied 

intrusive igneous rocks.

Late Jurassic–

Cretaceous

Intrusive igneous (plutonic) rocks; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

Mzv, Lp, Pf 

Metavolcanic and volcanic 

rocks with sedimentary/ 

metasedimentary interbeds; 

includes Sidewinder Volcanic 

Series (Bowen 1954) and Oro 

Grande Formation (Hershey 

1902)

Paleozoic and 

Mesozoic

Undetermined, but includes several potentially 

sensitive units: limestone interbeds of Oro Grande 

Formation contain corals and crinoids; those of 

Fairview Valley Formation (contains corals, 

brachiopods, gastropods, echinoids, bryozoans, 

archaeocyathans) (Bowen 1954). 

2C Side 

Running/2A

(Supplemental 

Draft EIS 

Figure S-3.9-6)

Qs 

Aeolian sand deposits Holocene Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qo, Qoa Older 

alluvial sediments 

Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qo and Qoa may be at least in part 

correlative with deposits of Pleistocene Lake Mojave 

and Lake Manix, which include numerous scattered 

localities with mammalian remains, including horses, 

mammoths, and cotton rat (e.g., Bowen 1954, 

Reynolds and Reynolds 1994, Scott et al. 1997, and 

Walker et al. 2002).

Qof, Qoc, Qt 

Older alluvial valley sediments, 

including fanglomerate (Qof), 

other continental gravel, sand, 

silt, and clay deposits (Qt), and 

clay and marl (Qoc)

Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qof, Qoc, and Qt may be at least in 

part correlative with deposits of Pleistocene Lake 

Mojave and Lake Manix, discussed above.

Jhd, Qm, Hd 

Granitic rocks

Late Jurassic–

Cretaceous

Intrusive igneous (plutonic rocks); not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

Mzv, Ql, Ap 

Primarily metavolcanic and 

volcanic rocks

Mesozoic

Low sensitivity. Very unlikely to contain fossils; no 

known fossil resources.

Wg 

Waterman Gneiss of Bowen 

(1954) (quartz diorite gneiss)

Paleozoic

High-grade metamorphic rock; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-24

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

3B

(Draft EIS 

Figures 3.9-3

through 3.9-5)

Q, Qa, Qal 

Younger alluvial valley and fan 

sediments Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. Note 

however that materials of Holocene age may occur as 

a thin veneer covering more paleontologically sensitive 

older units in the subsurface.

Qw, Qrs 

Younger alluvial river/wash 

sediments

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qf

Younger alluvial fan sediments Holocene Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Ql 

Younger lake and play 

deposits

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qof, Qt 

Older alluvial valley sediments 

Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qof and Qt may be at least in part 

correlative with deposits of Pleistocene Lake 

Mojave/Lake Manis, which contains remains of fishes, 

turtles, numerous species of birds, and mammals 

(ground sloth, mammoth, jackrabbit, mouse, dire wolf, 

coyote, short-faced bear, mountain lion, black bear, 

scimitar-toth cat, horse, extinct camels, llama, 

pronghorn, mountain sheep, and antique bison), as 

well as invertebrates (ostracodes freshwater clams 

and snails) (Jefferson 2003).

Qms, Qol 

Older lacustrine deposits, 

including Manix Lake 

sediments 

Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qms include the Manix Lake 

deposits, which contain a rich and abundant vertebrate 

fauna, including remains of fishes, turtles, numerous 

species of birds, and mammals (ground sloth, 

mammoth, jackrabbit, mouse, dire wolf, coyote, shortfaced bear, mountain lion, black bear, scimitar-toth cat, 

horse, extinct camels, llama, pronghorn, mountain 

sheep, and antique bison), as well as invertebrates 

(ostracodes freshwater clams and snails) (Jefferson 

2003).

Qpv, Qeb 

Basalt flows Pleistocene Very unlikely to contain fossils; no known fossil resources. Low sensitivity.

Qc, Qp, Qo, Qoa, Qt Older 

alluvial and terrace deposits 

Pleistocene, PlioPleistoceneHigh sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits.

Tv, Tc 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

rocks (rhyolite flows, 

continental sedimentary rocks)

Tertiary

Sensitivity varies with lithology; some Tertiary 

sedimentary units are highly sensitive for vertebrate 

and other remains. Portions of the units mapped as Tv 

and Tc may be related to and/or include the Barstow 

Formation of Miocene age, which contains remains of 

camels, horses, mastodons, and flamingos, as well as 

various invertebrates (Lindsay 1972, Bureau of Land 

Management 1992, University of California Museum of 

Paleontology 2008), and is the principal fossiliferous 

unit at Rainbow Basin National Natural Landmark near 

Barstow.
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-25

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

Gr, Tkq 

Granitic rocks; includes 

Teutonia Quartz Monzonite of 

Hewett (1956)

Tertiary and

Mesozoic

Intrusive igneous (plutonic) rocks; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

Gr-M 

Granitic and metamorphic rock Mesozoic

Intrusive igneous (plutonic) and metamorphic rocks; 

not sensitive for paleontological resources.

Cm 

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks; includes

Monte Cristo Limestone of 

Hewett (1956)

Paleozoic 

(Carboniferous)

Undetermined; potentially high. Reported to be 

fossiliferous by Stewart (1980). Monte Cristo 

Formation contains echinoderm remains (University of 

California Museum of Paleontology 2008).

Ds, Dsv, Dsi 

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks; includes 

Sultan Limestone of Hewett 

(1956)

Paleozoic 

(Devonian)

Undetermined; potentially high. Sultan Formation 

contains stromatolites, conodonts (Cooper 1987, Miller 

and Cameron 1982), and brachiopods (Zenger 1982).

Ip/Ls, Dєg, Dєgu, Dєgb1

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks; includes 

Upper Cambrian Goodsprings 

Dolomite of Hewett (1956).

Paleozoic (Upper 

Cambrian and 

Devonian)

Undetermined; potentially high. Goodsprings 

Formation contains corals, crinoid columnals (stem 

segments), and conodonts (University of California, 

Riverside 2008). Bird Springs Formation contains 

remains of crinoids, corals, sharks, primitive mollusks 

(University of California, Riverside 2008), and fusulinid 

foraminifera (Rich 1961).

Epє, Pєg, Pєga, Pєgc Pєgb 

Metamorphic rocks (gneiss, 

schist)

Precambrian High-grade metamorphic rocks; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

Pєgr 

Granitic rocks

Precambrian

Intrusive igneous (plutonic) rocks; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

4C

(Supplemental 

DEIS Figure 

S-3-9.8)

Qal Younger 

alluvial stream and wash 

deposits Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. Note 

however that materials of Holocene age may occur as 

a thin veneer overlying more paleontologically 

sensitive older units in the subsurface.

Ql 

Younger lake and playa 

sediments; includes Ivanpah 

Lake deposits

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Epє, Pєg

Metamorphic rocks () 

Metamorphic rocks.

Precambrian

High-grade metamorphic rocks; not sensitive for 

paleontological resources.

5B

(Draft EIS 

Figures 3.9-5 

and 3.9-6)

Qx 

Areas of disturbed and 

modified substrate (artificial fill, 

commercial development 

areas, I-15 corridor)

Latest Holocene

Not sensitive for paleontological resources because of 

Holocene age and highly disturbed condition or 

anthropogenic origin.

Qay3 

Youngest alluvium () Active 

wash and alluvial fan deposits

Late Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-26

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

Qa, Qal, Qay 

Young alluvial fan and wash 

deposits 

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qpf 

Playa fringe deposits Holocene Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qay2 Young 

alluvium of intermittently active 

alluvial fans and washes

Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qay1 

Alluvium of inactive alluvial 

fans and washes

Early Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. May locally 

overlie more sensitive units in the subsurface.

Qai 

―Intermediate Alluvium‖ 

(deposits of inactive alluvial 

fans)

Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qai likely at least in part correlative 

with deposits known to be highly fossiliferous (Lake 

Manix/Lake Mojave deposits, Las Vegas Formation).

Qao, Qta 

Older alluvial fan deposits Pleistocene–Late 

Miocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Strata mapped as Qao, Qta may be at least in part 

correlative with deposits known to be highly 

fossiliferous (Lake Manix/Lake Mojave deposits, Las 

Vegas Formation).

Tao Fluvial sedimentary rocks 

Tertiary

Undetermined, potentially high. May be in part related 

to/correlative with Barstow Formation and/or other 

vertebrate-bearing Miocene units.

Tv, Tsf Volcanic rocks 

ranging from basalt to rhyolite Tertiary Low sensitivity; no known fossil content.

Pbs, Ppmb, Mzpzs Marine 

sedimentary and 

metasedimentary rocks; 

includes Bird Spring Formation

Mesozoic–

Paleozoic 

(Carboniferous)

Undetermined; potentially high. Bird Spring Formation 

contains crinoids, corals, sharks, primitive mollusks 

(University of California, Riverside 2008), and fusulinid 

foraminifera (Rich 1961).

Dєg, Mzpzs 

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks; includes 

Good Springs Dolomite and 

Carbonate Rocks of Hewett 

(1956)

Paleozoic 

(Cambrian, 

Devonian)

Undetermined; potentially high. Goodsprings 

Formation contains corals, crinoids columnals (stem 

segments), and conodonts (University of California, 

Riverside 2008).

6B

(Figure 3.9-6 of 

the Draft EIS)

Qa, Qal, Qs 

Younger alluvial deposits of 

active fans and washes Holocene

Low sensitivity because of Holocene age. Note 

however that materials of Holocene age may occur as 

a thin veneer overlying more paleontologically 

sensitive older units in the subsurface.

Qai 

Intermediate alluvial deposits 

of inactive fans

Pleistocene–

Holocene

Pleistocene portions of this sequence are highly 

sensitive. Pleistocene portions may be correlative with 

the richly fossiliferous Las Vegas Formation, which 

contains remains of the following: toad (Bufo sp.), tree 

frogs (Hyla spp.), frog (Rana sp.), tortoise (Gopherus

sp.), lizards (Sceloporus sp., Callisaurus sp.), horned 

lizard (Phyrnosoma sp.), non-venomous snakes 

(family Colubridae), widgeon (Mareca americana), 

ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), lesser scaup (A. 

affinis), common merganser (Mergus merganser), 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-27

Segment Geologic Unit* Age Fossil Content and Paleontological Sensitivity**

Qai (continued). extinct teratorn (Teratornis merriami), American coot 

(Fulica americana) and extinct small coot (F. 

Americana minor), owl (Bubo sp.), an unidentified 

soaring hawk (Buteoninae), ground sloths, Columbian 

mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), cottontail (Sylvilagus 

sp.), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), various rodents, coyote 

(Canis latrans), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), badger 

(Taxidea taxus), large cats, including a probable lynx 

(?Lynx sp.) and one similar to the modern mountain 

lion (Felidae cf. Puma concolor), extinct horses (Equus

spp.), an extinct large camel (Camelops sp.), a large 

bovid (Bovidae), and extinct bison (Bison sp. cf. B. 

antiquus) (Simpson 1933, Mawby 1967, Reynolds et 

al. 1991, San Bernardino County Museum 2008)

Qoa 

Older alluvial deposits Pleistocene

High sensitivity; Pleistocene non-marine deposits. 

Likely at least in part correlative with/related to Las 

Vegas Formation, described above.

Qts 

Consolidated sediments Pliocene–

Pleistocene

Pleistocene portion—high sensitivity; Pleistocene nonmarine deposits. Pleistocene portion may be in part 

related to Las Vegas Formation (see above). 

Mmc, Mm 

Marine sedimentary and 

metasedimentary rocks; 

includes Monte Cristo 

Limestone of Hewett (1956)

Paleozoic 

(Carboniferous)–

Mesozoic

Undetermined; potentially high. Monte Cristo 

Formation contains echinoderms (University of 

California, Museum of Paleontology 2008).

Sources: Bowen 1954; Bureau of Land Management 1992; California Division of Mines and Geology 1987 [Kingman 

sheet];Cooper 1987; Jefferson 2003; Lindsay 1972; Mawby 1967; Miller and Cameron 1982; Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, 1985, 1987, 2006; Ninyo & Moore (2007); Reynolds and Reynolds 1994; Reynolds et al. 1991; Rich 1961; San 

Bernardino County Museum 2008; Scott et al. 1997; Simpson 1933; Stewart 1980; University of California, Riverside 2008; 

University of California Museum of Paleontology 2008; Walker et al. 2002; Zenger 1982. 

* Map symbols are the same as those used in the geologic maps in Figures 3.9-3 through 3.9-6.

** Paleontological sensitivity was evaluated using the criteria of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995). 

In general, the following geological units along the project alignment are considered 

highly sensitive for paleontological resources: 

 Non-marine continental (alluvial fan, fluvial, lakebed) deposits of Pleistocene 

age. 

In California, these include the deposits of the Pleistocene Mojave River–

Lake Mojave–Lake Manix system, which contain a rich and diverse 

vertebrate assemblage (e.g., Bowen 1954, Reynolds and Reynolds 1994, 

Scott et al. 1997, Walker et al. 2002). 

Along the Nevada portion of the alignment, a key Pleistocene deposit is the 

Las Vegas Formation, also documented as containing abundant vertebrate 

remains (Simpson 1933, Mawby 1967, Reynolds et al. 1991, San Bernardino 

County Museum 2008). 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-28

Other non-marine strata of Pleistocene age along the alignment should also 

be considered highly sensitive for paleontological resources in California. 

Some of them are known to contain vertebrate materials, but even those 

not documented as fossiliferous are likely sensitive. California’s Pleistocene 

non-marine deposits are generally considered highly sensitive because of 

their potential to contain vertebrate materials. California is home to the 

type sections for the two North American Land Mammal Stages within the 

Pleistocene (Rancholabrean, type section in the Los Angeles area; and 

Irvingtonian, type section in Fremont), and the literature is rich in 

examples of vertebrate faunas unexpectedly discovered as a result of 

excavations in Pleistocene materials. 

 Barstow Formation of Miocene age and correlative deposits. The Barstow 

Formation is the principal fossiliferous unit at Rainbow Basin Natural Area near 

Barstow, and preserves remains of numerous vertebrate and invertebrate taxa 

(reference). 

Several marine sedimentary units of Paleozoic age, including the Cambrian Monte Cristo 

Formation (Monte Cristo Limestone), Devonian Sultan Formation (Sultan Limestone) and 

Goodsprings Formation, and the Pennsylvanian Bird Spring Formation, are also known to 

be fossiliferous. Their sensitivity is undetermined and requires further evaluation, but 

could be high. 

Archaeological Resources 

Impacts to archaeological resources are largely the result of the physical destruction of or 

damage to all or part of the property. Such damage can be caused by ground disturbance 

during construction or operation of improvements. 

The greatest potential for damage to archaeological resources within the APE would be 

during the construction of the Preferred Alternative, which would involve extensive 

ground-disturbing activities. Operation of the DesertXpress rail line, stations, and 

maintenance facilities would not result in ground-disturbing activities that could directly 

impact these resources. However, the presence of trains travelling in close proximity to 

these resources could result in adverse indirect effects related to noise, vibration, and 

visual impacts. 

Table F-3.7-3 summarizes the potential direct and indirect impacts to known National 

Register eligible or assumed eligible archaeological resources within the APE for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Architectural Resources 

Throughout the entirety of the APE, no architectural resources were either determined or 

are recommended to be eligible for the National Register. Therefore, no architectural 

resources would be adversely affected or subject to significant impacts from the Preferred 

Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-29

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

Resources in the APE 

Project Component

(Including TCAs)

Archaeological Resources 

Directly Affecteda

Archaeological Resources 

Indirectly Affected

Number Number

VV3 12 0

OMSF 2 3 0

Segment 1 24 6

Segment 2C Side Running 45 14

Segment 3B (Modified) 45 13

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility 1 0

Segment 4C 20 5

Segment 5B 15 20

Segment 6B 0 5

Las Vegas Southern Station 0 0

Las Vegas Central Station B 0 0

Frias Substation 0 0

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008 and 2010. 

a

 Direct APE impacts would likely occur within 115 feet on either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline, within 50 

feet on either side of the utility corridor, and within the footprint of project facilities. Indirect APE impacts, related to 

construction, would likely occur within 116 to 200 feet on either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline and within 

51 to 100 feet on either side of the utility corridor. 

Paleontological Resources 

Table F-3.7-2, above, identifies the paleontologically sensitive geologic units along the 

alignment of the Preferred Alternative. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would 

likely result in adverse effects on paleontological resources in the following two situations: 

 Where the proposed rail alignment or facility crosses paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units exposed at the surface; and 

 Where the rail alignment or facility is situated on Holocene materials that overlie 

highly sensitive materials, and ground disturbance would be deep enough to affect 

underlying sensitive strata. 

More specifically, adverse effects would be possible in all areas of Pleistocene substrate, in 

any portions of the project immediately underlain by the Barstow Formation or correlative 

strata of Miocene age, and in areas where Holocene materials form a thin veneer and 

ground disturbance would involve underlying Pleistocene strata, Barstow Formation, or 

Barstow correlatives. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-30

Adverse effects could also occur during construction in portions of Preferred Alternative 

immediately underlain by fossiliferous Paleozoic strata and in portions where a Holocene 

veneer is present but ground disturbance would involve underlying Paleozoic strata. The 

sensitivity of these units is currently undetermined and would need to be further 

evaluated on a site-specific basis, as discussed in Section 3.7.5.3 of the Draft EIS. 

The potential for adverse effects would be lessened only somewhat in previously disturbed 

areas —for instance, Segment 3B (Modified) would be within the I-15 corridor—if all 

ground disturbance is confined to the previously disturbed envelope (area and depth). 

However, given the highly sensitive nature of some of the deposits involved in 

construction (e.g., the Lake Mojave/Lake Manix deposits, Las Vegas Formation, and 

Barstow Formation), there may be some potential for adverse effects even in previously 

disturbed substrate. 

Like construction, ground-disturbing maintenance activities in areas of sensitive substrate 

would have some potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. The majority 

of maintenance activities are expected to take place within the corridor already disturbed 

by construction; most maintenance would not involve more extensive or deeper ground 

disturbance than construction, and is therefore unlikely to result in new adverse impacts 

even in areas of sensitive substrate. Accordingly, maintenance activities confined to the 

pre-existing (construction-related) disturbance envelope do not require mitigation for 

effects on paleontological resources. However, maintenance activities that ―break new 

ground,‖ resulting in disturbance of previously undisturbed substrate of high or 

undetermined sensitivity, could result in adverse effects on paleontological resources. 

3.7.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.7-5 summarizes the comparison of cultural and paleontological resources 

effects for the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the 

Preferred Alternative are highlighted in yellow. For a list of resources located with the 

APE for other action alternatives not carried forward into the Final EIS, please consult 

Draft EIS Tables 3-7.6 through 3-7.11 and Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-3.7-1. 

Archaeological Resources 

The action alternatives would involve the construction and operation of rail alignments 

and associated facilities similar to those described above under the Preferred Alternative. 

Components with the least potential to impact archaeological resources would be those 

that are located in developed areas. Rail alignments within the I-15 freeway median would 

be less likely to impact resources, as freeway construction activities in the past have most 

likely resulted in the degradation of archaeological resources within the right-of-way. 

None of the Las Vegas station options evaluated under Preferred Alternative and the 

action alternatives would affect archaeological resources in the study area. However, all of 

the Victorville station options would have some affect on archaeological resources. 

Construction of the Victorville Station proposed under the Action Alternative would 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-31

impact the largest number of archaeological resources when compared to the action 

alternatives. All OMSF options would generally impact the same number of 

archaeological resources. 

While archival and field surveys conducted to date indicate that some of the components 

of the action alternatives could be located in areas with fewer known cultural resources, 

the actual number and extent of buried archaeological resources cannot be fully 

determined without subsurface investigation. As a result, it is possible that components of 

the action alternatives that appear to impact fewer known resources could result in more 

significant impacts once subsurface investigation or construction were to begin. With this 

in mind FRA considered the information gathered during the archival research and field 

surveys to assess the relative sensitivity of the APE and potential impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative compared to the other action alternatives, which in most cases would be very 

similar. 

Paleontological Resources 

Similar to the potential risks associated with archaeological resources, components with 

the least potential to impact paleontological resources would be those that are located in 

developed areas. Given that the components of the action alternatives would occur largely 

in the same sensitive geological units as the Preferred Alternative, impacts associated with 

paleontological resources would be similar. 

Architectural Resources 

As previously discussed, no architectural resources would be adversely affected or subject 

to significant impacts from the Preferred Alternative. However, several architectural 

resources were identified within the APE for Segments 7A, 7B and 7C (see Figure 3-7.1 of 

the Draft EIS). These resources would be subject to potential adverse effects under the 

other action alternatives. In addition, the contemplated Las Vegas Downtown Station site 

would have been located across Main Street from a National Register-eligible building. 

Depending on the degree of noise and vibration during the construction phase of the Las 

Vegas Downtown Station, there would be potential to damage the adobe construction 

material of this building, a potentially significant adverse effect.
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-32

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

Alternative

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Directly Affected

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Indirectly Affected

Number of Historic 

Architectural Resources 

Directly/Indirectly Affected

No Action Alternative 

Assumed to be same as 

Preferred Alternative –

approximately 165

Assumed to be same as 

Preferred Alternative –

approximately 63

Assumed None

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 24 6 0

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 16 3 0

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 23 7 0

Segment 2C 45 14 0

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 19 6 0

Segment 3B (Modified) 45 13 0

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 7 1 0

Segment 4B 8 1 0

Segment 4C 20 5 0

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 4 2 0

Segment 5B 15 20 0
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-33

Alternative

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Directly Affected

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Indirectly Affected

Number of Historic 

Architectural Resources 

Directly/Indirectly Affected

Segment 6 

Segment 6A 1 0 0

Segment 6B 0 5 0

Segment 6C 19 4 0

Segment 7 

Segment 7A 0 0 0

Segment 7B 0 0 0

Segment 7C 0 0 0

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 2 0 0

Victorville Station Site 2 1 0 0

Victorville Station Site 3 12 0 0

Victorville OMSF 1 5 0 0

Victorville OMSF 2 3 0 0

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station 0 0 0

Las Vegas Central Station A 0 0 0

Las Vegas Central Station B 0 0 0
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-34

Alternative

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Directly Affected

Number of Eligible or 

Assumed Eligible 

Archaeological Resources 

Indirectly Affected

Number of Historic 

Architectural Resources 

Directly/Indirectly Affected

Las Vegas Downtown Station 0 0 2

Sloan Road MSF4

0 0 0

Relocated Sloan MSF 1 0 0

Wigwam Avenue MSF 0 0 0

Robindale Avenue MSF 0 0 0

Frias Substation 0 0 0

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility 1 0 0

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit) None 5 additional resources in utility 

corridor n/a

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) None 5 additional resources in utility 

corridor n/a

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

 

4 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the ―Relocated Sloan MSF,‖ located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-35

3.7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Archaeological Resources 

Appendix F-H contains the executed Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the project. The 

PA describes a phased implementation approach consistent with 36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(2) 

permitting formal eligibility determinations to be made after the Preferred Alternative is 

identified and ratified by the lead and cooperating agencies via Records of Decision on the 

proposed action. (Such Records of Decision would follow from the Lead and Cooperating 

Agencies, subsequent to publication of this Final EIS). 

The PA sets forth detailed procedures for the identification and evaluation of cultural 

resources within the APE for the Preferred Alternative. The procedures include steps to 

determine if measures can be take to further avoid or reduce impacts to cultural resources 

and in doing so requires consultation with Tribes consulted during development of the PA. 

If the Preferred Alternative is determined to adversely affect one or more cultural 

resources a Historic Properties Treatment Plan(s) (HPTPs) will be prepared. An outline of 

the contents of an HPTP is included with the PA in Appendix F-H. The HPTPs will 

include additional evaluation of possible avoidance and minimization measures (e.g. 

protective measures) that could be taken to reduce impacts. If impacts cannot be fully 

avoided the HPTP will require detailed recording of the resource before it is impacted and 

data recovery. The final step in the process will be to curate the records and any artifacts 

collected in accordance with federal law and the HPTP. 

The PA includes specific requirements and procedures in the event human remains are 

encountered during construction. The first step will be to prepare a Plan of Action (POA) 

pursuant to the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). An outline of 

the POA is included with the PA in Appendix F-H. The purpose of the POA is to ensure 

the treatment and disposition of remains and associated grave goods will follow applicable 

Federal and state laws and health and safety codes and that appropriate Tribal 

representatives are contacted and consulted regarding the disposition of remains and 

associated grave goods. 

While the PA sets forth specific procedures and requirements to comply with Section 106 

including the identification, evaluation, assessment of effects and mitigation/treatment of 

cultural resources, the following mitigation measures have been included to support and 

enforce the procedures and requirements of the PA. 

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Avoidance of Archaeological Resources 

When detailed construction information becomes available, it may be possible to 

avoid resources through project design. Prior to determining whether avoidance is 

feasible however, it may be necessary to conduct test excavations to determine the 

vertical and horizontal extent of resources. Once avoidance can be assured, 

resource location information would be placed on construction drawings as 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-36

locations to be monitored during construction. If during monitoring it was 

determined that avoidance was infeasible then the process outlined below under 

Evaluation and Data Recovery would be followed. 

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Evaluation and Data Recovery/Other 

Measures 

It is presumed that it will not be possible to avoid the majority of archaeological 

resources within the APE. Resources that cannot be avoided shall be subject to test 

excavations to determine their significance and if determined significant, subject 

to data recovery. Resources that are determined to be significant under National 

Register Criteria A, B, and C (36 CFR 60.4) shall be subject to mitigation that will 

likely include recordation such as the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) program. The process that shall be 

followed to determine resource significance and conduct data recovery/other 

mitigation will be outlined in the HPTP as stipulated in the PA. All archaeological 

work on National Register-eligible properties shall be conducted in accordance 

with ―Treatment of Archaeological Properties: A Handbook‖5 and ―Archaeology 

and Historic Preservation: the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines.‖

6

 Investigations shall be performed under the supervision of 

professionals whose education and experience meet or exceed the Secretary of the 

Interior’s ―Professional Qualifications Standards.‖

7

Should human remains be found during archaeological investigation, either state 

or Federal laws regarding the discovery of human remains shall be followed. On 

Federal land, the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) shall be followed. If the remains are found on state or 

private land within California, the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) 

5097 shall be met. If human remains are identified on state or private land within 

Nevada, the requirements of Nevada Revised Statutes (Section 383.160) and 

(Section 383.170) shall be followed. 

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Monitoring 

Portions of the APE have been determined to have the potential for buried 

resources. During construction, Native American monitor(s) designated in 

consultation with the Consulting Tribes shall be present within those sections 

identified in the HPTP as moderately to highly sensitive for prehistoric and 

historical archaeological deposits. The HPTP shall also outline the locations of 

monitoring, frequency and duration as well as the process to follow when 

 

5

 ACHP 1990. 

6 48 FR 44716-44742. 

7

 48 FR 44738-44739. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-37

monitoring results in an unanticipated discovery. Specifically, any unanticipated 

resources that are identified during monitoring shall be evaluated and treated in 

accordance with the requirements of the HPTP and PA. If human remains are 

discovered during monitoring, the regulatory requirements described above shall 

be followed. 

Mitigation Measure CR-4: Preconstruction Meeting and Worker 

Awareness Training 

The Applicant shall ensure that all persons meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualifications Standards who are supervising activities conducted as 

prescribed in the PA and all contracted field personnel, including construction 

workers, meet with one or more Consulting Tribes for a briefing on traditional 

customs and culturally sensitive protocols and procedures. 

Mitigation Measure CR-5: Annual Reporting 

Consistent with Administrative Stipulation IV.B of the PA, FRA shall require the 

Applicant to submit an annual report documenting the completion status of the 

stipulations outlined in the PA. The Annual Report shall include, at a minimum: 

a. A list of all studies, reports, actions, evaluations, or monitoring reviewed or 

generated under the Stipulations of this PA. 

b. Efforts to identify and/or evaluate potential historic properties, monitoring 

efforts, archaeological management assessments or research designs, and 

treatment of historic properties. 

c. Any recommendations to amend this PA or improve communications 

among the parties. 

d. A discussion of any inadvertent effects to historic properties occurring 

during the course of the year. 

FRA shall ensure that the annual report is made available to the public and that 

members of the public are invited to provide comments to FRA, as well as to the 

ACHP and SHPOs. 

Mitigation Measure CR-6: Quarterly Reporting 

FRA shall require the Applicant to prepare quarterly progress reports on the status 

of project construction. As lead agency, FRA will be responsible for coordinating 

and submitting the report to Tribal representatives. The Quarterly report shall 

include, at a minimum, anticipated needs for Tribal representative monitors in the 

upcoming months. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-38

Architectural Resources 

As previously discussed, no architectural resources would be adversely affected or subject 

to significant impacts from the Preferred Alternative. However, the Draft EIS did evaluate 

an action alternative that included the Las Vegas Downtown Station, which was found to 

have a potential adverse effect to one architectural resource. Mitigation Measure CR-4

in the Draft EIS was developed to reduce the potential effect to this resource. As the 

Preferred Alternative does not include the Las Vegas Downtown Station, this measure is 

not longer applicable to the Final EIS, and is not included as part of the required 

mitigation measures of the project. Mitigation Measure CR-4 of this Final EIS has 

been revised to address impacts to archaeological resources, as described above. 

Paleontological Resources 

This section presents the mitigation measures developed to address the adverse effects of 

project construction and maintenance on paleontological resources. In general, mitigation 

for each segment shall apply to all ground disturbing activities within that segment, during 

both construction and operational periods, as stipulated in individual measures. 

Mitigation Measure CR-7: Further Evaluation of Geologic Units 

Before ground-disturbing activities begin, the Applicant shall retain a qualified 

paleontologist as defined by the SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995) or other appropriate 

personnel (e.g., California licensed professional geologist with appropriate 

experience and expertise) to conduct further literature review and discussion with 

subject area experts in order to resolve the paleontological sensitivity of the 

geologic units identified in Table F-3.7-2 as ―undetermined‖ and the areas with 

strata of Holocene age exposed at the surface If site-specific engineering geologic 

or geotechnical studies for the project identify additional units likely to be affected 

by project construction and not included in Table F-3.7-2, they shall also be 

evaluated for paleontological sensitivity under this measure. 

This information shall be used to guide mitigation requirements on a site-specific 

basis during construction and during maintenance activities that require ground 

disturbance, as follows. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-8, CR-9, and CR-11 shall apply to all grounddisturbing construction and maintenance activities. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-10 shall apply to all ground-disturbing 

construction activities that affect geologic units identified as highly 

sensitive for paleontological resources, and to all maintenance activities 

that would involve new or extended ground disturbance in highly sensitive 

units. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-39

Mitigation Measure CR-8: Preconstruction Meeting and Worker 

Awareness Training 

The Applicant shall ensure that all construction and maintenance personnel 

receive paleontological resources awareness training that includes information on 

the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of fossils likely 

to be seen, based on finds in the site vicinity; and proper procedures in the event

fossils are encountered. 

Worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified paleontologist as 

defined by the SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact 

Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995) or other appropriate personnel (e.g., 

California licensed professional geologist with appropriate experience and 

expertise) experienced in teaching non-specialists. It may be delivered at the same 

time as other pre-planned construction worker education, or it may be presented 

separately. 

Mitigation Measure CR-9: Paleontological Monitoring 

Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing 

activities in portions of the proposed rail alignment and facilities with substrate 

materials identified as highly sensitive for paleontological resources (see Table F3.7-2 above). Full-time monitoring will also be required where Holocene 

materials overlie highly sensitive strata and site-specific investigations have 

identified the potential for project activities to involve the underlying sensitive 

strata. 

A trained paleontological monitor shall oversee all ground-disturbing activities 

that affect highly sensitive substrate materials, including vegetation removal, site 

preparation, construction grading and excavation, and any drilling for piers or 

pilings. Paleontological monitoring shall consist of observing operations and 

periodically inspecting disturbed, graded, and excavated surfaces. The monitor 

shall have authority to divert grading or excavation away from exposed surfaces 

temporarily in order to examine disturbed areas more closely, and/or recover 

fossils. The responsible paleontologist shall coordinate with the construction 

manager to ensure that monitoring is thorough but does not result in unnecessary 

delays. 

If additional personnel are needed for effective monitoring, the responsible 

paleontologist may train other consultant or in-house staff in paleontological 

monitoring. Once training is complete, individuals trained by the qualified 

paleontologist may then monitor the proposed project construction independently, 

and shall have the same responsibilities as described above. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-40

Mitigation Measure CR-10: Stop Work Requirement 

If fossil materials are discovered during any project-related activity, including but 

not limited to project grading and excavation, all ground-disturbing work in the 

vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until the responsible paleontologist can 

assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate 

treatment. Assessment shall occur in a timely manner, and recommendations for 

treatment shall be consistent with SVP guidelines (Society of Vertebrate 

Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995). 

Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they 

can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection, and may also 

include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. If no report is 

required, the Applicant will nonetheless ensure that information on the nature, 

location, and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific community. The 

responsible paleontologist and all paleontological monitors shall be empowered to 

temporarily halt or redirect the excavation equipment away from fossils to be 

salvaged. 

Mitigation Measure CR-11: Fossil Recovery and Curation 

If fossil materials are discovered during project-related activities, the responsible 

paleontologist shall determine whether recovery and curation is warranted, and 

shall be empowered to confer with local area experts as needed to arrive at a 

determination. All materials warranting recovery shall be stabilized on the site and 

then salvaged consistent with currently accepted procedures and the prevailing 

standard of care for paleontological excavations. The responsible paleontologist 

shall coordinate with the construction manager to ensure that specimen recovery 

proceeds in a timely manner. 

Recovered fossils shall be prepared for identification consistent with currently 

accepted procedures and the prevailing standard of care. They shall then be 

identified by competent specialists, potentially including, but not necessarily 

limited to, the responsible paleontologist. If possible, identification shall include 

genus, species, and, if applicable, subspecies. If species-level identification is not 

feasible, the maximum feasible level of specificity shall be provided. The fossil 

assemblage shall then be analyzed by stratigraphic occurrence and any other 

applicable parameters, such as size, taxa present, and/or taphonomic conditions. 

A faunal list shall be developed. 

Any specimens (fossils) of paleontological significance found during construction 

shall be temporarily housed in an appropriate museum or university collection. If 

curation is required, the responsible paleontologist shall develop appropriate 

curation agreements, consistent with applicable protocols and the prevailing 

standard of care. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-41

The responsible paleontologist shall prepare a final report that includes at least the 

following components: 

 Information on site geology and stratigraphy, including a stratigraphic 

column; 

 A description of field and laboratory methods; 

 A faunal list, with stratigraphy ranges/occurrences for each taxon; 

 A concise discussion of the significance of the site and its and relationship 

to other nearby and/or similar fossil localities; 

 A list of references consulted during the project, including published 

geologic maps for the site and vicinity; and

 A complete set of field notes, field photographs, and any new geologic maps 

developed for or during the project. 

Full copies of the final report, including any appended materials, shall be put on 

file with any repository institution(s). Depending on the nature of the materials 

recovered, it may also be appropriate to prepare a report for publication in an 

appropriate peer-reviewed professional journal. Such publication shall be at the 

discretion of the responsible paleontologist. 

3.7.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All effects to cultural resources associated with the Preferred Alternative can be mitigated 

through avoidance, evaluation and data recovery, or other mitigation through 

archaeological investigation and monitoring during construction as described above. 

These measures will form the basis of the stipulations to be outlined in the HPTP and the 

PA to resolve the adverse effects of the project to archaeological resources. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.7-42

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-1 

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

This section describes updates and changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the hydrology and water 

quality impacts related to the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action and other 

Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.8.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS related to hydrology and water quality and provides responses to those 

comments. Several comments resulted in changes to the hydrology and water quality 

analysis in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and are discussed below. 

Substantive updates and changes in response to comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, the Applicant initiated the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Section 404 permitting process with the USCAE in May 2010. The CWA Section 404 

established a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of 

the US, including wetlands. As part of this CWA Section 404 permitting process, the 

Applicant prepared six formal jurisdictional delineation reports for the Death Valley area, 1

the Cuddeback Lakes watershed,2 the Ivanpah Valley area, 3 the Jean Dry Lake area,4 the 

Las Vegas watershed,5

 and the Roach Dry Lake area.6 These six delineation reports are 

included as Appendix F-I to this Final EIS. The delineation reports investigate the 

presence of wetlands and other waters potentially subject to USACE regulation under 

CWA Section 404. The delineation reports were conducted in accordance with the CFR 

 

1

 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

2

 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San Bernardino 

County, California. July 2010. 

3

 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

4 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, Clark 

County, Nevada. July 2010. 

5

 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

6 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, 

Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-2 

definitions of jurisdictional waters, USACE regulations, and supporting guidance 

documents. The delineation reports make recommendations to the USACE relative to the 

presence of waters of the US for a final jurisdictional determination. The delineation 

reports were submitted to the USACE in July 2010. While the preparation of the 

delineation reports is a separate process undertaken by Applicant, the information from 

these delineation reports has informed this Final EIS. Although the FRA and the 

Cooperating Agencies are not adopting the methodology underlying the CWA Section 404 

permit process, this Final EIS incorporates the quantitative analysis and other relevant 

information into the substantive updates and changes in response to comments on the 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS as appropriate. Section 3.8.2.3 below also 

incorporates this information as it relates to the Preferred Alternative. 

Jurisdictional determination and issuance of a permit for the discharge of fill material into 

waters of the US associated with construction of the DesertXpress project will be part of 

the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by the USACE. In addition to the CWA 

Section 404 permit, the Applicant will apply for certification under Section 401 of the 

CWA.7

 Section 401 Certification is administered in California through the Regional Water 

Quality Control Boards (in the case of the DesertXpress project the Lahontan Regional 

Water Quality Control Board) and in Nevada by the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. Issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit by the USACE, and Section 401 

Certification, are anticipated to follow issuance of the Records of Decision on the project 

by the Cooperating Agencies. 

Impacts to waters of the US and water quality resulting from the DesertXpress project 

identified in this Final EIS may also be addressed in the CWA Section 404 permit and 

Section 401 Certification. The Applicant will be required to comply with all conditions and 

mitigation requirements that result from the CWA Section 404 permit and Section 401 

Certification, as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 stipulated in 

Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS. These defined mitigation measures would require the 

incorporation of site-specific water quality treatment devices and BMPs to protect water 

quality, require the implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program and a 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, require the proper design of drainage 

systems and flood protection measures, and minimizing impacts on water availability 

during construction. 

 

7

 Under federal CWA Section 401, every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity which may 

result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification (Certification) that the 

proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. Most Certifications are issued in connection 

with USACE CWA section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges.
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-3 

3.8.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.8.3.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.8.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for water resources, groundwater, and floodplains for the 

DesertXpress project. These sections, in combination with the text revisions shown below, 

remain applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Comment 314 on the Draft EIS requested revisions to the characterization of a series of 

drainages in relation to I-15. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.8.3.4 under the heading “Segment 5,” as follows: 

Water Resources: There are many small, unnamed drainages along Segment 5 

that drain from the Toiyabe National Forest to the northwest, and the North 

McCullough Mountains Wilderness Study Area to the east (see Figure 3-8.6

Figure F-3.8-5). The primary named drainages in the study area of Segment 5 

include the Bonanza Wash and the Porter Wash. These washes appear to connect 

to other unnamed drainages that stop just prior to I-15. Water from several 

ephemeral drainages flow perpendicular into the roadway ROW and 

then is funneled down-slope collecting other small drainages and 

eventually a culvert transfers the water across to the other side of the I15 freeway ROW. 

Comment 315 on the Draft EIS stated that the floodplains within Segment 5 have not been 

properly identified. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Figure 

3.8-6 to show the floodplains within the vicinity of Segment 5. Figure F-3.8-1 at the end 

of this section shows this revision. 

Comment S-226 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested identification of the beneficial 

uses of surface waters within the project area. To address this comment, this Final EIS 

amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.3.3 under the heading “Regional Surface Water Quality”, 

to add additional text as follows: 

The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan 

identifies the beneficial uses of the waters in the vicinity of the 

DesertXpress project in California to include: 

 waters that support habitat necessary for the survival and 

successful maintenance of plant or animal species established 

under state and/or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered,

 waters used for natural or artificial recharge of ground water for 

purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or 

halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, and

 waters that support wildlife habitats including, but not limited to, 

the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species 

used by wildlife, such as waterfowl.
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-4 

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area obtained following 

publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.8.1 under the heading “Frias Substation,” paragraph 3, as follows:

The eastern portion of the Frias Substation site would not be located within a 

designated 100-year floodplain of Duck Creek. However, the western limit of the 

100-year floodplain for Duck Creek is immediately adjacent to the eastern 

boundary of the site.

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area obtained following 

publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.8.1 under the heading “Wigwam MSF Modification”, paragraph 1, as follows:

The orientation, not the location of the Wigwam MSF has been changed. 

Therefore, existing water resources, and groundwater resources, and flooding 

hazards are the same as presented for the Wigwam MSF in Section 3.8.3.4 of the 

Draft EIS. The Wigwam MSF would not cross any existing drainages. and would 

not be located in the 100-year floodplain. Based on revised floodplain data 

since publication of the Draft EIS, portions of the Wigwam Avenue 

MSF site would be located within the 100-year floodplain.

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area obtained following 

publication of the Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.3.4 under the 

heading “Segments 6 and 7” and subheading “Flooding” as follows:

Within in Segment 6, 100-year floodplains are located along an unnamed wash 

between West Cactus Avenue and East Silverado Ranch Boulevard. This wash 

becomes the Duck Creek Drainage Canal moving east to west. The Tropicana 

Wash runs from southwest to northeast through natural and lined canals before it 

converges with the Flamingo Wash and drains to Lake Las Vegas. Within the area 

between I-15 and the UPRR tracks is the Tropicana Wash 100-year floodplain 

which extends south of East Tropicana Avenue, west of I-15, and along the railway 

tracks east of Wynn Road and north of West Oquendo Road. However, according 

to the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, several new conveyances and 

basins have been completed within this area, which have significantly reduced the 

area of the 100-year floodplain. Above the Tropicana Wash and east of I-15, there 

is another 100-year floodplain that extends south of West Flamingo Road, west of 

South Las Vegas Boulevard, north of West Tropicana Avenue, and east of I-15. 

The Clark County Regional Flood Control District has constructed and proposed 

new conveyances within this area that have significantly reduced the area of the 

100-year floodplain. 

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area obtained following 

publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Figure 3.8-7, 

which shows the Las Vegas Southern Station and Las Vegas Central Station B within the 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-5 

100-year floodplain. Draft EIS Figure 3.8-7 has been revised to show the most current 

floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, whereby the Las Vegas Southern 

Station and Las Vegas Central Station B are not located within the 100-year floodplain. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.8-6 has also been revised to show the most current 

floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Figure F-3.8-6 shows these 

revisions. 

3.8.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.8.1 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.0-2 describe the 

regulatory environment for hydrology and water quality for the DesertXpress project in 

detail. These sections, as modified by the text revision shown below, remain applicable to 

this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Comment 310 on the Draft EIS requested clarification that the Water Quality Certification 

required under CWA Section 401 would be issued by the state. To address this comment, 

this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.1.1 under the heading “Clean Water Act” as 

follows: 

CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Under CWA Section 401, 

applicants for a Federal license or permit to conduct activities that may result in 

the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain 

certification from the state in which the discharge would originate, or, if 

appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency with jurisdiction 

over affected waters at the point where the discharge would originate. Therefore, 

all projects that have a federal component and may affect the quality of the state’s 

waters (including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of 

a CWA Section 404 permit) must also comply with CWA Section 401. 

The Applicant will apply for and obtain Section 401 Certification for the 

DesertXpress project. As of February 2011, the Applicant is in the 

process of submitting the Section 401 application to the appropriate 

authorities within each state, namely the Lahontan Regional Water 

Quality Control Board in California and the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection in Nevada. The Applicant will be required to 

comply with all conditions and mitigation requirements that result 

from the Section 401 Certification, as well as Mitigation Measures 

HYD-1 through HYD-11 stipulated in Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS.

Comment S-222 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested discussion of the Lahontan 

Region Basin Plan. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 

3.8.1.2 under the heading “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act”, paragraphs 2 and 

3, as follows: 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-6 

The Porter-Cologne Act also provides for the development and periodic review of 

basin plans that designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and 

groundwater basins and establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives 

for those waters. Basin plans are primarily implemented by using the NPDES 

permitting system to regulate waste discharges so that water quality objectives are 

met (see discussion of the NPDES system in the Clean Water Act section above). 

Basin plans are updated every three years, and provide the technical basis for 

determining waste discharge requirements and taking enforcement actions. The 

Lahontan Region Basin Plan covers the project study area within California. 

The Lahontan Region Basin Plan includes water quality standards and 

control measures for surface and groundwater for the Lahontan 

Region. The Lahontan Region Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for 

water bodies and established water quality objective, waste discharge 

prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those 

beneficial uses. As part of the Basin Plan, the LRWQCB has set water 

quality objectives, both narrative and numeric, for both surface waters and 

groundwater in its region. The Applicant is committed to working with the 

LRWQCB to ensure the protection of water quality and mitigate 

impacts as appropriate. 

3.8.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Several comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS resulted in updates and 

changes to the hydrology and water quality analysis in the EIS and are discussed below. 

Comments 313, 316, 324, and 325 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-225 and S-234 on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS requested that project features (rail alignments, built facilities, 

etc.) should span drainage channels or be constructed so as to allow for broad crossings, 

provide adequate natural buffers for flood control, and ensure that post-construction 

hydrologic conditions match pre-construction hydrologic conditions relative to drainage 

capacity. The comments also stated that design elements of project features should ensure 

that runoff is not concentrated and that post-construction hydrologic conditions match 

the pre-construction hydrologic conditions. The comments also requested additional 

hydrological modeling to ensure that downstream flows will not be disrupted due to 

changes to natural washes. To address these comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.8.4.3, under the heading “Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a 

Manner That Would Result in Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or 

Offsite,” as follows:

Permanent Impacts: When complete, the action alternatives would bridge over 

the Mojave River, and numerous intermittent ephemeral streams, washes, and 

ditches that would be crossed along the 200-mile corridor. Based on a review of

preliminary design information from the Applicant, the bridging and culverted
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-7 

crossings of these water resources would not permanently alter their courses or 

flows. Hydrological modeling will be initiated and completed as part of 

the project final engineering design. The design will incorporate the 

use of existing natural drainage features, as appropriate, in order to 

minimize disruption of natural flow and function. Stormwater runoff 

would be conveyed under the proposed rail facility with adequate freeboard to ensure water is not concentrated by the DesertXpress project. 

Stormwater runoff from the trackway would generally be directed away from the 

trackway and into existing drainage facilities associated with the I- 15 freeway or

using natural and other local drainage systems in their present 

location and unmodified form as feasible. Along Segment 3A in Alternative 

A, and other I-15 median running alignments, drainage for the trackway would be 

designed to integrate with the existing I-15 drainage system. As recommended 

in Mitigation Measure HYD-6, the rail alignment would connect with 

and mirror the existing I-15 freeway culverts where the rail alignment 

would be located within the I-15 freeway corridor. 

Where the rail alignment would deviate from the I-15 freeway corridor, 

culverts would be installed at natural drainage features. Drainage 

facilities would be sized accordingly to accommodate adequate peak 

flows to reduce erosion or other downstream effects. Where the rail 

alignment would divert from the existing I-15 freeway, such as within 

the Ivanpah Valley just north of Mountain Pass, the DesertXpress 

project would include clear span crossings for all ephemeral drainages 

equal to or greater than four feet in width (as measured by the distance 

between the ordinary high water mark on each side of the drainage). 

The crossings would retain natural, earthen bottoms to minimize 

changes to the natural flow, erosion, and sedimentation patterns. 

Figure F-3.8-7 shows the preliminary location of ephemeral drainage 

crossings within the Ivanpah Valley, just north of Mountain Pass. 

To further address Comment S-234 on the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends 

Draft EIS Section 3.8.5, paragraph 1, as follows: 

To address the potential hydrologic and water quality related impacts described 

above, mitigation measures have been developed. Mitigation measures are 

classified by impact type and are further divided by measures to address impacts 

during the operational and construction periods, respectively. These measures are 

intended to apply to any project features (rail alignments, stations, OMSFs, 

MSFs, etc.) located within each segment unless otherwise noted. The Record of 

Decision for the DesertXpress project will incorporate these mitigation 

measures, making them conditions of approval to construct and 

operate the DesertXpress project.
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-8 

Comments S-227 and S-302 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested additional 

information related to stormwater runoff and a description of the required measures to 

ensure provision of adequate drainage for post-construction stormwater runoff. 

Comments S-230 and S-233 on the Supplemental Draft EIS also requested information 

regarding drainage mitigation for the temporary impacts to waters of the US. Comment 

326 on the Draft EIS also requested that the Draft EIS identify opportunities to improve 

obstructed natural flows as a result of the I-15 freeway corridor. To address these 

comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.8.4, Mitigation Measure HYD-6, as follows: 

Mitigation Measure HYD-6: Proper Design of Station and Maintenance 

Facility Drainage Systems 

Most of the rail segments would not result in a large amount of impervious surface 

that could concentrate and redirect stormwater flow causing onsite erosion. 

Runoff from the rail alignment would be captured and directed to existing 

designated drainage features. Where necessary, the Applicant shall redesign and 

resize the existing drainage facilities to accommodate the potential increase in 

runoff along the rail alignment. The rail alignment shall connect with and 

mirror the existing culverts along the I-15 freeway. Where the rail 

alignment deviates from the I-15 freeway, the Applicant shall install 

culverts at natural drainage features. 

However, the stations and maintenance facilities would have parking lots that 

could concentrate and redirect stormwater flows. In order to determine the 

adequate size of drainage facilities, the total increase in impervious surface of the 

design of the facilities will be included in a Rational Method (a way of calculating 

flow intensity) calculation to determine the increase in peak storm discharges 

resulting from the action alternatives. The 100-year, 24-hour storm event will be 

used to determine the appropriate size of drainage facilities needed for the action 

alternatives. Drainage facilities will need to retain flows and not contribute to 

additional flows in the Mojave River or other streams and washes. This could be 

achieved with several detention basins. 

Drainage facilities for both the rail alignment and station and 

maintenance facilities will need to be sized accordingly to handle adequate 

flow. It is important to note that when a culvert is used, the footprint of the rail 

will need to be reinforced with rip-rap, and the culvert will need to be large enough 

to handle the 100-year 24-hour storm flow so on site flooding can be avoided. 

Other drainage features such as bridge crossings will need to be designed to not 

increase the size of the floodplain. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-9 

Additionally, the Applicant shall create either a new ephemeral 

drainage or restore, where feasible, through the reestablishment of 

former ephemeral drainages to compensate for temporary 

construction impacts to waters of the US. 

The Applicant will be required to comply with all conditions and 

mitigation requirements that result from the CWA Section 404 permit 

and Section 401 Certification, as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 

through HYD-11 stipulated in this Final EIS.

For clarification purposes, Mitigation Measure HYD-7 has been revised as follows: 

Mitigation Measure HYD-7: Reduce Encroachment into the 100-Year 

Floodplain 

When selected project features are located within the 100-year floodplain, the base 

elevation of rail and stations, including maintenance facilities, should be elevated 

above the 100-year floodplain or relocated within the facility footprint or 

APE to avoid any impact. This may be achieved by elevating or relocating the rail 

alignment out of the 100-year floodplain (Victorville station site 1, Victorville 

OMSF Option 1, Las Vegas Central Station B, Las Vegas Southern Station, and 

Wigwam Avenue MSF). Portions of the rail alignment may utilize track support 

columns that are located in the 100-year floodplain. Specific engineering plans 

and modeling, using Hydraulic Engineering Centers-River Analysis 

System (HEC-RAS) or similar, shall be completed by a registered professional 

during the design-build process. The design plans shall incorporate all 

feasible recommendations of the HEC-RAS analysis.

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area since publication of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.8.3 under the heading “Frias Substation” and subheading “Place Housing or Structures 

Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would Impede or Redirect Flood 

Flows” as follows:

The eastern portion of the Frias Substation would not be located within the 

designated 100-year floodplain. The Frias Substation would affect 0.86 

acres of the 100-year floodplain which would not substantially and 

would therefore not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that would

impede or redirect flood flows. However, the western boundary of the 100-year 

floodplain of Duck Creek is located immediately east of the Frias Substation. 

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area since publication of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.8.3 under the heading “Wigwam MSF Modification” as follows:
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-10

The Wigwam Avenue MSF would not impact any drainage, washes, or channels

and would not be located within the 100-year floodplain; thus, no construction or 

operation effects relative to water quality standards, or drainage patterns, or flood 

flows would occur over what was assumed in Draft EIS Section 3.8.4.3. 

However, the Wigwam Avenue MSF would affect approximately 5.1 

acres of the 100-year floodplain, which could impede or redirect flows. 

While the Wigwam Avenue MSF modification would result in an increase in 

impervious surface, it is assumed that the majority of the site would not be paved 

and that the increase in associated runoff would not be substantial. 

Based on revised floodplain data in the Las Vegas metropolitan area since publication of 

the Draft EIS, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.4.3 under the heading “Place 

Housing Structures Within a 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would Impede 

or Redirect Flood Flows” and subheading “Permanent Impacts”, paragraph 4, as follows:

Alternative B would increase the size of the 100-year floodplain and impede or 

redirect flood flows. Within Segment 1, the Victorville Station site option 1 would 

be adjacent to and encroach upon the 100-year floodplain and result in a potential 

impact of 13.5 acres along the Bell Mountain Wash. Similar to Segment 2A, where 

Segment 2B crosses the Mojave River floodplain, the bridge or structure that 

would cross has been designed to not impede or redirect flows within the 100-year 

year floodplain; therefore, minimal impact is anticipated at this location. Segment 

3B would cross the 100-year floodplain of Silver Lake and Soda Dry Lake when 

passing through Baker. These two lakes remain dry for most of the year, but in the 

unlikely chance of a 100-year storm event the trackway could be submerged or 

impede and redirect flood flows. Portions of Segment 5B will be crossing or 

banking up against the 100-year floodplain north of Jean. Portions of Segment 6B 

will be crossing or banking up against the 100-year floodplain of multiple 

drainages including Duck Creek and Tropicana Wash. While this segment would 

be elevated, column placement would likely fall within the floodplain. The Las 

Vegas Southern station site and the Las Vegas Central B station site would both fall 

within the 100-year floodplain. If Option C were utilized in an alignment 

otherwise comprised of Alternative B segments, this would reduce impacts to the 

100-year floodplain by approximately 26 to 32 16.6 to 19.6 acres, depending on 

station, OMSF, and MSF options selected. Option 6C would have substantially less 

impact on the floodplain than Segment 6B. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-11

3.8.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.8.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The hydrology and water quality effect methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.8.2

remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

The evaluation of surface hydrology and water quality effects is based on professional 

standards and the conclusions of relevant technical reports, such as the California 

Department of Water Resources (CDWR) Bulletin 118 reports. The key effects were 

identified and evaluated based on the physical characteristics of the DesertXpress project 

study area and the magnitude, intensity, and duration of activities. The evaluation 

considers direct and indirect effects to drainages, including the Mojave River, ephemeral 

washes, and ditched, and the 100-year floodplain. 

Direct impacts can be either permanent or temporary. Direct permanent impacts occur 

when the hydrology resource is removed or altered by permanent project features. Direct 

temporary impacts occur when the resource is altered during the construction phase but 

then restored to pre-construction conditions once construction is complete. Direct 

temporary impacts for the Preferred Alternative were calculated to include an additional 

62.5 feet on either side of the direct permanent impact area to account for construction 

activities. The permanent and temporary direct impact area equates to a 200-foot wide 

corridor from the centerline of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. Based on the 

Applicant’s most recent plans, this 200-foot wide corridor is considered conservative (in 

other words, overestimates). It is likely that permanent and temporary impacts associated 

with the Preferred Alternative will be less than the estimates stated below. As stated in 

Final EIS Section 2.3.2.1, the typical permanent impact area associated with the rail 

alignment under the EMU technology is 60 feet in width. 

Indirect effects to hydrology and water quality are those effects caused by the Preferred 

Alternative that may occur either later in time or some distance from the Preferred 

Alternative. Examples include downstream effects, implementation of mitigation 

measures for other resources that may result in residual impacts, and/or the growth that 

may be caused or accelerated by the Preferred Alternative. Indirect effects as a result of 

construction could involve runoff from activities involving soil disturbance affecting 

downstream water quality, erosion, and sedimentation. 

The Preferred Alternative would have an adverse effect on hydrology and water quality 

and would require mitigation if it would: 

 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or 

substantially degrade water quality; 

 Place structures within a 100-year floodplain or place structures that would 

impede or redirect flood flows; 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-12

 Substantially alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in 

substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding onsite or offsite; 

 Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or 

planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of 

polluted runoff; or 

 Use surface groundwater in a wasteful or inefficient manner resulting in a 

reduction in water availability. 

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no privately-sponsored high-speed passenger rail system 

would be constructed or operated in the project study area. However, public agencies in 

California and/or Nevada would be expected to implement various physical and/or 

operational improvements to increase the I-15 freeway’s capacity and improve its 

operations. These improvements would largely be located within the I-15 freeway 

corridor, similar to the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, these improvements would 

thus present many of the same hydrological impacts described herein, with the exception 

of impacts associated with stations and maintenance facilities which are unique to the 

DesertXpress project. As a result, the No Action Alternative would avoid hydrological 

effects related to the Preferred Alternative Victorville and Las Vegas station and 

maintenance facilities. Project-specific environmental review to be undertaken by the 

sponsoring lead agency/agencies would more precisely determine the environmental 

effects associated with such improvements. 

Since the Preferred Alternative includes construction and operation of DesertXpress plus 

all of the improvements considered under the No Action Alternative, the No Action 

Alternative would result in a lower overall level of development than the Preferred 

Alternative. Therefore, it is assumed that the No Action Alternative as a whole would 

result in a lower level of adverse hydrological and water quality effects than the Preferred 

Alternative as a whole. 

3.8.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.8.4.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.8.3 describe in detail 

hydrological and water quality effects by individual project component. The discussion 

below summarizes the aggregated effects for the components that comprise the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Figures F-3.8-2 through F-3.8-6 show the hydrology features and floodplains within 

the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-13

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Direct Permanent Effects

Operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in potential effects to water quality. 

These would be related to pollutants (oils, solvents, etc.) associated with train operations 

and track maintenance activities. Following a storm event, these pollutants could be 

flushed into and thus contaminate adjacent drainages and washes. Table F-3.8-1 shows 

the Preferred Alternative’s direct permanent effects to water resources. 

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

Preferred Alternative Component Linear feet of permanent effect

Rail Alignment 17,626.53

Victorville Station (VV3) 2,075

Victorville OMSF (OMSF 2) 825

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station or Central Station B) 0

Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) 0

Frias Substation 50

Utility Corridor (Baker MOW) 50.6

Utility Corridor (Victorville Station) 223.4

Total 20,850.53

Source: ICF, 2011. 

Note: Impacts to water resources from the rail alignment include the autotransformers and tracks into/out of maintenance 

facilities. See Final EIS Section 2.2.2.2, for a description of autotransformers and Appendix F-C for autotransformer 

locations. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would install drainage features under the rail 

alignment that match existing I-15 freeway culverts and thus integrate into the existing 

system, as recommended in Mitigation Measure HYD-6. Stormwater runoff from the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would generally be directed away from the trackway 

or using natural and other local drainage systems in their present location and unmodified 

form as feasible. 

Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would deviate from existing transportation 

facilities, such as within the Ivanpah Valley north of Mountain Pass, the Applicant would 

install culverts at natural drainage features. Figure F-3.8-7 shows the preliminary 

location of ephemeral drainage crossings within the Ivanpah Valley, just north of 

Mountain Pass. At a minimum, all ephemeral drainages equal to or greater than four feet 

wide (as measured by the distance between the ordinary high water mark on each side of 

the drainage) would be avoided by tunnels, aerial crossing structures, and at grade 

overcrossing structures associated with the rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative rail 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-14

alignment would include clear span crossings at such locations so as to retain the natural, 

earthen bottoms to minimize changes to the natural flow, erosion, and sedimentation 

patterns. 

Stormwater runoff around the stations and maintenance facilities would also potentially 

affect water quality due to pollutants and potentially hazardous materials deposited from 

vehicles and maintenance activities at the facility sites. The Preferred Alternative would 

cross Bell Mountain Wash, the Mojave River, and a number of named and unnamed 

ephemeral washes along the corridor. Specifically, the Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station (VV3) would permanently impact a branch of Bell Mountain Wash. The Victorville 

OMSF (OMSF 2) would also bisect two small washes that connect to Bell Mountain Wash. 

As a whole, the Preferred Alternative would have direct permanent effects on 

approximately 20,850.53 linear feet of hydrologic resources. 

Effects to Waters of the United States and Wetlands: According to the six 

jurisdictional delineation reports submitted to the USACE in July 2010 as part of the CWA 

Section 404 permitting process (see Appendix F-I), a subset of the water resources 

discussed above qualify as waters of the US. 

Ephemeral drainages or desert dry washes were found within the Preferred Alternative 

study area (within the Death Valley area,8 Cuddeback Lakes watershed,9

 Jean Dry Lake 

area,10 Las Vegas watershed,11 Roach Dry Lake area12) that meet the technical criteria that 

could be subject to the CWA Section 404 jurisdiction as waters of the US. This finding is 

based on the presence of ordinary high water marks as required by USACE regulations. 

The active ephemeral drainages within the Pahrump and Ivanpah Valleys (that drain to 

the Ivanpah Dry lake) would be considered non-jurisdictional due to their isolated natures 

with no substantial connection to interstate or foreign commerce.13 

 

8 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

9 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San Bernardino 

County, California. July 2010. 

10 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, Clark 

County, Nevada. July 2010. 

11 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

12 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, 

Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

13 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake San 

Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-15

Of these identified jurisdictional waters, construction of the Preferred Alternative would 

permanently affect an estimated 5.96 acres of waters of the US (ephemeral drainages). 

The affected ephemeral drainages are currently unvegetated and have limited habitat 

value, but do provide important hydrologic functions, such as water conveyance and water 

storage. Mitigation, which would require the restoring of affected ephemeral drainages 

through the reestablishment of former ephemeral drainages to compensate for temporary 

construction impacts to waters of the US (as recommended in Mitigation Measure 

HYD-6), would minimize adverse effects to waters of the US. The Applicant will be 

required to comply with all conditions and mitigation requirements that result from the 

CWA Section 404 permit, as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11

stipulated in Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS. 

No wetlands were found within the Preferred Alternative study area that met the USACE 

wetland criteria. This finding is based on the absence of hydric soil,14 wetland hydrology, 

and/or wetland vegetation indicators as required by the USACE guidance documents and 

regulations related to wetlands.15

 Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not 

permanently affect wetlands. 

Refer to Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS for additional information relative to effects to 

waters of the US and wetlands.

Direct Temporary Effects (Construction)

Table F-3.8-2 identifies the direct temporary effects to water resources as a result of 

construction of the Preferred Alternative. Site grading would expose areas of bare soil to 

erosive forces. Bare soils are much more likely to erode than vegetated areas, as a 

vegetative cover disperses water thereby allowing for better infiltration and retention. 

Activities involving soil disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, and stockpiling could thus 

result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. If precautions are not 

taken to control contaminants, construction could produce contaminated stormwater 

runoff, a major contributor to water quality degradation. Hazardous materials associated 

with construction equipment could also adversely affect water quality if such materials are 

improperly stored or accidentally spilled. Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2

would require permanent water quality treatment devices and BMPs during construction 

to control runoff that could affect water quality. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 

 

14 Hydric soils are those soils that are sufficiently wet in the upper part to develop anaerobic conditions during 

the growing season, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

15 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-16

HYD-5 would require the Applicant to prepare a spill prevention, control, and 

countermeasure plan to prevent accidental releases of chemicals that are stored on site 

and BMPs to use in case of the spill. The BMPs shall apply to construction activities and 

operation activities. 

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

Preferred Alternative Component Linear feet (temporary)

Rail Alignment 49,200

Utility Corridor (Victorville) 233.8

Utility Corridor (Baker MOW) 52.5

TCAs (7 and 13) 188

Total 49,674.3

Source: ICF, 2011. 

Note: Impacts to water resources from the rail alignment include the autotransformers and tracks into/out of maintenance 

facilities. See Final EIS Section 2.2.2.2, for a description of autotransformers and Appendix F-C for autotransformer 

locations. 

In addition, dewatering may be necessary for construction in areas with shallow 

groundwater, such as within the bed of the Mojave River where a new bridge is proposed 

alongside I-15. In particular, dewatering may be necessary for the support columns 

associated with this bridge. Retained waters could be become contaminated and could be 

subsequently discharged to other surface waters, thereby spreading contamination. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would require ephemeral wash 

and ditch crossings. Construction within the drainages could provide a direct path for 

construction-related contaminants. Because of the minimal amount of rainfall within the 

Preferred Alternative study area, in-water work is highly unlikely to occur. Constructionrelated contaminants could also be transported to a drainage or wash during the storm 

season if a leak or spill were to occur. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would also entail areas of elevated 

track through urban areas of Las Vegas. In such areas, construction-related contaminants 

could be easily transported to the local stormwater runoff system following a rainfall 

event. 

Construction of the Victorville Station atop a branch of Bell Mountain Wash could also 

provide a direct path for construction-related contaminants to enter surface waters. 

Construction of the Frias Substation could also degrade existing water quality, particularly 

as a result of trenching activities associated with the proposed underground 25 kilovolt 

feeder. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-17

Construction activities at the TCAs could also affect water quality, as contaminants and 

sediments from stockpiles could produce contaminated stormwater runoff. Overall, water 

quality impacts from construction activities could violate water quality standards, exceed 

contaminant loadings, create additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade 

water quality. 

Effects to Waters of the United States and Wetlands: In addition to the 5.96 

acres of direct permanent impact to waters of the US, construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would temporarily affect an estimated 0.2 acres of waters of the US 

(ephemeral drainages). Construction activities would not affect any wetlands.16 The 

Applicant will be required to comply with all conditions and mitigation requirements that 

result from the CWA Section 404 permit, Section 401 Certification, as well as Mitigation 

Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 stipulated in Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS. 

Section 3.8.1 above provides a summary of the CWA Section 404 permitting process and 

Section 401 Certification to date. Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS also describes the 

Preferred Alternative effects to waters of the US and wetlands. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would 

Result in Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

Direct Permanent Effects

When complete, the Preferred Alternative would bridge over the Mojave River, and 

numerous ephemeral washes and ditches (including Bell Mountain Wash) that would be 

crossed along the approximately 200-mile corridor. 

Based on preliminary design information from the Applicant, the crossings of these water 

resources would not permanently alter the course or flows of these water resources. 

Stormwater runoff from the trackway would generally be directed away from the trackway 

and into existing drainage facilities associated with the I-15 freeway or other local 

drainage systems. As recommended in Mitigation Measure HYD-6, the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would connect with and mirror the existing I-15 freeway 

culverts where the rail alignment would be located within the I-15 freeway corridor. (For 

implications relative to existing stormwater systems, please see Section 3.4.2.3 of this 

Final EIS). 

 

16 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-18

Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would deviate from the I-15 freeway 

corridor, culverts would be installed at natural drainage features. Drainage facilities 

would be sized accordingly to accommodate adequate peak flows to reduce erosion or 

other downstream effects. Where the rail alignment would divert from the existing I-15 

freeway, such as within the Ivanpah Valley just north of Mountain Pass, the Preferred 

Alternative would include clear span crossings for all ephemeral drainages equal to or 

greater than four feet in width (as measured by the distance between the ordinary high 

water mark on each side of the drainage). The crossings would retain natural, earthen 

bottoms to minimize changes to the natural flow, erosion, and sedimentation patterns. 

Figure F-3.8-7 shows the preliminary location of ephemeral drainage crossings within 

the Ivanpah Valley area. 

As the Preferred Alternative would use the EMU train technology, 17 autotransformers are 

required at points along the alignment. One of these, (Autotransformer #7) would be 

located adjacent to Telephone Wash and may result in a minor alteration to that drainage. 

The Victorville Station would impact a portion of Bell Mountain Wash and would alter the 

existing drainage pattern to accommodate the station and parking areas. If drainage 

systems are not properly designed, the Victorville Station could experience periodic 

flooding. The nearby Victorville OMSF site would affect approximately 825 linear feet of 

water resources and bisect two small washes that connect to Bell Mountain Wash. 

Depending on the design of the OMSF, these washes may be altered and result in flooding 

on the west side of the site is drainage facilities are not properly designed. 

The rail alignment would directly affect channels and ephemeral washes, including the 

Mojave River. The rail alignment would cross the Mojave River bed immediately adjacent 

to the north of the existing southbound I-15 bridge in Barstow. Due to the width of the 

Mojave River in this location, concrete pillars would be necessary to support the new 

bridge, thus creating the potential to redirect flows. At this location, the Mojave River 

runs primarily underground. While the placement of columns within the riverbed could 

affect underground flows, such an effect would be minimized due to the low number and 

wide spacing of columns, similar to those of the existing I-15 freeway bridges. 

As for other affected channels, streams, and washes, it is assumed that culverts would be 

provided; no change to the bed elevation, to the ability of the waterways to convey water, 

or to the ability to convey flood flows would occur. The crossings of these water resources 

would not permanently alter the course or flows. Furthermore, runoff from the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would be directed away from the trackway. 

There is a potential that tunneling in the Clark Mountains could result in the redirection of 

some surface water that currently permeates into the area’s groundwater system. 

However, the amount of water that could be potentially redirected is considered minimal 

in comparison to the overall surface flow that would continue to recharge the current 

groundwater system. No riparian habitat would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment in this location. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-19

Direct Temporary Effects (Construction)

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would involve the use of heavy earth moving 

equipment. Use of such equipment could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion 

from rainfall, runoff, and wind. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the 

rate increases when the land is cleared or altered and left disturbed. In many locations, 

construction activities would remove the protective cover of vegetation, thereby increasing 

the likelihood of erosion. 

Sheet erosion occurs when length and runoff velocity increase slope erosion on disturbed 

areas. As runoff accumulates, it concentrates into rivulets that cut grooves (rills) into the 

soil surface. If the flow is sufficient, these rills could develop into gullies causing 

sedimentation to local waterways. Similar impacts may also occur at TCAs where 

construction staging, equipment, and stockpiling would occur. 

Place Housing or Structures within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures 

That Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

Direct Permanent Effects

Portions of the Preferred Alternative would cross or be located adjacent to the 100-year 

floodplain of either the Mojave River, or specified washes along the Preferred Alternative 

area. Table F-3.8-3 shows the direct impacts of the Preferred Alternative to the 100-year 

floodplain, distinguishing between the termination at the Las Vegas Southern Station or 

the Las Vegas Central Station B. 

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

Preferred Alternative Component Acres

Rail Alignment 45.3 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station) 

51.1 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B)

Victorville Station 0

Victorville OMSF 0

Las Vegas Station (Southern Station or Central 

Station B) 0

Las Vegas MSF 5.1

Frias Substation 0.86

Utility Corridor (Baker MOW) 0.42

Utility Corridor (Victorville Station) 0

Total 51.68 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station) 

57.48 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B)

Source: ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-20

Where the Preferred Alternative crosses the Mojave River, the bridge or structure that 

would cross has been designed to not impede or redirect flows within the 

adjacent/associated 100-year floodplain. Accordingly, minimal impact is anticipated at 

this location. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross the 100-year floodplain of Silver 

Lake and Soda Dry Lake when passing through Baker. These two lakes remain dry for 

most of the year, but in the event of a 100-year storm, the trackway could be submerged or 

impede and redirect flood flows. Portions of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

would cross or bank up against the 100-year floodplain north of Jean as well as at multiple 

drainages in the metropolitan Las Vegas area, including along the I-15 freeway, Duck 

Creek and Tropicana Wash. While the rail alignment would be elevated through most of 

the urban area of Clark County and Las Vegas, column placement would likely fall within 

the floodplain. The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) site and 

a portion of the Frias Substation would also fall within the 100-year floodplain. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment terminating at the Las Vegas Central Station B 

would result in additional impacts to the 100-year floodplain when compared to the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station, since 

use of the Las Vegas Central Station B would require approximately two additional miles 

of trackway. 

Direct Temporary Effects (Construction)

Construction would have the potential to result in temporary impacts to the 100-year 

floodplain and pose a risk to equipment, workers, and structures. None of the TCAs 

associated with construction of the Preferred Alternative would be within a 100-year 

floodplain. Within the limits of construction, components of the Preferred Alternative 

would have the potential to increase the size of the 100-year floodplain and impede or 

redirect flood flows depending on activity occurring within specific areas. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment with termination at the Las Vegas Southern 

Station would result in fewer construction period effects associated with the 100-year 

floodplain than with termination at the Las Vegas Central Station B due to the shorter 

trackway. With termination at the Las Vegas Southern Station, construction activities 

north of Russell Road would not be required.

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of 

Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial 

Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff 

Direct Permanent Effects

As noted above, the Preferred Alternative would include drainage elements along the 

proposed trackway that would channel stormwater runoff away from the trackway. 

Runoff produced along the elevated rail alignment would be captured and directed to 

existing designated drainage features. For at-grade portions of rail alignment, the 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-21

trackway would not produce any considerable amount of runoff given the permeable 

nature of construction on ballast rather than paved or solid impervious surfaces. Refer to 

Section 3.4.2 of this Final EIS for a discussion of stormwater conveyance systems. 

Table F-3.8-4 shows the peak discharge for the 100-year 24-hour storm event for the 

Preferred Alternative station and maintenance facilities. The Preferred Alternative Las 

Vegas Southern Station site option would create additional runoff from parking and paved 

surfaces; the site is currently unimproved and unpaved. The Preferred Alternative Las 

Vegas Central Station B site option would be developed on existing paved, impervious 

surfaces and would not result in substantially more runoff than what currently exists at 

the site. The total peak discharge for the 100-year 24-hour storm event would vary, 

depending on whether the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station or Central 

Station B site option is selected. The Preferred Alternative with the Las Vegas Southern 

Station would result in greater peak discharge than would the Preferred Alternative with 

the Las Vegas Central Station B, primarily due to the larger size of the Southern Station. 

The Southern Station site is about 62 acres in area; the Central Station B site is about 37 

acres in area. 

The rational method was used to calculate the peak discharge (100-year 24-hour storm 

event) for the facilities. The dimensionless runoff coefficient used was 0.72 and the 

rainfall intensity that was used was 2.93 inches.17

 

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

Preferred Alternative Component

(Stations and Maintenance Facilities) Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs)

Victorville Station 275

Victorville OMSF 48

Las Vegas Station 131 (Southern Station)

86 (Central Station B)

Las Vegas MSF 8.5

Total 462.5 (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station)

417.5 (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B)

Source: ICF, 2011. 

Groundwater recharge in the area primarily occurs within the ephemeral drainages during 

the infrequent storm flows. The Preferred Alternative’s impact on ephemeral drainages is 

relatively limited and there are numerous other locations in the watersheds for 

 

17 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-22

groundwater recharge to occur that would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. As 

a result, the increase in impervious surface associated with the project would not 

substantially affect groundwater levels. 

Direct Temporary Effects (Construction)

The Preferred Alternative may result in additional sources of polluted runoff during 

construction which could impact water quality particularly on and around the TCA sites 

and within the limits of construction influence. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a 

Reduction in Water Availability 

Direct Permanent Effects

The operation of the Preferred Alternative would not use surface or groundwater 

resources. The water that is required at Victorville Station and OMSF and the Las Vegas 

Station site options and MSF would be obtained from existing water utility service 

providers. Potential effects of the Preferred Alternative related to water service are 

discussed in Section 3.4.2 of this Final EIS. 

Direct Temporary Effects (Construction)

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require water for concrete batching, 

washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. The Applicant has not identified a 

source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water for construction 

will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as water utility service 

providers in the Preferred Alternative area. 

3.8.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.8-5 below compares the impacts to hydrological resources of the various 

action alternatives evaluated, as well as the No Action Alternative. Components of the 

Preferred Alternative are highlighted in yellow. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would primarily implement the Action 

Alternative B options, where the rail alignment would be located immediately adjacent to 

the existing I-15 freeway within the I-15 freeway ROW. 

The Action Alternative A rail alignment options, which would be primarily located within 

the median of the I-15 freeway, would have the potential for direct permanent impacts of 

up to 8,441 linear feet of hydrologic resources. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

would have the potential to result in direct permanent impacts to about 17,626.53 linear 

feet of hydrologic resources. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative A would 

have less potential direct permanent impact due to its location within the I-15 freeway 

median. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-23

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

Alternative

Linear Feet of Impact to 

Water Resources

(Permanent)18

Acres Within a 100-Year 

Floodplain

Result in Substantial 

Drainage Pattern 

Alteration

Estimated Peak 

Stormwater 

Discharge (cubic 

feet/second)

No Action Alternative Assumed similar to 

Action Alternatives

Assumed similar to Action 

Alternatives Not expected N/A

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 (connecting to 

Segment 2A/2B) 2,491 2.8 No N/A

Segment 1 (connecting to 

Segment 2C) 2,259 5.71 No N/A

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 1,157 12 No N/A

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 11,064 22 No N/A

Segment 2C 

2,344 (Side Running) 11 (Side Running)

No No

2,342 (Median) 10 (Median)

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 4,059 0 No N/A

Segment 3B (Modified) 7,608 2.7 No N/A

 

18 This information relates to the total linear feet of impact from the No Action Alternatives and the individual components of the Action 

Alternatives. With regard to impacts to waters of the US, refer to Table 1 within the Project Background and Executive Summary chapter of this 

Final EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-24

Alternative

Linear Feet of Impact to 

Water Resources

(Permanent)18

Acres Within a 100-Year 

Floodplain

Result in Substantial 

Drainage Pattern 

Alteration

Estimated Peak 

Stormwater 

Discharge (cubic 

feet/second)

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 734 0 No N/A

Segment 4B 319 0 No N/A

Segment 4C 1,485 0 No N/A

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 0 0 No N/A

Segment 5B 0 0.9 No N/A

Segment 6 

Segment 6A (terminating at 

Las Vegas Southern Station) 0 0 No N/A

Segment 6A (terminating at 

Las Vegas Central Station B) 0 0 No N/A

Segment 6B (terminating at 

Las Vegas Southern Station) 3,930.53 28.92 No N/A

Segment 6B (terminating at 

Las Vegas Central Station B) 3,930.53 34.72 No N/A

Segment 6C 77 2.06 to 2.62 No N/A

Segment 7 

Segment 7A 0 0 No N/A

Segment 7B 0 0 No N/A

Segment 7C 0 0 No N/A
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-25

Alternative

Linear Feet of Impact to 

Water Resources

(Permanent)18

Acres Within a 100-Year 

Floodplain

Result in Substantial 

Drainage Pattern 

Alteration

Estimated Peak 

Stormwater 

Discharge (cubic 

feet/second)

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Victorville Station Site 1 0 13.5 No 227

Victorville Station Site 2 0 0 No 243

Victorville Station Site 3

2,275 (VV3A)

0 Yes (Mitigated)

275 (VV3A)

2,075 (VV3B) 235 (VV3B)

Victorville OMSF 1 12 1.9 No Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Victorville OMSF 2 825 0 Yes (Mitigated) Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station 0 0 No 131

Las Vegas Central Station A 0 0 No 69

Las Vegas Central Station B 0 0 No 86

Las Vegas Downtown Station 0 0 No 49

Sloan Road MSF19 0 0 No Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Relocated Sloan MSF 0 0 No Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Wigwam Avenue MSF 0 5.1 0

Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

 

19 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was intended to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-26

Alternative

Linear Feet of Impact to 

Water Resources

(Permanent)18

Acres Within a 100-Year 

Floodplain

Result in Substantial 

Drainage Pattern 

Alteration

Estimated Peak 

Stormwater 

Discharge (cubic 

feet/second)

Robindale Avenue MSF 0 0 No Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Frias Substation 50 0.86 No Mostly unpaved (not 

quantified)

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way 

Facility 0 0 No N/A

Technology Options, Including Utility Corridors and Autotransformers (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric 

Multiple Unit) None None None N/A

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) 274 (VV3 and Baker 

MOW Utility Corridors)

0.42 (Baker MOW Utility 

Corridor)

Autotransformers 7 and 

11 (alteration) N/A

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-27

Specifically, the Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment, which would diverge 

from the existing I-15 freeway corridor, would introduce greater effects to hydrologic 

resources than would Segment 4A, which would more closely follow the existing I-15

freeway. New culverts and drainage connections would be required for the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment, where as the Segment 4A rail alignment would have the 

potential to connect with the existing I-15 drainage facilities. 

For waters of the US, the Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment would directly 

impact 0.59 acres while as Segment 4A would directly impact 1.81 acres. 

In terms of flooding effects, Action Alternative A rail alignments would result in up to 

about 15 acres of direct permanent impacts to the 100-year floodplain while the Action 

Alternative B rail alignments would result in up to about 63 acres of direct permanent 

impacts (assuming the longest length of the rail alignment with termination at the Las 

Vegas Central Station B). The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would result in about 

45.3 to 51.1 acres of direct permanent impacts to floodplains, with termination at the Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las Vegas Central Station B, respectively. Thus, the Preferred 

Alternative would result in great effects to floodplains than would the compiled Action 

Alternative A rail alignments, and slightly less than the compiled Action Alternative B rail 

alignments. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would affect more linear feet of water 

resources than would VV1 and VV2. The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would 

be placed within an existing wash – Bell Mountain Wash, where as VV1 and VV2 would 

not result in any stream or drainage crossings. The Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station would introduce a greater amount of impervious surface than would VV1 since 

more surface parking would be incorporated at the Preferred Alternative station site. This 

larger amount of impervious surface would result in greater amounts of stormwater runoff 

as compared to VV1. As compared to VV2, the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station 

would introduce a slightly smaller amount of impervious surfaces and would result in 

lesser amount of stormwater runoff. However, the Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station would eliminate potential impacts to riparian vegetation along the Mojave River 

and impacts to the 100-year floodplain associated with VV1. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station would introduce a greater amount 

of impervious surface than the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station B or the 

other two site evaluated (Central Station A and Downtown). This larger amount of 

impervious surface would result in greater amounts of stormwater runoff at the Preferred 

Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site option than the other Las Vegas Station site 

options. The Downtown Station would result in the least amount of stormwater runoff. 

None of the Las Vegas Stations would affect any water resources or the 100-year 

floodplain. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-28

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would have the greatest effects relative to 

flooding than the Robindale Avenue MSF, Sloan Road MSF, and the Relocated Sloan MSF, 

since the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would be the only facility located within the 

100-year floodplain. None of the Las Vegas MSFs would affect any water resources. 

3.8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 identified in Section 3.8.5 of the 

Draft EIS would be applied to the Preferred Alternative to reduce the potential adverse 

effects related to hydrology and water quality. The Record of Decision for the Preferred 

Alternative will incorporate these mitigation measures, making them conditions of 

approval needed to construct and operate the Preferred Alternative. These mitigation 

measures are included below. 

As stated in Section 3.8.1 above, the Applicant has also initiated the CWA Section 404 

permitting process with the USCAE in May 2010. The CWA Section 404 established a 

program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, 

including wetlands. As part of this CWA Section 404 permitting process, the Applicant 

prepared six formal jurisdictional delineation reports for the Death Valley, 20 the 

Cuddeback Lakes watershed,21 the Ivanpah Valley area, 22 the Jean Dry Lake area,23 the 

Las Vegas watershed,24 and the Roach Dry Lake area.25 These six delineation reports are 

included as Appendix F-I to this Final EIS. Issuance of a permit for the discharge of fill 

material into waters of the US associated with construction of the DesertXpress project 

will be part of the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by the USACE. In 

addition to the CWA Section 404 permit, the Applicant will apply for certification under 

 

20 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

21 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San Bernardino 

County, California. July 2010. 

22 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

23 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, Clark 

County, Nevada. July 2010. 

24 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

25 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, 

Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-29

Section 401 of the CWA.26 Section 401 Certification is administered in California through 

the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (in the case of the DesertXpress project the 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) and in Nevada by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection. Issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit by the USACE, and 

Section 401 Certification, are anticipated to follow issuance of the Records of Decision on 

the project by the Cooperating Agencies. The Applicant will be required to comply with 

all conditions and mitigation requirements that result from the CWA Section 404 permit 

and Section 401 Certification, as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11

below. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Incorporate Site-Specific Permanent Water 

Quality Treatment Devices

To protect water quality, permanent water quality treatment devices shall be 

installed. Examples of water quality best management practices (BMPs) may 

include a vegetated swale, traction sand traps, or settling basin to help remove 

sediments and nutrients. Such BMPs shall be sized properly and designed by a 

registered professional engineer and shall not allow untreated stormwater runoff 

to reach the Mojave River or any washes along the alignment including the 

urbanized area of Las Vegas. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Implement Construction-Related Best 

Management Practices 

Construction activities shall begin with the installation of erosion control BMPs. 

In the final construction plans, the Applicant shall identify specifications of BMPs 

for grading and erosion control that are necessary to reduce erosion and 

sedimentation. These BMPs shall be selected to achieve maximum sediment 

removal and represent the best available technology that is economically 

achievable. Standard erosion control measures, such as management, structural, 

and vegetative controls, shall be implemented for all construction activities that 

expose soil. BMPs to be implemented as part of this mitigation measure may 

include, but are not limited to, the following measures: 

Temporary erosion control measures that would apply to construction of the 

stations, maintenance facilities and the rail (such as silt fences, staked straw 

bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag 

dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed to 

control erosion from disturbed areas. Grass or other vegetative cover shall be 

 

26 Under federal CWA Section 401, every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity which may 

result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification (Certification) that the 

proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. Most Certifications are issued in connection 

with USACE CWA section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-30

established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance. Erosion 

in disturbed areas shall be controlled by grading so that direct routes for conveying 

runoff to drainage channels are eliminated. 

The general contractors and subcontractors conducting the work shall construct or 

implement, regularly inspect, and maintain the BMPs in the construction plans. 

Some methods of Construction BMPs for rail installation that shall be included in 

the Preferred Alternative are: 

 Install erosion control material consisting of silt fences along the outside limits 

of construction on both sides of the disturbance corridor for track construction; 

 Clear the construction area of brush and vegetation; 

 Strip any topsoil and transport it to stockpile; 

 Excavate material as required to extend any culverts using good quality 

material as fill and transport poor quality material to stockpile; 

 Place quality fill material to establish the subgrade; 

 Install the sub-ballast on the subgrade, composed of crushed rock that has 

sufficient strength to withstand settling from loads; 

 Place standard rail ties, made of wood or concrete, on the sub-ballast, then 

place the rail on the ties, and anchor the rail to the ties; 

 Bring in ballast and dump ballast rock between and along the sides of the track; 

and

 Use a tamper to raise the track and tamp the ballast beneath the ties. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-3: Comply with the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit

The Applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General 

Permit. Most construction projects that disturb one acre of land or more are 

required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, which 

required the property owner to file a Notice of Intent to discharge stormwater and 

to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).27

 

Implementing the requirements in the NPDES Construction General Permit will 

reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects. The Applicant shall 

ensure that construction activities comply with the conditions in this permit, which 

will require preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), 

implementation of BMPs identified in the SWPPP, and monitoring to ensure that 

effects on water quality are minimized. 

 

27 CWA Section 402 regulates discharges to surface waters through the NPDES program, administered by the 

US EPA. Draft EIS Section 3.8.1.1 includes a detailed discussion of the NPDES program. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-31

Mitigation Measure HYD-4: Implement SWPPP 

The implementation of the SWPPP described above will reduce the likelihood that 

stormwater will carry any spilled contaminants to water channels. 

Implementation of the SWPPP along with the following mitigation measures will 

reduce construction related impacts. Mitigation Measure HYD-5 addresses the 

potentiality of a spill during construction. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-5: Implement Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan

The Applicant shall develop a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan 

(SPCCP) to prevent accidental releases of chemicals that are stored on site and 

measures to use in the case of a spill. The BMPs described in this plan shall apply 

to construction activities and operation activities. 

The Applicant shall implement appropriate hazardous material management 

practices identified in the SPCCP to reduce the potential for chemical spills or 

releases of contaminants, including any non-stormwater discharge to drainage 

channels. If a spill occurs, cleanup, containment, and response measures in the 

SPCCP shall be implemented by the Applicant. 

The Federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined at 40 CFR 

110 is any oil spill that (1) violates applicable water quality standards, (2) causes a 

film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or 

(3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or 

adjoining shorelines. 

If a spill is reportable, a superintendent shall notify appropriate agencies and the 

contractor will need to take action to contact any other appropriate safety and 

clean-up crews to ensure the SPCCP is followed. A written description of 

reportable releases shall be submitted to the appropriate agency. This submittal 

shall include a description of the release, including the type of material and an 

estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the 

spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future 

releases. The release shall be documented on a spill report form. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-6: Proper Design of Drainage Systems 

Most of the rail segments would not result in a large amount of impervious surface 

that could concentrate and redirect stormwater flow causing onsite erosion. 

Runoff from the rail alignment would be captured and directed to existing 

designated drainage features. Where necessary, the Applicant shall redesign and 

resize the existing drainage facilities to accommodate the potential increase in 

runoff along the rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment shall 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-32

connect with and mirror the existing culverts along the I-15 freeway. Where the 

rail alignment deviates from the I-15 freeway, the Applicant shall install culverts at 

natural drainage features.

However, the stations and maintenance facilities would have parking lots that 

could concentrate and redirect stormwater flows. In order to determine the 

adequate size of drainage facilities, the total increase in impervious surface of the 

design of the facilities shall be included in a Rational Method (a way of calculating 

flow intensity) calculation to determine the increase in peak storm discharges 

resulting from the action alternatives. The 100-year, 24-hour storm event shall be 

used to determine the appropriate size of drainage facilities needed for the action 

alternatives. Drainage facilities shall retain flows and not contribute to additional 

flows in the Mojave River or other streams and washes. This could be achieved 

with several detention basins. 

Drainage facilities for both the rail alignment and station and maintenance 

facilities will need to be sized accordingly to handle adequate flow. It is important 

to note that when a culvert is used, the footprint of the rail will need to be 

reinforced with rip-rap, and the culvert will need to be large enough to handle the 

100-year 24-hour storm flow so on site flooding can be avoided. Other drainage 

features such as bridge crossings will need to be designed to not increase the size of 

the floodplain. 

The Applicant shall create either a new ephemeral drainage or restore, where 

feasible, through the reestablishment of former ephemeral drainages to 

compensate for temporary construction impacts to waters of the US. The 

Applicant shall be required to comply with all conditions and mitigation 

requirements that result from the CWA Section 404 permit and Section 401 

Certification, as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11

stipulated in this Final EIS. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-7: Reduce Encroachment into the 100-Year 

Floodplain 

When Preferred Alternative features are located within the 100-year floodplain, the 

base elevation of rail and stations, including maintenance facilities, should be 

elevated above the 100-year floodplain or relocated within the facility footprint or 

APE to avoid any impact. Portions of the rail alignment may utilize track support 

columns that are located in the 100-year floodplain. Specific engineering plans 

and modeling, using Hydraulic Engineering Centers-River Analysis System (HECRAS), or similar, shall be completed by a registered professional during the designbuild process. The design plans shall incorporate all feasible recommendations of 

the HEC-RAS analysis.
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.8-33

Mitigation Measure HYD-8: No Storage of Construction Equipment or 

Materials within the 100-Year Floodplain 

The Applicant shall not store construction equipment or materials within the limits 

of influence that are located in areas of the 100-year floodplain so as to avoid 

redirecting 100-year flood flows that could cause structural damage or pose a 

safety risk to workers. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-9: Minimize Impact of OMSF 2 (Preferred 

Alternative Victorville OMSF) on Water Resources 

During the design-build process, the Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF 

(OMSF 2) tracks and facilities shall be designed by the Applicant to avoid or bridge 

over the two small washes that feed into the Bell Mountain Wash (applies to 

Segment 1 only). 

Mitigation Measure HYD-10: Minimize Impacts of Autotransformers 7 

and 11 on Water Resources

During the design-build process, the Applicant shall relocate autotransformers 7 

and 11 within the limits of influence to avoid Telephone Wash and Kali Ditch, 

respectively, and to avoid other water resources (applies to Segment 3 only). 

Mitigation Measure HYD-11: Minimize Impacts on Water Availability

During construction of the action alternatives, the Applicant shall obtain water 

from existing commercially available water sources. New groundwater wells or 

surface water impoundments would require subsequent environmental review as 

well as federal, state and local permits as appropriate and legally required. 

3.8.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Although Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 would reduce construction 

and operational period effects to water resources, development of the Preferred 

Alternative would result in permanent impacts to existing channels, streams, drainages, 

and ephemeral washes whereby flows could be redirected. The Preferred Alternative 

would also result in an overall increase in impervious surface, which could increase the 

stormwater runoff in the project region. 
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Option C

Primm

Jean

Segment 5A/5B

Segment 5A/5B

Segment 4 C

1

2

3

4

5

Locator Map

Map 6 of 7

6

7

Geografika Consulting 01.27.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CAL IFORNIA

NEVADA

§ ̈¦40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

§ ̈¦15

604£¤

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

§ ̈¦15

1 inch = 3,000 feet

0 900 1,800 3,600

Feet

§ ̈¦15

Segment 5 A

Segment 5 B

§ ̈¦15

Alternate Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Las Vegas MSF Site

Option 1 - Sloan

1 inch = 4,000 feet

0 2,200 4,400 1,100

Feet

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Areas (TCAs) 

Maintenance Facility Options

Autotransformer 

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

#0

Station Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

0 0.45 0.9

Miles

0 0.45 0.9

Kilometers

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

[

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP FIG

F-3.8-1 Revision of Draft EIS Figure 3.8-6:

Hydrology and Floodplains (6)

* This figure, originally in the Draft EIS, has been revised to show the FEMA-designated floodplains within the vicinity of Segment 5.
Segment 2C

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

TCA 1B

Burkhardt

Lake

Silver Lake

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

TCA 1B

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Hydrology and Floodplains (1)

FIG

F-3.8-2

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

FEMA 100-year floodplain

Streams

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

1 inch equals 3 miles

Source: DesertXpress 2008, ESRI 2005, 

CirclePoint 2008-2011, NAIP 2003-2006,

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH
Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 2C 

Troy

Lake Nebo Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A

Nebo Area

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Hydrology and Floodplains (2)

FIG

F-3.8-3

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2008, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
NEVADA

CALIFORN

15 IA

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Ivanpah Ditch

Wheaton Wash

Ivanpah

Dry Lake

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Baker Blvd.

TCA 9 15

Baker

Segment 3B Baker

MOW

127

Baker Inn Ditch

Pand Ditch

Hydrology and Floodplains (3)

FIG

F-3.8-4

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles

Tunnels

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Primm
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada

California

Hydrology and Floodplains (4)

FIG

F-3.8-5

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Tunnels
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Segment 6B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.28.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E

.

T

r

o

p

i

c

a

n

a

Av

e

Las Vegas Blvd

W

.

R

u

s

s

e

l

l

R

d

Segment 6 B Robindale Av

e

.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

160

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NO

R

TH

0 2 1.25.5

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Hydrology and Floodplains (5)

FIG

F-3.8-6
DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration

Location of Ephemeral Drainages,

Preferred Alternative - Segment 4C

Source: ICF International, 2010.

F-3.8-7
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-1 

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

This section describes the updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential geology and 

soils impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative and identifies appropriate 

mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts. 

3.9.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS. However, no comments were received during the public review period that 

required changes to the geology and soils analysis contained in the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.9.1.1 Affected Environment 

Section 3.9.3 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.9.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describe in detail the affected environment for geology and soils for the DesertXpress 

project. The general geology and soils risks associated with the 200-mile study area 

corridor have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Thus the affected environment discussions from these previous documents remain 

applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

3.9.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for geology and soils for the DesertXpress project is described 

in detail in Section 3.9.1 of the Draft EIS. There have been no changes to the Regulatory 

Environment regarding geology and soils since publication of the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus the regulatory environment discussions from these 

previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

3.9.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

No comments were received during the public review period that required changes to the 

geology and soils analysis contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.9.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.9.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The geology and soils impact methodology described in Section 3.9.2 of the Draft EIS 

remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. This 

evaluation involved the review of readily available geologic and seismic literature, maps, 

conceptual plans of the action alternatives, and other relevant information. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-2 

Information in this section is based on a geotechnical evaluations prepared by Ninyo & 

Moore, as included in Appendix F-J of this Final EIS.1

3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the Preferred Alternative. The 

No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation improvement 

projects that would be in place by the year 2030, which primarily include of the expansion 

of existing highways and roadways in and around the I-15 freeway between Victorville and 

Las Vegas. 

Improvements under the No Action Alternative would be located in the same vicinity as 

the Preferred Alternative, and would thus contend with many of the same geologic and 

soils impacts described herein. Project-specific environmental reviews that may be 

undertaken by the sponsoring lead agency would determine the environmental effects 

associated with such improvements. However, given that the planned improvements 

under the No Action Alternative would occur largely in the same area as the Preferred 

Alternative, impacts associated with the geologic and soil conditions would be similar. 

3.9.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Section 3.9.4 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.9.3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describe in detail the geology and soils impacts by individual project component. The 

discussion below summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that comprise the 

Preferred Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative would be located in a seismically active region near active faults 

in California. Active or potentially active faults are also located in the Nevada portion of 

the Preferred Alternative. However, activity on these faults is attributed to land 

subsidence, not tectonic activity (e.g. earthquakes). 

With few exceptions, the components of the Preferred Alternative face at least some risk of 

the identified geologic and seismic hazards. As discussed in the Section 3.9.3, below, all 

potential effects can be controlled successfully through the application of standard 

engineering methods and practices. 

Table F-3.9-1 below shows the likelihood of potential geologic hazards relative to the 

components that comprise the Preferred Alternative. The table uses a series of rating 

systems, ranging from 1 to 3: 

 “1” signifies the known presence or greatest likelihood of the selected hazard 

(shaded). 

 

1

 Ninyo and Moore (2007). Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, DesertXpress Rail Line, Victorville, 

California to Las Vegas, Nevada. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-3 

 “2” signifies a moderate potential effect of the selected hazard. 

 “3” signifies minimal or no presence of the selected hazard.

The Preferred Alternative would be constructed in compliance with safety/seismic 

regulations discussed in Section 3.9.1 of the Draft EIS, including existing building codes 

and regulations. 

3.9.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.9-2 summarizes the comparison of geologic hazards for the No Action 

Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred Alternative are 

highlighted in yellow. 

With the exception of Segments 3B and 5B of the Preferred Alternative, all other segments 

of the action alternatives include some geologic or soil conditions warranting a rating of 1. 

The other action alternatives would therefore be located in areas with greater potential for 

geologic hazards when compared to the Preferred Alternative. However, Segment 4A 

would avoid significant landslide and excavation hazards associated with Segment 4C. 

3.9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-12 identified in Section 3.9.5 of the Draft 

EIS would apply to the components that comprise the Preferred Alternative. These 

measures have been developed to address and limit the adverse effects of the potential 

geologic and soils related impacts described above. Mitigation measures are classified by 

impact type and are further classified by their relationship to operational and construction 

periods. 

Tables F-3.9-3 and F-3.9-4 below identify applicable mitigation measures by 

component of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-4 

Table F-3.9-1 Likelihood of Geologic Hazards 

Preferred Alternative 

Component

Potential Geotechnical Consequences

Surface FaultRupture

1

Ground Shaking

2

Liquefaction

3

Dam Inundation

4

Settlement(Natural& Fill Soils) 

5

Corrosive Soils

6

Expansive Soils

7

Landslides

8

Excavation

9

Ground Fissures10Shallow Groundwater11

Segment 1, VV3, and OMSF 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

Segment 2C 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 1

Segment 3B (Modified) (Yermo

– Baker) and Baker MOW 

Facility

1 1 to 2 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 to 2

Segment 3B (Modified) (Baker 

– east) 3 2 1 to 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 to 3

Segment 4C 3 1 to 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 3

Segment 5B 3 1 to 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

Segment 6B 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2

Las Vegas Passenger Station

(Southern Station or Central 

Station B), Wigwam MSF, and 

Frias Substation.

3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2

Source: Ninyo and Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 2007. 

Notes: 

Shaded cells show areas with high likelihoods for geotechnical hazards. 

1 Rating 1 = Route crosses active fault or very close to an active fault; Rating 2 = Route crosses potentially active fault; Rating 3 = Route crosses inactive fault or 

does not cross any known fault. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-5 

Table F-3.9-1 Notes Continued 

2 Rating 1 = Estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g to 0.6g; Rating 2 = Estimated PGA of 0.2g to 0.4g; Rating 3 = Estimated PGA of 0.1g to 

0.2g. 

3 Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported shallow groundwater and potentially liquefiable soils; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially shallow groundwater and potentially 

liquefiable soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported shallow groundwater and with potentially liquefiable soils. 

4 Rating 1 = Areas of reported dam inundation; Rating 2 = Areas near reported potential dam inundation; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported potential for dam 

inundation. 

5 Rating 1 = Areas of reported compressible/collapsible soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for compressible/collapsible soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for 

compressible/collapsible soils. 

6

 Rating 1 = Areas of reported corrosive soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for corrosive soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for corrosive soils. 

7 Rating 1 = Areas of mapped clay units or known expansive soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for expansive soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for 

expansive soils. 

8 Rating 1 = Areas of known steep terrain with relatively higher potential landslide hazard; Rating 2 = Areas of potential landslide hazard; Rating 3 = Areas of little 

potential landslide hazard. 

9 Rating 1 = Areas of reported hard rock or caliche with anticipated difficult excavation; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially difficult excavation; Rating 3 = Areas of no 

potential difficult excavations. 

10 Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported ground fissures in site vicinity; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for ground fissures; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported ground 

fissures. 

11 Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported shallow groundwater; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially shallow groundwater; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported shallow 

groundwater. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-6 

Table F-3.9-2 Alternatives Comparison – Geologic Hazards 

Alternative Expected likelihood of 

Surface Fault Rupture

Expected likelihood of 

ground shaking

Expected difficulty of 

excavation

Expected likelihood 

of landslides

No Action Alternative Similar to the Preferred 

Alternative 

Similar to the Preferred 

Alternative

Similar to the Preferred 

Alternative

Similar to the 

Preferred Alternative

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 High High Moderate Moderate

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A High near Barstow, Low 

near Yermo High Moderate

Moderate near 

Barstow, Low near 

Yermo

Segment 2A/2B, 2B High near Barstow, Low 

near Yermo High Moderate

Moderate near 

Barstow, Low near 

Yermo

Segment 2C High High Moderate Low

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 

High from Yermo to 

Baker, Low from the 

east of Baker

Low/Moderate from 

Yermo to Baker, 

Moderate from the 

east of Baker

Moderate Moderate

Segment 3B 

High from Yermo to 

Baker, Low from the 

east of Baker

Low/Moderate from 

Yermo to Baker, 

moderate from the 

east of Baker

Moderate Moderate
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-7 

Alternative Expected likelihood of 

Surface Fault Rupture

Expected likelihood of 

ground shaking

Expected difficulty of 

excavation

Expected likelihood 

of landslides

Segment 4 

Segment 4A High Low/Moderate Moderate Moderate

Segment 4B High Low/Moderate High High

Segment 4C Low Moderate/High High High

Segment 5 

Segment 5A Low to None Low to High Moderate Moderate

Segment 5B Low to None Low to High Moderate Moderate

Segment 6 

Segment 6A Low to None Low/Moderate High Moderate

Segment 6B Low to None Low High Low

Segment 6C Low to None Low/Moderate High Low/Moderate

Segment 7 

Segment 7A Low to None Low/Moderate High Moderate

Segment 7B Low to None Low/Moderate High Moderate

Segment 7C Low to None Low/Moderate High Moderate

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Victorville Station Site 1 High High Moderate Moderate

Victorville Station Site 2 High High Moderate Moderate

Victorville Station Site 3 High High Moderate Moderate

Victorville OMSF 1 High High Moderate Moderate

Victorville OMSF 2 High High Moderate Moderate
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-8 

Alternative Expected likelihood of 

Surface Fault Rupture

Expected likelihood of 

ground shaking

Expected difficulty of 

excavation

Expected likelihood 

of landslides

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station Low to None Low High Low to None

Las Vegas Central Station A Low to None Low High Low to None

Las Vegas Central Station B Low to None Low High Low to None

Las Vegas Downtown Station Low to None Low High Low to None

Sloan Road MSF2

Low to None Low to High Moderate Low

Relocated Sloan MSF Low to None Low to High Moderate Low

Wigwam Avenue MSF Low to None Low/Moderate High Low to None

Robindale Avenue MSF Low to None Low/Moderate High Low to None

Frias Substation Low to None Low High Low

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility High Low/Moderate Moderate Moderate

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit) n/a n/a n/a n/a

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

2 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-9 

Table F-3.9-3 Operational Period Mitigation Measure Applicability 

Preferred Alternative 

Component

Mitigation GEO-1: Surface Fault Ru

pture

Mitigation GEO-2:Ground ShakingMitigation GEO 3:LiquefactionMitigation GEO-4: Dam InundationMitigation GEO-5:SettlementMitigation GEO-6:Corrosive SoilsMitigation GEO-7:Expansive SoilsMitigation GEO-8:Landslides

Segment 1, VV3, and OMSF 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Segment 2C Side Running Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Segment 3B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Segment 4C N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

Segment 5B N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes

Segment 6B N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

Las Vegas Passenger Station

(Southern Station or Central 

Station B), Wigwam MSF, and 

Frias Substation.

N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

Table F-3.9-4 Construction Period Mitigation Measure Applicability 

Preferred Alternative Component

Mitigation GEO-9: Caliche/Hard Rock ExcavationMitigation GEO-10: Shallow GroundwaterMitigation GEO-11: TunnelingMitigation GEO-12: Ground Fissures

Segment 1, VV3, and OMSF 2 Yes; hard rock Yes N/A N/A

Segment 2C Side Running Yes; hard rock Yes N/A N/A

Segment 3B Yes; hard rock Yes N/A N/A

Segment 4C Yes; hard rock Yes Yes N/A

Segment 5B Yes, caliche Yes N/A Yes

Segment 6B Yes, caliche and hard rock Yes N/A Yes

Las Vegas Passenger Station (Southern 

Station or Central Station B), Wigwam MSF, 

and Frias Substation.

Yes, caliche and hard rock Yes N/A Yes

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-10

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Surface Fault Rupture 

A site-specific, detailed evaluation, which includes surface reconnaissance and 

subsurface assessment, shall be performed by a qualified geologist. 

Recommendations of this evaluation shall be incorporated in final design 

documents. This evaluation shall be performed prior to construction so that, in the 

event a fault-rupture hazard exists, the recommendations of the geologist can be 

implemented in the final project design. (Applies to all facilities located within 

Segment 1, Segment 2C Side Running, and Segment 3B). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Ground Shaking 

A site-specific evaluation of the potential ground shaking hazard shall be 

performed by a qualified geologist. The evaluation shall be performed during 

design development and prior to construction so that appropriate structural design 

and mitigation techniques can be incorporated into the design of the project. 

Evaluation techniques shall include drilling of exploratory borings, laboratory 

testing of soils, computer software analysis to develop seismic design parameters 

for use by the project structural engineer. Recommendations of this evaluation 

that avoid or minimize impacts related to seismic ground shaking shall be 

incorporated into final design documents. Structural elements of the rail system 

shall be designed to resist or accommodate appropriate site-specific ground 

motions and to conform to the current seismic design standards. Implementation 

of an earthquake early warning system shall also be included as part of the project. 

(Applies to all segments, all facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Liquefaction

A site-specific evaluation of the potential liquefaction hazard shall be performed by 

a qualified geotechnical engineer during design development and prior to 

construction. This evaluation shall assess the liquefaction and dynamic settlement 

characteristics of the on-site soils and shall include drilling of exploratory borings, 

evaluation of groundwater depths, and laboratory testing of soils. 

Recommendations of this evaluation that avoid or minimize impacts related to 

liquefaction shall be incorporated into final design documents. (Applies to all 

segments, all facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Dam-Inundation

A detailed hydrologic evaluation shall be performed during design development 

and prior to construction by a qualified hydrologist to assess the risks and 

potential effects of inundation on project improvements to the alignment. The 

hydrologic evaluation shall identify potential dam inundation hazards at sitespecific locations and identify corresponding design recommendations to be 

incorporated into the final design documents. (Applies to all facilities located 

within Segment 1, Segment 2C Side Running, and Segment 3B). 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-11

Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Settlement 

During the design phase of the project, site-specific geotechnical evaluations shall 

be performed by a qualified geologist to assess the settlement potential of the onsite natural soils and undocumented fill. Surface reconnaissance and subsurface 

evaluation shall be performed which addresses the potential settlement hazards. 

The evaluations shall include drilling of exploratory borings and laboratory testing 

of soils, in addition to surface reconnaissance to evaluate site conditions. 

Recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation shall be implemented prior to 

design and construction. (Applies to all segments, all facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-6: Corrosive Soils 

A subsurface evaluation shall be performed prior to design and construction. 

Evaluation of corrosive soil potential shall be accomplished by testing and analysis 

of soils at design depths. Laboratory tests shall be conducted on the soils prior to 

construction and the results shall be reviewed by a qualified corrosion engineer. 

The qualified corrosion engineer shall prepare an improvement plan which shall 

include corrosion protection measures suitable to the project elements. The 

improvement plan shall include corrosivity tests to evaluate the corrosivity of the 

subsurface soils. Recommendations of the improvement plan shall be 

implemented prior to design and construction. (Applies to all segments, all 

facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-7: Expansive Soils 

During the project design, a site-specific subsurface evaluation, including 

laboratory testing, shall be performed by a qualified geologist to evaluate the 

extent of which expansive soils are present along the alignment. Where expansive 

soil conditions are found and would be detrimental to proposed improvements, 

measures recommended by the geologist shall be implemented in project design. 

(Applies to all segments, all facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-8: Landslides 

To further evaluate the potential for landslides and surficial slope failures along 

the proposed segments, surface reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation shall be 

performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer during project design. Surface 

reconnaissance shall include visual observation of the earth units and 

geomorphology and review of geologic maps to evaluate the condition of slopes 

relative to the alignment. Subsurface exploration shall be performed as 

recommended by the qualified geotechnical engineer to evaluate the potential for 

landslides and surficial slope failures. If necessary, subsurface evaluation shall 

include the excavation and detailed logging of exploratory trenches, test pits 

and/or borings as recommended by the qualified geotechnical engineer. Slope 

stability computer analyses shall be performed to address the stability of slopes 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-12

where recommended by the qualified geotechnical engineer. Measures 

recommended in the evaluation shall be implemented prior to project design and 

construction. (Applies to all facilities located within Segment 1, Segment 2C Side 

Running, and Segment 3B, Segment 4C, and Segment 5B). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-9: Caliche/Hard Rock Excavation 

A surface reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation shall be performed by a 

qualified geotechnical engineer during project design to assess soil excavatibility. 

This evaluation shall include drilling of exploratory borings and/or test pits to 

evaluate ground conditions for excavation capability where recommended by the 

qualified geotechnical engineer. Measures recommended in the evaluation shall be 

incorporated into final design and construction plans. (Applies to all segments, all 

facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-10: Shallow Groundwater 

Prior to project design and construction, a qualified geotechnical engineer shall 

assess groundwater conditions in the project area. In the event shallow 

groundwater is detected or suspected, mitigation techniques shall be incorporated 

into final design documents. (Applies to all segments, all facilities). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-11: Tunneling 

Excavations for underground structures shall be performed with care to reduce the 

potential for lateral deflection of excavation sidewalls and/or shoring, which could 

also cause differential movement of structures located near the excavation. To 

reduce the potential for damage to improvements and structures resulting from 

dewatering operations, the ground surface and/or structures around the 

excavation shall be monitored for movement with a variety of instrumentation. If 

during the course of construction, the instrumentation detects ground movement 

that exceeds a pre-specified value, work shall stop and the contractor’s methods 

shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer and appropriate changes 

shall be made, if recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Typical monitoring 

methods include installation of ground survey points around the outside of the 

excavation to monitor settlement, placing monitoring points on nearby structures 

to monitor performance of the structures, and installation of inclinometers along 

the sides of the excavation to monitor lateral deflection of sidewalls. (Applies to 

tunnel construction in Segment 4C). 

Mitigation Measure GEO-12: Ground Fissures 

To further evaluate the potential for ground fissures, a qualified geologist shall 

conduct surface reconnaissance and prepare an evaluation during the design phase 

of the project. This evaluation shall include visual observation of the earth units, 

manmade features and geomorphology, and review of geologic maps to evaluate 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-13

the surface conditions relative to project features. Recommendations of the 

evaluation shall be incorporated into final design and construction plans. (Applies 

to all facilities located within Segment 5B and Segment 6B). 

3.9.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All potential geologic and seismic hazards can be controlled successfully through the 

application of standard engineering methods and practices identified in the mitigation 

measures above. Following implementation of these mitigation measures, the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in any residual impacts. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.9-14

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-1 

3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

This section describes the updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential hazardous 

material impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative in comparison with the No 

Action Alternative and other Action Alternative and identifies and appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

3.10.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS. However, no comments were received during the public review period that 

required changes to the hazardous materials analysis contained in the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.10.1.1 Affected Environment 

Section 3.10.2 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.10.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describe in detail the affected environment for hazardous materials for the DesertXpress 

project. The general hazardous risks associated with the 200-mile study area corridor 

have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus 

the affected environment discussions from these previous documents remain applicable to 

the Preferred Alternative. 

3.10.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for hazardous materials for the DesertXpress project is 

described in detail in Section 3.10.1 of the Draft EIS. Since publication of the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS, there have been no changes to the Regulatory Environment 

regarding hazardous materials. Thus the regulatory environment discussions from these 

previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

3.10.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

No comments were received during the public review period that required changes to the 

hazardous materials analysis contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.10.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.10.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The hazardous materials impact methodology described in Section 3.10.2.4 of the Draft 

EIS remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-2 

Ranking of Potential Effects 

Section 3.10.2 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.10.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

evaluated the likelihood that hazardous materials may be present in soil or groundwater 

beneath the study area as a result of on-site or off-site activities. The likelihood of 

contamination in specific portions of the study area was ranked as high, moderate, or low 

based on the following descriptions: 

 High: This rank was given to property in the study area with known or probable 

contamination. An example of a property in this category would be a leaking 

underground storage tank (LUST) property where remediation had not been 

started or was not yet finished. 

 Moderate: This rank was given to property with potential or suspected 

contamination. Examples of properties in this category would be LUST properties 

in the vicinity of the study area that are in final stages of remediation or in postremediation monitoring. Any LUST properties adjacent to the site would be 

included in this category, regardless of case status (deed restrictions may exist for 

closed LUST cases). 

Other examples of a “moderate” ranking would be a property within or adjoining 

the study area with known use or storage of hazardous materials which had 

received violation notices from an inspecting agency, or a property where visual 

evidence of inadequate chemical and storage practices (such as significant 

staining) were observed but where no environmental assessments had occurred. 

Also included in the “moderate” category are facilities within or adjoining the study 

area where underground storage tanks (UST) are likely present but appeared to be 

abandoned by their former operators. 

 Low: This rank was given to properties where use or storage of hazardous 

materials occurs but with no significant violations, known releases, or evidence of 

inadequate chemical-handling practices. Example properties would be active UST 

or dry cleaning facilities with no documented releases. Also included would be 

properties outside the immediate study area where remediation of previous 

releases had been completed. 

Information in this section is based on the Hazardous Material Assessments (HMAs) 

prepared by Ninyo & Moore, included as Appendix F-K.1. 

The classification of each property was based on the type of operation (current or 

historical), proximity to the project alignments, hydrogeologic conditions, field 

observations, and regulatory information. If a property was given a High or Moderate 

ranking, it is considered to have potential effects related to hazardous materials. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-3 

If a property was given a Low ranking, or the use or storage of hazardous materials is not 

identified in a particular area, no potential effect is assumed. 

In addition, Section 3.10.2.1, below, includes a discussion of the potential for 

operational effects related to the use of hazardous materials at proposed maintenance 

facilities and elsewhere within the area of the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation measures 

are identified for each adverse effect identified. 

3.10.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the Preferred Alternative. The 

No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation improvement 

projects that would be in place by the year 2030, which primarily include of the expansion 

of existing highways and roadways in and around the I-15 freeway between Victorville and 

Las Vegas. Given that the planned improvements under the No Action Alternative would 

occur largely in the same area as the Preferred Alternative, impacts associated with 

contaminated soils/groundwater, construction period hazards, and operational period 

hazards would be similar. 

Although some improvements could be located in areas with more hazardous material 

risks, the relative risk related to the identified sites cannot be determined without detailed 

subsurface investigations. As such, planned improvements located in an area with severe 

contamination from one site could potentially have a greater environmental risk than the 

components of the Preferred Alternative located in an area with minor contamination 

from several sites. However, detailed subsurface environmental assessment and 

development of remediation plans (if necessary) would not occur until the final design 

phase of the improvements is complete. 

3.10.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Section 3.10.4 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.10.3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describe in detail the hazardous materials impacts by individual project component. The 

discussion below summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that comprise the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

Construction activities associated with the project facilities and rail alignments may 

encounter contaminated soils and/or groundwater or other previously identified 

hazardous materials that must be removed, disposed of, and/or remediated. 

Contaminated soils and groundwater are anticipated to be found in the following locations 

in the project area: 

1. On and/or near Segment 2C Side Running/Segment 2A, Segment 3B, Segment 6B, 

and Las Vegas Central Station B 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-4 

2. Within and/or near existing or abandoned railroad corridors, where herbicides, 

petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals may be found in soils and/or groundwater 

(Segment 2A, Segment 6B) 

3. Within or near existing freeway corridors, where petroleum hydrocarbons and 

aerially deposited lead may be found in soils and/or groundwater (All rail 

alignments and station/maintenance facilities are in proximity to existing freeway 

corridors; this risk is common to all project elements). 

Appendix F-K identifies these sites of concern and the location in relation to the 

Preferred Alternative. Figures F-3.10-1 and F-3.10-2 illustrate the locations of these 

sites of concern. 

Unidentified Hazardous Materials – Construction Period Risk 

In addition to the potential adverse effects associated with known or suspected areas of 

contaminated soil and/or groundwater, additional adverse effects may result if previously 

unidentified hazardous materials are encountered during construction of any of the 

facilities and rail alignments of the Preferred Alternative. While this analysis has followed 

standard protocols in terms of investigating known contamination, there is a risk that 

earth-moving activities, including track construction, building construction, and the like 

could be conducted within areas of undocumented hazardous materials releases, thus 

potentially putting construction workers and others in the vicinity at risk. 

Use/Storage/Transport of Hazardous Materials – Operational Period Risk 

The DesertXpress project proposes a passenger-only railroad that would not include the 

transport of hazardous materials for outside commercial or industrial purposes. Once 

constructed, the Preferred Alternative will include such activities as train operations, track 

maintenance, and equipment maintenance. These activities are anticipated to involve the 

routine use, storage, and transport of potentially hazardous materials, including fuels, 

lubricants, solvents, paints, compressed gases, and waste products. These materials 

would be stored and/or staged in buildings and storage tanks, particularly at maintenance 

and storage facilities [the Victorville OMSF (OMSF 2) and the Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam 

MSF)]. Project operations will require the safe handling, use, storage, and disposal of 

these materials to avoid a potentially adverse effect. 

3.10.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

The action alternatives would involve the construction and operation of rail alignments 

and associated facilities similar to those described above under the Preferred Alternative. 

Although some of the components of the action alternatives could be located in areas with 

more hazardous material risks, the relative risk related to the identified sites cannot be 

determined without detailed subsurface investigations. As such, the components of the 

action alternatives located in an area with severe contamination from one site could 

potentially have a greater environmental risk than the components of the Preferred 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-5 

Alternative located in an area with minor contamination from several sites. However, 

detailed subsurface environmental assessment and development of remediation plans (if 

necessary) would not occur until the final design phase of the improvements is complete. 

Given that the components of the action alternatives would occur largely in the same area 

as the Preferred Alternative, impacts associated with contaminated soils/groundwater, 

construction period hazards, and operational period hazards would be similar. 

Table F-3.10-1 summarizes the comparison of hazardous material risks for the No Action 

Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred Alternative are 

highlighted in yellow. 

Table F-3.10-1 Alternatives Comparison – Hazardous Materials 

Alternative Number of properties of environmental concern

No Action Alternative Assumed to be same as Preferred Alternative with 

Southern Station – 20. 

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), Alignment Adjustment Areas, 

and Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 0

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 4

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 6

Segment 2C 7

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 2

Segment 3B 2

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 1

Segment 4B 0

Segment 4C 0

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 0

Segment 5B 0

Segment 6 

Segment 6A 6

Segment 6B 11

Segment 6C 3
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-6 

Alternative Number of properties of environmental concern

Segment 7 

Segment 7A 2

Segment 7B 2

Segment 7C 3

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 0

Victorville Station Site 2 0

Victorville Station Site 3 0

Victorville OMSF 1 0

Victorville OMSF 2 0

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station 0

Las Vegas Central Station A 0

Las Vegas Central Station B 1

Las Vegas Downtown Station 0

Sloan Road MSF1

0

Relocated Sloan MSF 0

Wigwam Avenue MSF 0

Robindale Avenue MSF 0

Frias Substation 0

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility 0

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit) The choice of technology option does not in itself

result in the addition of any properties of concern. 

For the Preferred Alternative as a whole under either 

technology option, the total number of properties 

would be 20 if terminating at the Southern Station, 21 

if terminating at Central Station B. 

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)

Source: CirclePoint, 2011 

 

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

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

completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-7 

3.10.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 identified in Draft EIS Section 3.10.5

would be applied to all facilities and rail alignments of the Preferred Alternative to address 

and limit the adverse effects of the potential hazardous material impacts described above. 

Mitigation measures are classified by impact type and are further classified by their 

relationship to operational and construction periods. These include: 

3.10.3.1 Construction Period Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Structures Built Prior to 1980 

Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall conduct an 

evaluation of all buildings to be demolished to determine the presence of asbestos 

containing materials and lead based paint. Remediation should be implemented in 

accordance with the recommendations of these evaluations. 

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater

The applicant shall prepare a soil monitoring plan prior to the issuance of permits 

for demolition, grading, or construction and shall implement the plan during all 

phases of construction. Disturbed soils shall be monitored for visual evidence of 

contamination (e.g., staining or discoloration). Soil shall be monitored for the 

presence of volatile organic compounds (VOC) using appropriate field instruments 

such as organic vapor measurement with photoionization detectors (PIDs) or 

flame ionization detectors. If the monitoring procedures indicate the possible 

presence of contaminated soil, a contaminated soil contingency plan shall be 

implemented that shall include procedures for segregation, sampling, and 

chemical analysis of soil. Contaminated soil shall be profiled for disposal and shall 

be transported with appropriate hazardous or non-hazardous waste manifests by a 

state-certified hazardous material hauler to a state-certified disposal or recycling 

facility licensed to accept and treat the type of waste indicated by the profiling 

process. The contaminated soil contingency plan shall be developed and in place 

during all construction activities. In the unlikely event that these processes 

generate any contaminated groundwater that must be disposed of outside of the 

dewatering/ NPDES process, the groundwater shall be profiled, manifested, 

hauled, and disposed of in the same manner. 

Where conditions warrant a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), such 

ESAs shall include the following: 

 A work plan that includes the numbers and locations of proposed soil 

borings/monitoring wells, sampling intervals, drilling and sampling methods, 

analytical methods, sampling rationale, site geohydrology, field screening 

methods, quality control/quality assurance, and reporting methods. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-8 

 A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) signed by a Certified Industrial 

Hygienist. 

 Necessary permits for encroachment, boring completion, and well installation. 

 A traffic safety plan. 

 Sampling program (fieldwork) in accordance with the work plan and HSP. 

Fieldwork shall be completed under the supervision of a geologist registered in 

the State of California and/or Nevada, as appropriate. 

 Hazardous materials testing through a laboratory certified by California and/or 

Nevada. 

 Documentation to include field procedures, boring logs/well diagrams, tables 

of analytical results, cross-sections, an evaluation of the levels and extent of 

contaminants found, and conclusions and recommendations regarding the 

environmental condition of the site and the need for further assessment. 

Recommendations may include additional assessment or handling of the 

contaminants found though the contaminated soil contingency plan. If the 

contaminated soil contingency plan is inadequate for the contamination found, 

a remedial action plan shall be developed. Contaminated groundwater shall 

generally be handled though the NPDES/dewatering process.

 Disposal process including transport by a state-certified hazardous material 

hauler to a state-certified disposal /recycling facility licensed to accept/treat 

the identified waste. 

Where contaminated groundwater is encountered, the Applicant shall obtain a 

NPDES permit prior to the issuance of a permit to construct. The NPDES permit 

shall specify site-specific testing and monitoring requirements and discharge 

limitations. 

Additionally, available agency files for moderate and high risk properties as 

discussed in this section and identified in Appendix F-K.1 of this Final EIS, shall 

be reviewed prior to demolition, grading, or construction. If the file review 

indicates a low likelihood of contaminants being present beneath or adjacent to a 

project feature (rail alignment, station, maintenance facility, etc.), additional 

assessment/mitigation may not be recommended and the property could be 

reclassified as low risk. 

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Previously Unidentified Hazardous 

Materials 

Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall prepare a hazardous 

materials contingency plan addressing the potential for discovery of unidentified 

underground storage tanks, hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-9 

hazardous or solid wastes during construction. This contingency plan shall 

address underground storage tank decommissioning, field screening, and 

materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminant management 

requirements, and health and safety requirements. 

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Hazardous Material Disposal

Construction contractors shall dispose of all hazardous or solid wastes and debris 

encountered or generated during construction and demolition activities in 

accordance with all applicable Federal regulations. 

3.10.3.2 Operational Period Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: Operational Generated Hazardous 

Materials

Desert Xpress shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for all 

facilities that use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials. Facilities emitting toxic 

air emissions shall submit inventories and plans to the appropriate air quality 

management district and be subject to permitting and monitoring regulations of 

the district. Desert Xpress shall obtain all necessary local, state and Federal 

permits for the installation and operation of any above or below ground chemical 

or fuel storage tanks prior to installing such tanks. 

Table F-3.10-2 identifies the applicable mitigation measures by facility or rail alignment 

of the Preferred Alternative. These measures are also intended to apply to any project 

features (stations, maintenance facilities, etc.) located within each segment. For example, 

any mitigation measures applicable to Segment 1 are also applicable to the VV3 and OMSF 

2 sites. 
DesertXpress 3.10 Hazardous Materials 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.10-10

Table F-3.10-2 Mitigation Measure Applicability 

Preferred Alternative 

Component

Mitigation 

HAZ-1:

Structures 

Built Prior 

to 1980

Mitigation 

HAZ-2:

Contaminated 

Soil/

Groundwater

Mitigation 

HAZ-3:

Previously 

Unidentified 

Hazardous 

Material

Mitigation 

HAZ-4:

Hazardous 

Material 

Disposal

Mitigation 

HAZ-5:

Operationally 

Generated 

Hazardous 

Materials

VV3 No No Yes Yes Yes

OMSF 2 No No Yes Yes Yes

Segment 1 No No Yes Yes N/A

Segment 2C Side Running/ 

Segment 2A No Yes Yes Yes N/A

Segment 3B No Yes Yes Yes N/A

Segment 4C No No Yes Yes N/A

Segment 5B No No Yes Yes N/A

Segment 6B No Yes Yes Yes N/A

Las Vegas Southern Station No No Yes Yes Yes

Las Vegas Central Station B No No Yes Yes Yes

Wigwam MSF No No Yes Yes Yes

Frias Substation No No Yes Yes Yes

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

3.10.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All potential effects related to hazardous materials can be controlled successfully through 

the application of standard safety planning methods and practices identified in the 

mitigation measures above. No additional mitigation would be required. 
Yermo Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

Victorville

Las Vegas

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Baker MOW

1 inch equals 13.5 miles

NORTH

Source: Ninyo & Moore, 2007 & 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP 2003-2006.

Properties of Environmental Concern

FIG

F-3.10-1

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 2 10 0

Miles

0 2 10 0

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Death Valley NP

Victorville

1

Las

Vegas

Legend

Properties of

Environmental Concern

Property Location

Locator Map

Map 1

Note: Please refer to Appendix F-A, which includes

Plan and Profile drawings at 1"=200’. 

215

E. Sunset Rd

W

Segment 6 B L

a

s

Ve

g

a

s

B

vl d

Hac

6A-2

6A-1

0 2 1.25 .5

Miles

1 inch = 4 miles

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

15

Segment 2 A

Yermo

58

40

2A-3

2A-4

3A-1

See Figure

F-3.10-2

Segment 2 C Segment 4C

Segment 3B

15 Nipton

3A-2

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Paradis

E. Flamingo Rd

E. Tropicana Ave

W. Hacienda Ave

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

6A-6

6A-5

6A-4

6A-3

6C-8

6C-7

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Barstow

Tunnels

NEVADA

160

NEVADA

146
FIGF-3.10-2 Hazardous Sites of Environmental

Concern - Segment 2C

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

TCA 2C1

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

EXXON MOBIL OIL CO.

1600 Main St.

E-Z SERVE

1700 East Main St.

TERRIBLE HEARST

1710 East Main St.

SHELL SERVICE STATION

1601 East Main St.

0 1,800 3,600

Feet

CHEVRON STATION

2890 Lenwood Rd.

0 550 1,100

Feet

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Ancillary Facility Sites

Source: Ninyo & Moore, 2007 & 2009

Barstow
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-1 

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

This section describes the updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, analyzes the potential effects the Preferred Alternative 

would have on regional and localized air quality, and presents appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

3.11.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS related to air quality and global climate change impacts, and provides responses 

to those comments. Several comments resulted in changes to the air quality analysis in 

the EIS and are discussed below. Substantive updates and changes in response to 

comments on the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline and 

strikeout text. 

3.11.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.11.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.11.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for air quality for the DesertXpress project. Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section 3.11.3 updated baseline conditions, including baseline greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. These baseline conditions have not changed since the publication of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Comment S-6 on the Supplemental Draft EIS indicated that the reference for Draft EIS 

Table 3.11-4 was incorrect in that regional criteria pollutant emissions calculations were 

not provided in Draft EIS Appendix J. Upon further review of the data, it was 

determined that the information reflected in Draft EIS Table 3.11-4 was not correct. 

Table F-3.11-1 below shows corrected regional criteria pollutant emissions which replace 

the information presented in Draft EIS Table 3.11-4. Year 2007 greenhouse gas 

emissions originally reported in Draft EIS Table 3.11-4 were corrected within the 

Supplemental Draft EIS (see Table S-3.11-3), and remain applicable to this Final EIS. 

Regional emission calculations reflected in Table F-3.11-1 were calculated using projectspecific vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data and air quality modeling emissions factors 

(Mobile6a/EMFAC2007). Updated calculation worksheets are included as part of 

Appendix F-L. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-2 

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

Criteria Pollutant Emissions

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e 

Mojave Desert Air Basin 1,722 11,395 20,644 19 493 453 2,310,285

Clark County Nevada 563 3,723 6,745 6 161 148 963,797

Total Annual Emissions 2,285 15,118 27,389 25 654 601 3,274,082

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

Notes: CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 2,204.62 lbs) 

The corrected 2007 emissions data do not affect the overall evaluation of the affected 

environment for the project. Thus the affected environment discussions from these 

previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

Comment S-3 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested that the phrasing of the 

attainment status for Clark County be revised. To address this comment, this Final EIS 

amends the Supplemental Draft EIS text on page 3.11-1 as follows: 

Air basins are found to be in or out of “attainment” status based on compliance 

with Federal standards for regulated air pollutants. The Mojave Desert Air Basin is 

still in moderate nonattainment of ozone (O3) and inhalable particulate matter 

(PM10). The Clark County Air Basin is still in nonattainment of O3 and serious nonattainment of carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10. Parts of Clark County are 

currently designated by EPA as nonattainment areas for O3 and PM10. 

With respect to carbon monoxide (CO), EPA re-designated Clark 

County from nonattainment to attainment on September 27, 2010 and 

adopted a CO maintenance plan for the area on that same date.

In addition, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Table 3.11-3 to reflect the above changes in 

attainment status. Table F-3.11-2 below shows attainment status as of December 17, 

2010; this table replaces Draft EIS Table 3.11-3. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-3 

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

County 

Pollutants Mojave Desert Air Basin 

Federal Classification

Clark County Federal 

Classification

Ozone (O3) – 8-hour standard Nonattainment, Moderate Nonattainment (Sub Part 1)

Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Nonattainment, Moderate Nonattainment, Serious

Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Nonattainment, Serious

Attainment, Maintenance

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 

<http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps001/greenbk/>. Accessed March 4, 2011. 

Comment S-4 on the Supplemental Draft EIS identified that the annual average nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) concentrations for years 2005, 2006 and 2007 provided in Table S-3.11-2

were incorrect. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS 

Table S-3.11-2. The revised table is provided as Table F-3.11-3 below: 

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

Monitoring Stations 

Pollutant Standards 2005 2006 2007

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) [JD Smith Monitoring Station]

National standard (annual average 0.053 ppm)

Maximum 1-hr concentration 0.075 0.072 0.224

Annual average concentration 0.075 0.020 0.072 0.021 0.224 0.021

Days national standard exceeded 0 0 0

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

3.11.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for air quality and global climate change for the DesertXpress 

project is described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.11.1. Since publication of the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there is no change to the Regulatory Environment that 

addresses air quality issues. Thus the regulatory environment discussions from these 

previous documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-4 

Air quality is regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the 

Final Conformity Rule.1 The CAA Amendments of 19902 direct the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to implement strong environmental policies and regulations that 

will ensure better air quality: “No federal agency may approve, accept, or fund any 

transportation plan, program, or project unless such plan, program or project has been 

found to conform to any applicable state implementation plan (SIP) in effect under this 

act.”4

 Title 1, Section 101, Paragraph F of the amendments, amends Section 176(c) of the 

CAA to define conformity as follows: conformity to an implementation plan’s purpose of 

eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; such 

activities will not cause any of the following occurrences: 

 Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area; 

 Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any 

area; or 

 Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emissions 

reductions or other milestones in any area.5 

As required by the CAA Amendments of 1970 and the CAA Amendment of 1977,6 EPA has 

established NAAQS for the following air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3),

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and lead. 

The federal and state governments have both adopted health-based standards for 

pollutants. For some pollutants, the national and state (California and Nevada) standards 

are very similar; for other pollutants, the California state standards are more health 

protective. The differences in the standards are generally the result of the different health 

effect studies considered during the standard-setting process and how these studies were 

interpreted. 

Table F-3.11-4 lists the federal and state standards. The federal primary standards are 

intended to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. The federal 

secondary standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for airpollutant impacts on soil, water, visibility, vegetation, and other aspects of the general 

welfare. Areas that violate these standards are designated nonattainment areas. Areas 

that once violated the standards but now meet the standards are classified as maintenance 

areas. Classification of each area under the federal standards is done by EPA based on 

state recommendations and after an extensive review of monitored data. 

 

1

 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 

2

 Public Law (PL) 101–549, November 15, 1990 

4 42 USC § 7506(c)(2) 

5

 42 USC § 7506(c)(1). 

6 PL 91-064, December 31, 1970, PL 95-95, August 7, 1977 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-5 

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

Standards 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

NAAQSa

CAAQSb NeAAQSc

Primary Secondary

Ozone (O3)

1-hour 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppmd0.12ppm

8-hour 0.075 ppm 0.07 ppm --

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

1-hour 35 ppm -- 20 ppm 35 ppm

8-hour 9 ppm -- 9 ppm 9 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

1-hour -- -- 0.18 ppm --

Annual 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.03 ppm 0.053 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)

1-hour -- -- 0.25 ppm --

3-hour -- 0.5 ppm -- 0.5 ppm

24-hour 0.14 ppm -- 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm

Annual 0.03 ppm -- -- 0.03 ppm

Inhalable 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

24-hour 150 μg/m3150 μg/m350 μg/m3 c 150 μg/m3

Annual 50 μg/m350 μg/m320 μg/m350 μg/m3

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

24-hour 35 μg/m335 μg/m3--

Annual 15 μg/m315 μg/m312 μg/m3--

Sulfates 24-hour -- -- 25 μg/m3

Lead (Pb)

30-day -- -- 1.5 μg/m3--

Calendar 

quarter 1.5 μg/m3

1.5 μg/m3-- 1.5 μg/m3

Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour -- -- 0.03 ppm 0.08 ppm

Vinyl Chloride 24-hour -- -- 0.01 ppm --

Source: CARB 2008b; NDEP 2008b. 

Notes: 

a The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, other than O3 and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded 

more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum 

hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. 

b

 The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are 

values not to be exceeded. All other California standards shown are values not to be equaled or exceeded. 

c

The Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards (NeAAQS) must not be exceeded in areas where the general public has 

access. 

d

ppm = parts per million by volume, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-6 

3.11.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4 were unique to the DEMU locomotive 

technology. As the EMU locomotive technology was selected for the Preferred Alternative, 

these DEMU-related mitigation measures are no longer applicable or necessary and have 

thus been deleted. 

Project construction emissions were provided in Table 3.11-24 of the Draft EIS, based on 

preliminary information provided by the Applicant. These estimates assumed a rail 

alignment from Victorville to Las Vegas utilizing Segment 4A, the shortest and most direct 

route. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment includes the longer Segment 4C, which 

also features three tunnels through the Clark Mountains. Accordingly, the construction 

emissions information presented herein has been revised to reflect the Preferred 

Alternative, including Segment 4C. See Tables F-3.11-17 and Table F-3.11-18 below. 

As a result of the revision of construction emissions estimates, additional mitigation was 

included. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 below was added to reduce the amount of 

construction period emissions of air pollutants. 

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Utilize additional means to reduce 

construction period emissions of air pollutants. 

The Applicant shall integrate the following control measures into 

approved design-build plans: 

 All off-road internal-combustion engine construction equipment 

shall be EPA Tier-4 certified.

 All signal boards shall be solar-powered.

 All architectural coatings products shall contain no more than 250 

grams of VOC per liter of coating (2.08 pounds per gallon). 

 For all work conducted within Clark County, only the following 

fuels shall be used to power off-road equipment:

A composite fuel blend consisting of at least 20 percent 

biodiesel. 

3.11.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.11.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The same methodology as described in Draft EIS Section 3.11.2 was used to evaluate 

potential effects of the Preferred Alternative. The analysis focuses on potential regional 

and localized impacts on air quality associated with the EMU technology option and its 

related level of passenger/automobile activity. Pollutant burdens generated by on-road 

(vehicles), off-road (trains), and stationary (electric power generation) sources for the 

Preferred Alternative were compared to the No Action Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-7 

Pollutants that can be traced principally to transportation sources and are thus relevant to 

the evaluation of the project alternatives are carbon monoxide, ozone precursors (nitrous 

oxide (NOx) and reactive organic compounds [ROC]), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5),

and carbon dioxide (CO2). Because high carbon monoxide levels are mostly the result of 

congested traffic conditions combined with adverse meteorological conditions, high CO 

concentrations generally occur within 300 ft to 600 ft of heavily traveled roadways. 

Concentrations of carbon monoxide on a regional and localized or microscale basis can 

consequently be predicted appropriately. 

As discussed below in the affected environment section, ROC and NOx emissions from 

mobile sources are of concern primarily because of their role as precursors in the 

formation of ozone and particulate matter. Ozone is formed through a series of reactions 

that occur in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight over a period of hours. Because 

the reactions are slow and occur as the pollutants are diffusing downwind, elevated ozone

levels are often found many miles from sources of the precursor pollutants. The impacts 

of ROC and NOx emissions are, therefore, generally examined on a regional level. Carbon 

dioxide emission burdens, because of their global impact, are currently expressed only on 

the statewide level by CARB (California), NDEP (Nevada) and EPA. In this analysis, 

therefore, carbon dioxide impacts are discussed on a statewide level. It is appropriate to 

predict concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 on a regional and localized basis. 

The air quality analysis for the proposed project focuses on the potential regional and 

localized impacts on air quality. The regional pollutant burdens were estimated based on 

changes that would occur, including the following, under each of the alternatives: 

 Highway VMT; 

 Diesel fuel requirement under the proposed DEMU technology alternative; and 

 Power requirement under the proposed EMU technology alternative. 

Localized air quality impacts were estimated based on level of service information and 

intersection geometry for arterial roadways near proposed stations. 

Localized air quality impacts were estimated based on level of service information and 

intersection geometry for arterial roadways near proposed stations. 

Localized impacts for California were calculated and evaluated using CALINE4 and Emfac 

2007 emissions factors; while such impacts for Nevada were calculated and evaluated 

using CAL3QHC and Mobile 6 emissions factors. GHG emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were calculated using the formulas provided in 

the California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Reporting EntityWide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 2.2. 

Although the project would be constructed through a design-build process, adequate 

information is available to estimate construction-period emissions. For purposes of 

calculating emissions, the overall construction project was apportioned into three 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-8 

components, at grade, on structure, and via tunnels. Emissions were calculated for each 

component using the CalEEMod (version 2011.1) software model, which uses 

OFFROAD2007 emissions factors, and apportioned into activity occurring in California 

and Nevada for each year. Detailed assumptions about construction phase durations, 

equipment type and quantity, equipment use assumptions, and work fraction occurring in 

California and Nevada per year for each construction component are provided in 

Appendix F-L. 

 GHG emissions are reported in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Changes in 

the amounts of CO2e emissions as a result of the project alternatives were estimated on a 

statewide basis for both California and Nevada. Emission burdens were projected for the 

expected opening and horizon years of the project, 2013 and 2030. 

Under the impact methodology described in Section 3.5.2 of the Draft EIS, two horizon 

years were selected for the traffic analysis: 2013 and 2030. The year 2013 was selected 

because it was the year the DesertXpress high speed passenger train was expected to begin 

operations at the time when the Draft EIS was being prepared. The year 2030 was 

selected to evaluate cumulative conditions because it was the farthest year in the future for 

which regional travel forecasts were available for the metropolitan Las Vegas area. 

In order to maintain consistency in the evaluation of project modifications and additions, 

the two horizon years were retained in the Supplemental Draft EIS. However, due to a 

longer than expected environmental review process, 2013 may no longer be the opening 

year for the project. However, this Final EIS assumes this shift of one to two years in the 

opening year to be less than significant and continues to use the existing 2013 traffic 

analysis in the evaluation of project impacts. It is not anticipated that substantially 

different findings would result under an opening year of 2014 or 2015. Similarly, regional 

travel forecasts for the year 2030 remain applicable to this Final EIS and also provide 

consistency between the previous Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS documents. 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions: This assessment is based on the total pollutant burden of 

emissions to occur in California and Nevada under the No Action Alternative and the 

change in emissions estimated under the proposed action alternatives with the DEMU and 

EMU technology options. The following factors were used to rate the potential effects of 

each proposed project alternative: 

The threshold values provided in EPA’s Conformity Rule (Table F-3.11-5, below) 

that determine when a detailed conformity analysis is required for a proposed 

federal project located in a nonattainment or maintenance area; and 

The Conformity Rule’s definition (40 CFR Part 55.852) of a regionally significant 

project, which is one that would increase emissions of an applicable pollutant in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area by 10% or more. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-9 

Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, the lead federal agency must make a General 

Conformity Determination for all federal actions in non-attainment or maintenance areas 

where the total of direct and indirect emissions of a non-attainment pollutant or its 

precursors exceeds levels established by the regulations. 

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

Pollutant Area’s Attainment Status Conformity Rule’s Significant Impact 

Thresholds in Tons (Metric Tons)/Year

O3 (VOCs or 

NOx)

Nonattainment—serious 50 (45)

Nonattainment—severe 25 (23)

Nonattainment—extreme 10 (9)

Nonattainment—outside an O3 transport 

region 100 (91)

Nonattainment—moderate/marginal 

inside an O3 transport region

50/100 (45/91)

(VOC/NOx)

NOx maintenance 100 (91)

VOC maintenance—outside O3 transport 

region 100 (91)

VOC maintenance—inside O3 transport 

region 50 (45)

CO Nonattainment—all 100 (91)

Maintenance 100 (91)

PM10/PM2.5 Nonattainment—moderate 100 (91) / 100 (91)

Nonattainment—serious 70 (64) / 100 (91)

Maintenance 100 (91) / 100 (91)

Source: USEPA 40 CFR 51.853.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Changes in the amounts of CO2 emissions as a result of the 

project alternatives were estimated on a statewide basis for both California and Nevada. 

These results are provided to indicate how changes in CO2e emissions, as a result of the 

proposed action alternatives with the DEMU and EMU technology options, may affect 

global warming. These estimates were based on the estimated changes in fuel use and 

electrical energy production associated with each technology option. 

3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is used to compare the relative impacts and benefits of the 

proposed project improvements. The No Action Alternative assumes that no new 

passenger rail system to divert vehicular travel between the southern California region and 

Las Vegas would be built. Under the No Action Alternative, public agencies in California 

and/or Nevada are anticipated to move forward with physical and/or operational roadway 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-10

improvements to increase the capacity of the I-15 corridor. These improvements would be 

located in the same vicinity as the Preferred Alternative and would be subject to their own 

environmental review processes. 

Permanent Effects 

Regional Operations Effects 

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no construction of the proposed project 

and a continued intensification of automobile travel between southern California and Las 

Vegas. None of the beneficial operational effects of the Preferred Alternative (reduction in 

several criteria pollutants) would occur under the No Action Alternative. Vehicle trips 

along the I-15 project corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas resulted in more than 10 

million average daily VMT during year 2007. Emissions occurring under existing 

conditions are provided in Table F-3.11-1 above. Under the No Action Alternative, VMT 

along this corridor is expected to grow to approximately 12.75 million average daily VMT 

by the opening year and reach 20.38 million average daily VMT by the horizon year. The 

regional criteria pollutant and GHG emissions that would result from vehicular travel 

along the I-15 project corridor under the No Action Alternative at the opening and horizon 

years are provided in Table F-3.11-6 below. 

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

Action Alternative, Opening Year and Horizon Year 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC7 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Opening Year

 Mojave Desert Air Basin 342 2,408 7,372 15 170 156 1,464,461 

 Clark County Nevada 930 1,348 18,990 18 61 31 970,312

 Total Annual Emissions 1,272 3,756 26,362 33 231 187 2,434,773 

Horizon Year

 Mojave Desert Air Basin 197 941 3,895 20 176 162 1,977,278 

 Clark County Nevada 882 769 29,504 35 105 48 1,807,732

 Total Annual Emissions 1,079 1,710 33,399 55 281 210 3,785,010 

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

 

7

 As noted in Draft EIS Section 3.11.2.1, reactive organic compounds (or ROC) are considered a precursor of 

ozone (O3). Ozone is not a direct mobile-source emission but is instead formed in the atmosphere from the 

interaction of sunlight and precursors such as ROC. While ROC is not specifically listed as a criteria pollutant, 

ROC is emitted by vehicles and can eventually convert to ozone and is standard practice to evaluate in 

determining whether a project will result in the production of ozone. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-11

Localized Operations Effects 

The No Action Alternative would not result in any project-related changes to conditions 

(i.e., local roadway circulation patterns) that affect local air quality. As such, there would 

be little effect on local air quality. 

Temporary Effects 

The No Action Alternative would not result in any of the construction identified for the 

project, but would include effects associated with the construction of future roadway 

improvement projects as described in Section 2.3.1 of this Final EIS. The construction 

of these improvements would entail short-term, localized effects. Similar to the Preferred 

Alternative, it is assumed that mitigation measures would be implemented for each 

construction effort to avoid or minimize adverse construction-period effects. Effects and 

associated mitigation measures would be calculated in individual environmental review 

processes. Construction emissions related to the tunnel boring under the Preferred 

Alternative would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As such, overall emissions 

related to construction activity would be less under the No Action Alternative when 

compared to the Preferred Alternative, as tunneling requires a substantial construction 

effort. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would result in a shorter duration 

construction schedule (approximately three years) when compared to construction of No 

Action Alternative improvements, which would result in higher annual emissions under 

the Preferred Alternative when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

3.11.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative (including the EMU technology and the rail alignment) was 

evaluated against the criteria identified in Section 3.11.2.2 of the Draft EIS to determine 

whether any adverse effects to air quality would occur during operations of the high-speed 

rail service as well as during the construction period of about 4 years. 

Temporary, short-term adverse air quality effects can result from project construction 

activities, specifically with exhaust emissions (including GHGs) from construction 

equipment and truck haul trips, and with fugitive dust from soil disturbance activity. The 

Draft EIS had characterized construction-related impacts to air quality and GHG 

emissions as “indirect.” This error was corrected in the Supplemental Draft EIS. Such 

impacts are properly noted as “temporary” construction effects in this section. 

All calculations related to operational and construction period air quality effects are 

provided in Final EIS Appendix F-L. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-12

Regional Operations Effects 

The Preferred Alternative would have complex effects on regional air quality. Criteria 

pollutant and GHG emissions would result from the preferred locomotive technology 

(EMU) and station/maintenance facility activities. However, criteria pollutants and GHG 

emissions would decrease in association with the diversion of passenger vehicles that 

would otherwise have traversed the entire distance between southern California and Las 

Vegas. 

It is important to note that the Preferred Alternative would traverse two air basins: the 

Mojave Desert Air Basin and the Clark County area. The distribution between resource 

areas is approximately 80.5 percent in the Mojave Desert Air Basin and 19.5 percent in 

Clark County, accounting for the proportionate amount of rail alignment within each state. 

Mojave Desert Air Basin Emissions – California 

Table F-3.11-7 and Table F-3.11-8 show the regional criteria pollutant and GHG 

emissions that would result from operation of the Preferred Alternative at the opening and 

horizon years. All criteria pollutant emissions would remain below general conformity de 

minimis thresholds during the opening and horizon years. Notably, the shift from 

passenger vehicles to high-speed trains associated with the Preferred Alternative will 

result in reductions of some criteria pollutants, some to a substantial degree. 

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

Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Opening Year Operations 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions 1 75 13 8 3 2 47,463

Mobile-source Emissions (76) (530) (1,621) (3) (37) (34) (322,115)

Net Emissions (75) (455) (1,608) 5 (34) (32) (274,652)

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 -- -- 100 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No N/A N/A No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-13

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

Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Horizon Year Operations 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions 1 118 21 12 4 4 75,122

Mobile-source Emissions (77) (366) (1,516) (8) (69) (63) (769,715)

Net Emissions (76) (248) (1,495) 4 (65) (59) (694,593)

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 -- -- 100 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No N/A N/A No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/ Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Clark County Emissions – Nevada 

Table F-3.11-9 and Table F-3.11-10 show regional criteria pollutant and GHG 

emissions that would result from operation of the Preferred Alternative at the opening and 

horizon years. All criteria pollutant emissions would remain below general conformity de 

minimis thresholds during the opening year and at the horizon year. Notably, the shift 

from passenger vehicles to high-speed trains associated with the Preferred Alternative will 

result in reductions of some criteria pollutants, some to a substantial degree. 

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

Gas Emissions, Clark County Air Basin, Opening Year Operations 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions <1 18 3 2 1 1 11,497

Mobile-source Emissions (104) (151) (2,130) (2) (7) (4) (108,808)

Net Emissions (104) (133) (2,127) <1 (6) (3) (97,311)

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 100 -- 70 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No No N/A No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-14

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

Gas Emissions Clark County Air Basin, Horizon Year Operations 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions <1 29 5 3 1 1 18,197

Mobile-source Emissions (85) (74) (2,830) (3) (10) (5) (173,422)

Net Emissions (85) (45) (2,825) <1 (9) (4) (155,225)

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 100 -- 70 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No No N/A No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Operational Effects on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Global climate change is a problem caused by combined worldwide greenhouse gas 

emissions. Mitigating global climate change will require worldwide solutions. GHGs play 

a critical role in the Earth’s radiation budget by trapping infrared radiation emitted from 

the Earth’s surface, which could have otherwise escaped to space. Prominent GHGs 

contributing to this process include water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,

ozone, and certain hydro- and fluorocarbons. This “greenhouse effect” keeps the Earth’s 

atmosphere near the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. Increases in these gases 

lead to more absorption of radiation and warm the lower atmosphere further, thereby 

increasing evaporation rates and temperatures near the surface. Emissions of GHGs in 

excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the 

enhancement of the greenhouse effect and to contribute to what is termed “global 

warming,” a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate. Climate change is 

a global problem, and GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (such as 

ozone precursors) and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and 

local concern. 

Tables F-3.11-7 through F-3.11-10 show GHG emissions associated with operations of 

the Preferred Alternative. As shown therein, GHG emissions are predicted to decrease 

under the Preferred Alternative when compared to no project, at both the opening year 

and horizon year. 

As no quantitative GHG guidelines or thresholds have been developed by the EPA, Mojave 

Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), or the Clark County Department of 

Air Quality & Environmental Management (DAQEM), these emissions are provided for 

informational purposes only. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-15

Localized Operational Effects 

With respect to the Preferred Alternative, localized effects of primary concern are TAC 

emissions related to railway activity, and CO hotspot formation at congested intersection 

locations. An evaluation of each is provided below. 

Evaluation of TAC Emissions 

With the Preferred Alternative utilizing the EMU technology, there would be no new TAC 

emissions sources. Electric power demands would be met using existing sources. 

Evaluation of CO Hotspots 

Within an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the 

highest CO concentrations are generally found close to congested intersections. Under 

typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from 

the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a 

conservative worst-case impact analysis, CO concentrations are typically analyzed at 

congested intersection locations. If impacts were less than significant close to congested 

intersections, impacts would also be less than significant at more distant sensitivereceptor locations. 

Project-related traffic volumes associated with ingress/egress to the passenger stations in 

Victorville and Las Vegas would have the potential to create local area CO concentrations 

that exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (i.e., CO hotspots). 

For California intersection locations, local area CO concentrations were projected using 

the CALINE4 line source dispersion model developed by Caltrans, with Emfac 2007 

emissions factors. Nevada intersection locations were evaluated using the CAL3QHC line 

source dispersion model developed by EPA and Mobile 6 emissions factors. The 

evaluation of congested intersection locations to ascertain the potential for localized CO 

hotspots is provided below. 

Victorville Intersection Locations – California 

The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated for the Victorville Station (VV3). Table F3.11-11 shows projected CO concentrations during the opening year, Table F-3.11-12 

shows projected horizon year concentrations. As shown in Tables F-3.11-11 and F-3.11-

12, concentrations at the most congested intersection locations would not violate NAAQS 

(i.e., result in a CO hot spot) at any intersection at the opening year or horizon year. 

Las Vegas Intersection Locations – Nevada 

The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated for the Las Vegas passenger station options 

(Southern Station or Central Station B). Table F-3.11-13 and Table F-3.11-14 show 

projected CO concentrations during the opening year for each station; Table F-3.11-15 

and Table F-3.11-16 show projected horizon year CO concentrations. As shown in 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-16

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

Intersectiona Max. 1-Hour 

Base (ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 

8-Hour 

Impact?e

I-15 NB Ramps and 

Dale Evans Parkway 3.0 4.3 No 1.9 2.8 No

I-15 SB Ramps and 

Dale Evans Parkway 3.0 4.2 No 1.9 2.7 No

Station Access #1 

and Dale Evans 

Parkway

2.9 4.2 No 1.8 2.7 No

Future Street and 

Dale Evans Parkway 3.0 3.5 No 1.9 2.2 No

Future Street and 

Station Access #5 3.1 3.4 No 2.0 2.2 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2009. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a

 Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

October 2009. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 2.6 ppm. 

c

 The state standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 1.6 ppm. 

e

 The state standard for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 

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

Intersectiona

Max. 1-Hour 

Base 

(ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 

8-Hour 

Impact?e

I-15 NB Ramps and 

Dale Evans Parkway 2.9 3.1 No 1.8 2.0 No

I-15 SB Ramps and 

Dale Evans Parkway 3.1 3.4 No 2.0 2.2 No

Future Street and 

Dale Evans Parkway 3.2 3.2 No 2.0 2.0 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2009. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a

 Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

October 2009. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 2.6 ppm. 

c

The state standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 1.6 ppm. 

e

 The state standard for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-17

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

Intersectiona Max. 1-Hour 

Base (ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 

8-Hour 

Impact?e

Valley View Blvd

and Tropicana Ave

8.6 8.6 No 5.3 5.3 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Tropicana Ave

8.5 8.6 No 5.2 5.4 No

Aldebaran Dr and 

Hacienda Ave

7.9 8.2 No 4.9 5.1 No

Polaris Ave and 

Hacienda Ave

7.9 8.4 No 4.8 5.4 No

Polaris Ave and 

Russell Rd 8.4 9.0 No 5.0 5.8 No

I-15 SB Ramps and 

Russell Rd 9.4 9.5 No 6.0 6.1 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a

 Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

August 2008. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 7.0 ppm. 

c

 The NAAQS for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 35 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 4.2 ppm. 

e

 The NAAQS for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 

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

Intersectiona Max. 1-Hour 

Base (ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 

8-Hour 

Impact?e

Flamingo Rd and 

Hotel Rio Dr 8.1 11.1 No 5.0 7.0 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Hotel Dr 7.6 8.5 No 4.7 5.4 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Tropicana Ave

8.4 8.8 No 5.2 5.4 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

August 2008. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 7.0 ppm. 

c

 The NAAQS for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 35 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 4.2 ppm. 

e

 The NAAQS for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-18

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

Intersectiona Max. 1-Hour 

Base (ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 8-

Hour 

Impact?e

Valley View Blvd

and Tropicana Ave

9.0 9.0 No 5.7 5.7 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Tropicana Ave

8.3 8.3 No 5.1 5.2 No

I-15 NB Ramps and 

Tropicana Ave

10.1 10.2 No 6.7 6.7 No

Aldebaran Dr and 

Hacienda Ave

8.0 8.1 No 5.0 5.1 No

Polaris Ave and 

Hacienda Ave

7.9 8.3 No 4.9 5.1 No

Valley View Blvd

and Hacienda Ave

10.8 10.8 No 6.9 6.9 No

Polaris Ave and 

Russell Rd 8.8 8.7 No 5.5 5.6 No

I-15 SB Ramps and 

Russell Rd 9.1 9.4 No 5.9 6.0 No

I-15 NB Ramps and 

Russell Rd 9.6 9.2 No 5.9 6.4 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a

 Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

August 2008. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 7.0 ppm. 

c

 The NAAQS for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 35 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 4.2 ppm. 

e

 The NAAQS for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-19

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

Intersectiona Max. 1-Hour 

Base (ppm)b

Max. 1-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)b

Significant 

1-Hour 

Impact?c

Max. 8-Hour 

Base (ppm)d

Max. 8-Hour 

With Project 

(ppm)d

Significant 8-

Hour 

Impact?e

Flamingo Rd and 

Hotel Rio Dr 5.3 7.4 No 2.6 8.6 No

Flamingo Rd and I15 NB On/Off 

Ramps

5.7 6.0 No 2.7 8.6 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Hotel Dr 4.8 5.5 No 2.0 8.6 No

Dean Martin Dr and 

Tropicana Ave

5.5 5.8 No 2.5 8.6 No

Tropicana Ave and 

I-15 NB Ramps 6.9 6.2 No 3.7 8.6 No

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008. 

Notes: ppm = parts per million 

a

 Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, 

August 2008. 

b

 Includes 1-hour background concentration of 7.0 ppm. 

c

 The NAAQS for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 35 ppm. 

d

 Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 4.2 ppm. 

e

 The NAAQS for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 

Temporary Effects 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily generate emissions of fugitive 

dust (PM10 and PM2.5), construction equipment tailpipe emissions (ROC, NOx and CO), 

and evaporative VOC emissions from paving and painting. Construction-period emissions 

would be temporary and localized to the areas adjacent to the construction activity. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to last approximately 38 months. 

The total amount of construction (i.e., magnitude), the duration of construction, and the 

intensity of construction activity would have a substantial effect upon the amount of 

construction emissions occurring at any one time. The emission forecasts provided in the 

Draft EIS (see Draft EIS Table 3.11-24) reflected a specific set of conservative 

assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large 

amount of construction is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. However, following 

publication of the Draft EIS, additional detail about project construction was developed 

and air quality effects were recalculated for the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, 

estimates of construction-period emission have been recalculated (see Appendix F-L); 

pre-mitigation results are shown in Tables F-3.11-17 and Table F-3.11-18. As shown in 

these tables, certain pollutant levels would exceed general conformity de minimis 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-20

thresholds during construction. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3, and 

AQ-5 described in Section 3.11.3 will be required to reduce construction period 

emissions to below general conformity de minimis thresholds. These measures were 

selected as standard practice control measures as included in require adherence to 

regional fugitive dust (PM10) control measures, but also set forth several additional 

measures to reduce the emissions of criteria pollutants during construction, including 

requirements that all off-road construction vehicles meet “Tier 4” standards set forth by 

the EPA. These standards were enacted by EPA in 2004. Construction vehicles meeting 

these standards would reduce exhaust emissions from off-road construction vehicles by 90 

percent relative to older engines meeting less stringent standards. The measures also 

require the use of paints and solvents that produce low levels of volatile organic 

compounds, thus reducing ROC. The measures also include the use of compressed natural 

gas and/or biodiesel fuel. The construction-period emissions were recalculated utilizing 

these mitigation measures and the resultant analysis (see Appendix F-L) shows that 

construction period pollutant emissions would be below general conformity de minimis

thresholds (see Tables F-3.11-20 and F-3.11-21). Therefore, no general conformity 

determination is required. 

The Frias Substation had not yet been developed when the Draft EIS was published, but 

has been included in the recalculated emissions for the Preferred Alternative. The Frias 

Substation would require site grading, trenching, foundation construction, and utility 

structure/power line installations. Construction duration is anticipated to be two months 

or less. Facility construction would occur concurrent with adjacent track installation and 

require similar construction equipment. 

The criteria air pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions that would occur as a result of 

construction of the Frias Substation would represent a small fraction of the total regional 

emissions that would result from overall project construction. With respect to localized 

impacts, sensitive receptors closest to the proposed facility include areas of single-family 

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

proposed substation site. During the approximately two months of facility construction, 

these sensitive uses would experience a marginal exposure increase to localized criteria 

pollutant and TAC emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would be applied to the Frias 

Substation. Once operational, there would be no long-term direct emissions associated 

with this proposed facility. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-21

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Before 

Mitigation 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Evaluation Year

Year 1 27 200 109 183 93 18,103

Year 2 112 832 457 273 129 80,594

Year 3 100 739 425 267 123 75,166

Year 4 44 320 188 177 97 34,024

General Conformity 

Threshold (per year) 50 100 -- 100 -- --

Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Clark County, Before Mitigation 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Evaluation Year

Year 1 7 48 26 40 20 4,371

Year 2 27 200 108 62 28 19,561

Year 3 23 173 99 61 27 17,661

Year 4 10 75 44 37 20 7,898

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 100 70 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No Yes Yes No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-22

3.11.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.11-19 summarizes the comparison of air quality and global climate change 

effects for the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. 

Permanent Effects 

The action alternatives were analyzed for air quality effects under two potential technology 

options: DEMU and EMU. As with the analysis of the EMU technology option under the 

Preferred Alternative, the No Action Alternative is used to compare the relative impacts 

and benefits of the proposed improvements under the DEMU technology option under the 

other action alternatives. 

Under either technology option, the diversion of passenger vehicles from I-15 would 

decrease VMT and thus result in a decrease in criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. 

Emissions related to passenger rail propulsion (either the DEMU or EMU technology 

options) would represent an increase in both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. 

Ozone precursor emissions of NOX under the DEMU technology option would exceed 

general conformity thresholds at the opening and horizon years. However, all criteria 

pollutant emissions under the Preferred Alternative EMU technology option would remain 

below general conformity thresholds at the opening and horizon years. 

The Action Alternatives included in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS include 

various rail alignment options which would influence emissions related to passenger rail 

propulsion by modifying the total length of the proposed rail alignment. The longer the 

distance between the Victorville and Las Vegas Station options (VV1, VV2, Central Station 

A, and Downtown Station), the more emissions would be generated. Selecting VV3B as 

the preferred Victorville Passenger Site and eliminating Segment 7 under the Preferred 

Alternative has reduced the total distance of the project rail alignment when compared to 

other action alternatives, thereby resulting in lower emissions related to passenger rail 

propulsion. If the Southern Station is ultimately selected as the Las Vegas Station, the rail 

alignment would be 1.8 miles shorter, thereby resulting in the shortest possible alignment 

of all the action alternatives, resulting in even lower emissions related to passenger rail 

propulsion. 

Temporary Effects 

The Victorville Passenger Stations evaluated under the other action alternatives would 

have a slightly smaller surface parking area than the VV3 option selected under the 

Preferred Alternative. The decrease in parking area size would result in the Victorville 

Station having a marginal decrease in criteria pollutant emissions and GHG emissions 

associated with site grading, asphalt paving activity, and truck haul trips relative to 

Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-23

Construction emissions related to the tunnel boring in Segment 4C of the Preferred 

Alternative would not occur with the Segment 4A option. If Segment 4A were to become 

viable subsequent to publication of the Final EIS, construction-period emissions would be 

recalculated, and would be expected to show substantially lower levels of criteria 

pollutants, given the shorter alignment length and lack of tunneling required to construct 

Segment 4A. 

Table F-3.11-19 Alternatives Comparison – Air Quality 

Alternative Exceed a state or federal 

standard? Result in CO Hotspot?

Expected adverse 

construction period 

impact?

No Action Alternative Not expected Not expected Not expected

Technology Options, including Autotransformer Sites (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric 

Multiple Unit)

Yes – O3 precursor 

emissions of NOx

No

Construction emissions 

would not exceed de 

minimis thresholds; 

EMU (Electric Multiple 

Unit) No No

Construction emissions 

would not exceed de 

minimis thresholds; 

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

3.11.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 identified in Section 3.11.5 of the Draft EIS 

and AQ-5, added to this Final EIS, would be applied during the construction of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4 of the Draft EIS were unique to the DEMU 

locomotive technology. As the EMU locomotive technology was selected for the Preferred 

Alternative, these mitigation measures are no longer applicable or necessary. 

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 would reduce fugitive dust (PM10) emissions by 

requiring a fugitive dust control plan for each of the two air basins. Control measures 

required by the dust control plans would include watering for stabilization of disturbed 

surface area, covering loaded haul vehicles, and reducing non-essential earth-moving 

activities during high wind conditions. 

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Control Plan during 

Construction to Meet MDAQMD Rule 403.2 Requirements 

Consistent with the MDAQMD Rule 403.2 (Fugitive Dust Control for the Mojave 

Desert Planning Area), the following control measures shall be implemented by the 

Applicant: 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-24

 Use periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface area to 

minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. Use of a water truck to maintain 

moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting 

episodes shall be considered sufficient to maintain compliance; 

 Take actions sufficient to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces; 

 Cover loaded haul vehicles while operating on publicly maintained paved 

surfaces; 

 Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent 

development is delayed or expected to be delayed more than 30 days, except 

when such a delay is due to precipitation that dampens the disturbed surface 

sufficiently to eliminate visible fugitive dust emissions; 

 Clean up project-related trackout or spills on publicly maintained paved 

surfaces within 24 hours; and 

 Reduce nonessential earth-moving activity under high wind conditions. A 

reduction in earth-moving activity when visible dusting occurs from moist and 

dry surfaces due to wind erosion shall be considered sufficient to maintain 

compliance. 

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Fugitive Dust Control Plan during 

Construction to Meet Clark County DAQEM Requirements 

Consistent with Section 94 of Clark County Air Quality Guidelines, the Applicant 

shall compile a Dust Mitigation Plan that is consistent with measures identified in 

the DAQEM Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook (included by 

reference in Section 94 of the Clark County Air Quality Regulations) and Desert 

Tortoise protective measures, and a Dust Control Permit shall be secured from the 

DAEQM. The Dust Control Plan may include the following measures, among other 

measures: 

 Use periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface area to 

minimize visible fugitive dust emissions; 

 Take actions sufficient to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces; 

 Cover loaded haul vehicles while operating on publicly maintained paved 

surfaces; 

 Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent 

development is delayed or expected to be delayed more than 30 days, except 

when such a delay is due to precipitation that dampens the disturbed surface 

sufficiently to eliminate visible fugitive dust emissions; 

 Clean up project-related trackout or spills on publicly maintained paved 

surfaces within 24 hours; and 

 Reduce nonessential earth-moving activity under high wind conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-25

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Utilize additional means to reduce 

construction period emissions of air pollutants. 

The Applicant shall integrate the following control measures into approved designbuild plans: 

 All off-road internal-combustion engine construction equipment shall be EPA 

Tier-4 certified. 

 All signal boards shall be solar-powered. 

 All architectural coatings products shall contain no more than 250 grams of 

VOC per liter of coating (2.08 pounds per gallon). 

 For all work conducted within Clark County, only the following fuels shall be 

used to power off-road equipment: 

A composite fuel blend consisting of at least 20 percent biodiesel. 

3.11.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Tables F-3.11-20 and F-3.11-21 show calculations of construction-period emissions 

incorporating Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3, and AQ-5. With the implementation 

of these measures, construction period emissions of all criteria pollutants would be 

reduced and would not exceed de minimis thresholds. As a result, with mitigation the 

project’s impact on air quality would be less than significant and there would be no 

residual impact. 

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 would reduce fugitive dust emissions from offroad, disturbed surfaces by 61 percent; and from paved roads by 50 percent 

Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would substantially reduce NOx and PM exhaust emissions 

from off-road construction equipment. On May 11, 2004, the EPA signed the final rule 

introducing Tier 4 emission standards; the phasing process for these standards began in 

2008 and is expected to continue through 2015 [69 FR 38957-39273, 29 Jun 2004]. The 

Tier 4 standards require that emissions of PM and NOx be further reduced by about 90 

percent from Tier 3 levels. Use of modern equipment manufactured during 2008 or later, 

or older equipment that has been retrofit to meet Tier 4 standards, will be sufficient to 

meet required emissions reductions. 

The fuel requirements within Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would reduce ROC and CO 

emissions by approximately 20 percent and 13 percent, respectively for all off-road 

construction equipment operating within Clark County. At the same time, the use of these 

fuels would increase NOx emissions by approximately 2 percent These estimates are 

taken from the publication A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust 

Emissions (EPA, October 2002) for the most common biodiesel blend that contain 20 

percent biodiesel 80 percent conventional diesel by volume. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.11-26

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3 and AQ-5 would substantially 

reduce criteria pollutant emissions during construction so that emission levels would be 

below General Conformity de minimis thresholds for all criteria pollutants in both air 

resource areas. Criteria pollutant emissions after implementation of the mitigation 

measures, for each year of construction, are shown below in Tables F-3.11-17 and F3.11-18. 

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

Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, Post Mitigation 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Evaluation Year

Year 1 7 17 103 70 32 18,103

Year 2 28 80 452 99 35 80,594

Year 3 26 75 427 99 34 75,166

Year 4 12 38 197 64 32 34,024

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 -- 100 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No N/A No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Clark County, Post Mitigation 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) CO2e Emissions, 

tons per yeara

ROC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Evaluation Year

Year 1 1 4 22 15 7 4,371

Year 2 6 20 96 23 7 19,561

Year 3 5 19 88 23 7 17,661

Year 4 2 10 40 13 7 7,898

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 100 100 70 -- --

Exceed Threshold? No No No No N/A N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2011. 

a

 Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-1 

3.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes the updates/changes made in response to comments on the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the noise and vibration 

impacts related to the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No Action and other 

Action Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.12.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to noise and vibration and provides responses to those 

comments. Several comments resulted in changes to the noise and vibration analysis in 

the EIS and are discussed below. Substantive updates and changes in response to 

comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS are shown in bold underline

and strikeout text. 

3.12.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.12.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for noise and vibration for the DesertXpress project. Since 

publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there have been no changes to 

the affected environment regarding noise and vibration because no major changes to the 

transportation or land use patterns have occurred in the project region. In addition, no 

comments were received during the public review period that required changes to the 

affected environment discussion in the Draft EIS. The affected environment discussions 

in Draft EIS Section 3.12.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1-2.1 remain 

applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

It is important to note that Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.1 updated the 

discussion in Draft EIS Section 3.12.5.2 related to the affected environment in the 

metropolitan Las Vegas area (Segment 6). Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.1

included a discussion of new noise sensitive developments that were constructed after the 

original noise measurements were taken for the Draft EIS. The new noise sensitive 

development included a mobile home park immediately east of the I-15 freeway at Blue 

Mountain Road. 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, an 

approximately 10 mile portion of Segment 3B in the vicinity of the Halloran Springs and 

Halloran Summit interchanges would be further modified to reduce or avoid impacts to 

sensitive resources in the area. This modification would shift the rail alignment from the 

north to the south side of the I-15 freeway, remaining within the I-15 ROW. At Halloran 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-2 

Summit, the rail alignment would cross back to the north side of the I-15 ROW. This 

modification results in a slight change to geographic area potentially affected by project 

noise and vibration. 

3.12.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for noise and vibration for the DesertXpress project is 

described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.12.3. In addition, no comments were received 

during the public review period that require changes to the regulatory environment 

discussion in the Draft EIS. This regulatory environment discussion remains applicable to 

this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

3.12.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

The Noise and Vibration mitigation measures in Draft EIS Section 3.12, Noise and 

Vibration, and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration, were not 

numbered. For consistency with other technical sections, this Final EIS includes a 

revision assigning numbers to each mitigation measure, as shown below. 

Mitigation Measures NV-1 through NV-4 addresses noise impacts. 

Mitigation Measure NV-1: Noise Barriers

Mitigation Measure NV-2: Relocation of Crossovers or Special 

Trackwork at Crossovers

Mitigation Measure NV-3: Building Sound Insulation 

Mitigation Measure NV-4: Property Acquisitions or Easements 

Mitigation Measure NV-5 through NV-9 addresses vibration impacts. 

Mitigation Measure NV-5: Ballast Mats

Mitigation Measure NV-6: Resilient Rail Fasteners

Mitigation Measure NV-7: Relocation of Crossovers or Special 

Trackwork 

Mitigation Measure NV-8: Floating Slabs 

Mitigation Measure NV-9: Property Acquisitions or Easements 

Mitigation Measure NV-10 addresses noise and vibration impacts resulting from 

construction. 

Mitigation Measure NV-10: Construction Noise and Vibration 

Measures 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-3 

Draft EIS Section 3.12.6.2, which evaluated the noise and vibration effects in the 

metropolitan Las Vegas area (Segment 6), was updated in Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.12.3 to more accurately reflect the plan and profile of the rail alignment and 

anticipated train speeds between Blue Diamond Road and Flamingo Road. The rail 

alignment in this portion would be on an elevated structure at a height of up to 63 feet. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.3 also included updates to noise sensitive land uses 

in metropolitan Las Vegas, specifically a mobile home park immediately east of the I-15

freeway at Blue Mountain Road. 

Several comments on the Draft EIS resulted in changes to the noise and vibration analysis 

in the EIS, which are discussed below. 

Comment 345 on the Draft EIS requested that the statement that the traffic noise near the 

Las Vegas Station sites would only represent a “small percentage” of the projected traffic 

increase be substantiated. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.12.6.1, under the heading “Traffic Noise,” paragraph 3, as follows: 

In Las Vegas, there are only four intersections for all four station alternatives 

combined that would experience an overall doubling of traffic volumes 

by year 2030. A two-fold increase in traffic volumes typically results in 

an audible increase in traffic noise, as perceived by the human ear. 

have a growth factor above 2. However, at all four intersections, the increase in 

traffic due to the Action Alternatives is primarily related to future growth in 

the metropolitan Las Vegas area by year 2030. The traffic generated by 

the DesertXpress project at the Las Vegas Station sites would not 

individually result in the two-fold increase of traffic volumes at the 

four intersections, but would rather combine with the anticipated 

future traffic volume increases associated with regional growth in the 

area. The traffic generated by the DesertXpress project at the Las 

Vegas Station site options would represent less than half of the 

anticipated future increase in traffic volumes at these intersections. is 

only a small percentage of the projected increase and t Therefore, there is no noise 

impact associated with increases in traffic volume in Las Vegas due to the project. 

Comment 346 on the Draft EIS requested clarification related to sensitive receptors in the 

Mojave National Preserve and that the context of the existing traffic noise on the I-15 

freeway corridor near the Mojave National Preserve (i.e., Segment 3) be provided. To 

address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.12.6.2, under the 

heading “Segment 3”, paragraph 1, as follows: 

The noise generated by both technology options would be comparable to that of a 

semi truck traveling at full speed on the highway. The additional audible noise in 

the Preserve to the south of the I-15 freeway would be limited to 

approximately 1⁄2-mile and would be comparable to adding approximately 60 

total daily trucks to existing highway traffic (comparable to just over two 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-4 

additional trucks per hour). The noise generated by the high speed rail would 

affect approximately the same area of the Preserve as the highway along this 

section. Further, there are no hiking trails or other attractions within 

10 or more miles from the I-15 freeway corridor, and therefore, no 

likely sensitive receptors would be affected by train noise. 

Comment 347 on the Draft EIS requested that the timing of the implementation of the 

noise barrier mitigation to reduce adverse noise effects be identified. To address this 

comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.12.7.1, bullet point 1, as presented 

below. In addition, based on additional noise evaluations conducted as part of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, it was concluded that noise barriers at a height of at least four 

feet would be sufficient to reduce severe noise impacts to a non-adverse level. This 

information is also reflected in the change to Draft EIS Section 3.12.7.1, bullet point 1. 

The noise analysis used standard noise barrier calculations to 

determine the effectiveness of the barriers at mitigating impacts. The 

barrier calculations depend primarily on the geometry of the situation, 

including the heights of the source and receiver, the height of the 

barrier, and the distances between the source and barrier and the 

barrier and the receiver. The primary purpose of the barrier is to block 

the line of sight between the source and receiver. Blocking the line of 

sight between the noise source and the receiver with a standard noise 

barrier is a “rule of thumb” used by acoustical engineers to determine 

if a barrier if effective in reducing the impact. One of the most 

important aspects of the barrier calculation is the distance from the 

source of the noise (in this case, the proposed high-speed train) and 

the barrier. On elevated structures, the noise barriers are located very 

close to the source of the noise, which is primarily generated at the 

wheel/rail interface. Because of this and height of the elevated 

structures, the barriers provide a substantial reduction in noise. 

Depending on the proximity of the barrier to the tracks and on the track elevation, 

noise barriers typically range in height from between four and ten feet. 

Noise barriers would be required to be at least four feet in height and 

would be constructed along the at grade portions of the rail alignment 

and on the elevated structures to reduce severe impacts and noise 

impacts. The noise barriers shall be installed prior to the 

commencement of train operations along the rail alignment to reduce 

adverse noise effects.
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-5 

3.12.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

3.12.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The noise and vibration impact methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.12.4

remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

The area for noise and vibration analysis generally includes a 1⁄2-mile radius from the 

Preferred Alternative. As noise and vibration attenuate with distance, substantial noise 

and vibration effects are not anticipated beyond the 1⁄2-mile radius from the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment, stations, and maintenance facilities. 

This evaluation considers potential operational and construction noise and vibration 

effects. Operational noise and vibration effects are considered permanent, while 

construction noise and vibration effects are considered temporary. 

Noise Methodology 

Future noise levels were modeled and compared to the existing noise measurements to 

determine the change in noise levels and specific noise impacts. The existing noise 

measurement locations were selected in noise sensitive areas and were intended to 

represent a range of existing noise conditions along the proposed rail alignment. 

There are two levels of noise impact considered – “severe” and “impact.” These two 

classifications are consistent with FRA noise impact criteria. 

 Severe: Severe noise impacts identify locations where a significant percentage of 

people would be highly annoyed by noise from the high-speed rail alignment. FRA 

particularly encourages noise abatement on high-speed train projects where such 

severe noise impacts are identified. 

 Impact: A noise impact identifies an area where the change in the cumulative 

noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, 

adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other projectspecific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and 

the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase 

over existing noise levels and the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses 

affected. 

Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound. The basic parameters of 

environmental noise that affect human response are (1) intensity or level, (2) frequency 

content, and (3) variation with time. The intensity of level of noise is expressed on a 

compressed scale in units of decibels (dB). By using this scale, the range of normally 

encountered sound can be expressed by values between 0 and 120 dB. On a relative scale, 

a 3 dB change in sound is usually the smallest unit of change in noise levels perceptible to 

the human ear, whereas a 10 dB change in sound level would typically be perceived as a 

doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound. Noise levels and intensity also involve 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-6 

varying frequencies. As the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the Aweighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a 

single number descriptor that correlates with the human subjective response. Sound 

levels measured using this weighting system are called “A-weighted” sound level, and are 

expressed in dB notation a dBA. At a distance of 50 feet, a noise level of 60 dBA is 

equivalent to a commercial air conditioner, 70 dBA is equivalent to a lawn mower, 80 dBA 

is equivalent to a bus travelling at 55 mph, and 90 dBA is equivalent to a jack hammer. 

Sensitivity to noise also increases at night, as the background noise levels are typically 

limited and the overall ambient noise levels are usually lower than noise levels during the 

day. The Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is used to calculate a 24-hour period of cumulative 

noise exposure, with an added 10 dB „penalty‟ imposed on noise that occurs during the 

nighttime hours (between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM). In other words, if an activity results 

in a noise level of 55 dB, the Ldn would calculate this noise as 65 dB if the activity took 

place between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. 

The noise impact assessment for high-speed rail operations is based on a comparison of 

existing and projected future noise exposure for different land use categories. The 

following steps were performed to assess train noise impact: 

 A detailed land-use survey was conducted along the project corridor to identify and 

classify all noise-sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. 

The majority of these receptors are single- and multi-family residences, falling 

under FRA Category 2.1

 The remaining receptors are generally institutional sites 

falling under FRA Category 3.2

 The receptors were clustered based on distance to the tracks, acoustical shielding 

between the receptors and the tracks, and other operational parameters. 

 The existing noise exposure at each cluster of receptors was estimated based on the 

ambient noise measurements discussed above, and was used to determine the 

thresholds for impact and severe impact using the FRA criteria. 

 Projections of future high-speed rail noise at each cluster of receptors were 

developed based on distance from the tracks; train schedule and train speed using 

the methods described above. 

 

1

 FRA Category 2 refers to residences and building where people normally sleep. This category includes 

homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

2

 FRA Category 3 refers to institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category 

includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as 

speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is 

important, such as medial offices, conference rooms, recording studios and concert halls fall into this category, 

as well as places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain 

historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities are also included. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-7 

 In areas where the projections showed either degree of impact, mitigation options 

were evaluated and new projections were developed assuming implementation of 

mitigation measures. 

Vibration Methodology 

The Preferred Alternative vibration effects were assessed using the FRA vibration criteria. 

The FRA vibration criteria consider the land use types and the frequency of train passbys. 

FRA defines a frequent train passby event as one where more than 70 train passbys occur 

within a 24-hour period. Infrequent train passby events entail fewer than 70 train passby 

events within a 24-hour period. 

Table F-3.12.1 summarizes the vibration impact criteria. The vibration propagation tests 

described in Draft EIS Section 3.12.6.2 remain applicable to this Final EIS and the 

evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. The train vibration characteristics were combined 

with the ground vibration propagation test results to project vibration levels as a function 

of distance for the Preferred Alternative. 

The vibration effects for the Preferred Alternative are identified using the infrequent event 

criteria since there would be fewer than 70 train passbys per day. Depending on the type 

of land uses potentially affected by operation of the Preferred Alternative, the threshold 

for identifying adverse vibration effects would range from 65 to 83 vibration decibels 

(VdB). 

Table F-3.12-1 Vibration Impact Criteria 

Land Use Category

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact

(VdB re: 1 micro-inch/sec)

Frequent Events1Infrequent Events2

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations 65 VdB3

65 VdB3

Category 2: Residences are buildings where 

people normally sleep 72 VdB 80 VdB

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 

daytime use 75 VdB 83VdB

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2005. 

Notes: 

1 – Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 

2 – Infrequent events is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. 

3 – This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable 

vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often require special design of the HVAC systems and 

stiffened floors. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-8 

Construction Noise Criteria 

Construction noise criteria are based on the land use types and the time of day, as defined 

in the FRA Guidance Manual. Table F-3.12-2 presents the construction noise criteria in 

terms of equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) for an eight-hour work shift. For every 

doubling of distance from the construction site, it is assumed that construction noise 

levels would decrease by approximately 6 dB. In other words, if construction noise is 

measured as 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from a construction site, noise levels would be 

approximately 59 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. 

Table F-3.12-2 FRA Construction Noise Criteria 

Land Use

Noise Limit, 8-Hour Leq (dBA)

Daytime Nighttime

Residential 80 70

Commercial 85 85

Industrial 90 90

Source: FRA, 2005. 

3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Existing noise levels associated with the I-15 freeway, UPRR operations, and other local 

roadways would continue to generate noise and vibration under the No Action Alternative. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the traffic volumes on the I-15 freeway are expected to 

increase as a result of future travel demand and regional growth. This likely increase in 

traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway between Victorville and Las Vegas would have the 

potential to generate higher traffic noise levels, contributing to an increase in ambient 

noise levels within the vicinity of the I-15 freeway. Construction of these improvements 

could also introduce vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. Refer to Draft EIS Section 

3.5.4.2 for a detailed discussion related to the anticipated traffic increase on the I-15 

freeway mainline under the No Action Alternative. 

The No Action Alternative planned and programmed transportation improvements would 

be required to undergo separate environmental review to determine the specific noise 

effects and to determine the type and extent of mitigation necessary to reduce potential 

adverse noise and vibration effects. 

These planned and programmed transportation improvement projects would occur as part 

of the Preferred Alternative as well. The addition of the high-speed train noise and 

vibration as a result of the Preferred Alternative, in combination with these transportation 

improvement projects under the No Action Alternative would result in somewhat greater 

noise and vibration effects than the No Action Alternative, notwithstanding the 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-9 

anticipated diversion of automobile traffic (up to 1,400 vehicles per hour in peak hours by 

the year 2030) associated with the introduction of high-speed passenger rail service in this 

corridor. 

3.12.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.12.6 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.3 describe in detail 

the noise and vibration effects by individual project component. The discussion below 

summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that comprise the Preferred 

Alternative. This evaluation considers the noise and vibration effects during operation 

and construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

Operational Period Noise 

Table F-3.12-3 presents the detailed comparison of the existing and future noise levels 

within the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. As set forth in Final EIS Section 2.4.1,

the Preferred Alternative includes two options for the Las Vegas Station site – the Las 

Vegas Southern Station and Central Station B. Depending on the final Las Vegas Station 

site selection, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would affect different sensitive 

noise receptors. The Southern Station would result in the rail alignment being shorter by 

about 1.8 miles through metropolitan Las Vegas. Table F-3.12-3 identifies the noise 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station and 

terminating at the Las Vegas Central Station B.3

 

Table F-3.12-3 notes the location and distance to the near track and includes the existing 

noise level, the projected noise level from operation of the Preferred Alternative with 

either the Las Vegas Southern Station or the Las Vegas Central Station B, and the impact 

criteria for each receptor or receptor group. Based on a comparison of the predicted 

Preferred Alternative noise level with the impact criteria, the impact category is listed, 

along with the predicted total noise level and projected noise increase due to the 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Table F-3.12-3 also includes an inventory 

of the number of impacts and severe impacts at each sensitive receptor location. Table F3.12-3 identifies the noise impacts prior to implementation of the mitigation measures 

identified in Section 3.12.3 of this Final EIS. 

 

3 Tables F-3.12-3 shows the noise impacts of Preferred Alternative Segment 2C and Segment 6B, as these are 

the only portions of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment that would result in noise impacts. The tables 

combine the information from Supplemental Draft EIS Tables S-3.12-4 and S-3.12-12, which identify the 

noise impacts for Segment 2C (Side Running) and Segment 6B (as modified by the alignment adjustment), 

respectively. Page 3.12-23 of the Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.3 states that the maximum train 

speed for Segment 6B with the alignment adjustment was refined as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS, with 

resultant reductions in train passby noise levels. Noise impacts were recalculated based on the refined 

maximum train speeds. There are fewer anticipated noise impacts identified for Segment 6B as modified by 

the alignment adjustment than Segment 6B without the alignment adjustment. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-10

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

Location

Side 

of 

Track

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) Total 

Noise 

Level

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number 

of 

Impacts

Pred.2

Impact 

Criteria

Imp Sev Imp Sev

Preferred Alternative Terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station or Las Vegas Central Station B

Lenwood Rd, Days Inn SB 215 62 63 58 64 65 3.6 1 0

Lenwood Rd, Country 

Inn and Suites NB 365 62 60 58 64 64 2.3 1 0

L St to H St SB 130-350 62 58-63 58 64 63-65 1.7-3.7 4 0

Grace St SB 45-150 66 61-69 61 66 67-71 1.3-5.0 7 15

Mount Vernon Ave, 

Church of the 

Nazarene

SB 45 60 71 62 68 71 11.0 0 1

Coolwater Ln, Days 

Inn SB 110 66 64 61 66 68 2.3 1 0

Western Whip Ct to 

Muriel Dr SB 60-190 66 61-68 61 66 67-70 1.2-4.0 7 8

Muriel Dr to Kelly Dr SB 50-200 66 61-69 61 66 67-70 1.2-4.7 35 9

Elephant Mountain Rd SB 170 63 60 60 65 65 1.6 3 0

Ghost Town Rd, Oak 

Tree Inn NB 160 63 60 60 65 65 1.8 1 0

Saffredi Ln SB 50-70 66 64-66 61 66 68-69 2.2-3.2 11 0

Deluna St SB 40-60 66 65-67 61 66 68-70 2.6-4 11 12

Industrial Rd, Silverton 

Casino Lodge SB 80 66 66 61 66 69 3.0 1 0

Preferred Alternative Terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B Only (In Addition to Impacts Above)

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 55 66 67 61 66 70 4.0 0 1

Total Noise Impacts

Total (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station) 83 45

Total (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B) 83 46

Source: HMMH, 2010. 

Notes: Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

1 – Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the 

increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise 

impact. 

2 – The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-11

The comparison in Table F-3.12-3 is limited to urban, populated areas along the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment because these are areas with nearby sensitive 

receptors that would be affected by high-speed train noise. Noise impacts to sensitive 

receptors, such as residential, commercial, and hotel uses, would be limited to areas 

within Barstow, Yermo, and the metropolitan Las Vegas areas, along Segments 2C and 

Segment 6B of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. While operation of the Preferred 

Alternative would result in increased noise levels associated with train passbys along the 

entire rail alignment, there are no sensitive receptors outside of these urban areas that are 

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

train noise. 

The Preferred Alternative, with either the Las Vegas Southern Station or the Las Vegas 

Central Station B, would result in a total of 83 noise impacts. The Preferred Alternative 

terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station would result in 45 severe noise impacts; or 

46 severe noise impacts if terminating at Central Station B. Inclusion of the Las Vegas 

Southern Station would terminate the Preferred Alternative rail alignment just south of 

Hacienda Avenue and the sensitive noise receptors along Dean Martin Drive (i.e., existing 

hotels and motels) would not be affected by the high-speed train noise. The specific noise 

impacts are summarized below. 

 Lenwood Road, Days Inn/Country Inn and Suites, Barstow – There are several 

motels, including the Days Inn and County Inn and Suites, on the east side of I-15 

freeway. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be located across the I-15 

freeway to the west. The noise impact is due to the relatively low existing noise 

levels at this location. 

 L Street to H Street, Barstow – There are a number of single-family residences to 

the north and south of the I-15 freeway within western Barstow. The noise impacts 

in this location are due to the low existing noise levels and the proximity of the 

residences to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Grace Street, Barstow – There are a number of single-family and multi-family 

residences to the north of the I-15 freeway in this area. The noise and severe noise 

impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the residences to the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Mount Vernon Avenue, Church of the Nazarene, Barstow – There is a church 

adjacent to the residential area on Grace Street to the north of the I-15 freeway. 

The severe noise impact at this location is due to the close proximity of the church 

to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Coolwater Lane, Days Inn, Barstow – There is a motel adjacent to a single-family 

residential area to the north of the I-15 freeway in central Barstow. The noise 

impact at this location is due to the close proximity of the motel to the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-12

 Western Whip Court to Kelly Drive, Barstow – There are a number of singlefamily residences to the north of the I-15 freeway and a mobile home park and 

several residences to the south of the I-15 freeway in this portion of Barstow. The 

noise and severe noise impacts are due to the proximity of the residences and 

mobile home park to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Elephant Mountain Road, Yermo – There are a number of single-family residences 

to the north of the I-15 freeway at this location. The noise impacts are due to the 

low existing noise levels and the close proximity of the residences to the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. 

 Ghost Town Road, Oak Tree Inn, Yermo – There is a motel to the south of the I-15 

freeway at this location. The noise impact is due to the low existing noise levels 

and the close proximity of the motel to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Saffredi Lane – There is a single-family residential development to the west of the 

I-15 freeway in this area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close 

proximity of the residences to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

 Deluna Street – There is a single-family residential development to the west of the 

I-15 freeway in this area. The severe noise impacts at this location are due to the 

close proximity of the residences to the Preferred Alternative alignment. 

 Industrial Road, Silverton Casino Lodge, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west 

side of the I-15 freeway. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of 

the hotel to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment and the elevated structure. 

 Dean Martin Drive, Americana 5 Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west 

side of the I-15 freeway that would be passed by high-speed trains if Las Vegas 

Central Station B is selected as the terminus. This would result in a severe noise 

impact at this location, due to the proximity of the hotel to the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment and the elevated structure. No impact at this location 

would occur if the Las Vegas Southern Station is selected as the terminus. 

With regard to the Preserve, FRA‟s guidance on measuring noise and vibration associated 

with high-speed trains requires noise impact assessment at locations where there would 

be human activity such as trails, picnic areas, campgrounds, or other places where human 

activity would occur. 

Portions of the Preserve near the I-15 freeway are currently subject to noise from ongoing 

freeway operations, including existing interchanges and roadways providing access to the 

Preserve (including but not limited to Zzyzx Road, Halloran Summit Road, Cima Road, 

and others). To this end, portions of the Preserve closest to the freeway cannot reasonably 

be considered areas where serenity and quiet are key attributes. 

Notably, there are no established public use areas such as hiking trails and few attractions 

within the Preserve within 3 to 5 miles of the I-15 freeway. The Zzyzx Desert Studies 

Center, for example, is about 5 miles south of the I-15 freeway. Key Preserve elements in 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-13

close proximity to the I-15 freeway are primarily unpaved dirt roads, primarily for the use 

of off-road/4-wheel drive vehicles. Consultation with NPS confirmed that there are no 

sensitive receptors or extremely noise sensitive uses in the areas of the Preserve closest to 

the I-15 freeway. 

However, even if one were to consider the northern boundary of the Preserve as a location 

to assess noise impact, at 175 feet away from the south edge of the I-15 freeway ROW, 

there would be no impact under FRA guidance from anticipated train operations. The 

project noise levels would be less than the existing highway noise levels at that distance. 

While FRA‟s noise guidance relates to noise impacts to humans, the proximity of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment to the Preserve could result in potential noise impacts 

to sensitive wildlife species. 

Considering FRA‟s noise guidance of the potential distance affected by high-speed train 

passbys, potential noise effects to wildlife within the Preserve would be minimal. Areas 

within approximately 50 feet of the I-15 freeway ROW would have some potential for 

wildlife effects, but these areas are not located within the Preserve and are already 

exposed to high noise levels. Therefore, there would be no additional noise effects on 

wildlife within the Preserve as a result of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

As the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be located primarily within the existing 

I-15 freeway corridor, the high-speed train passbys along the rail alignment would 

introduce additional noise sources within the existing I-15 freeway corridor (in addition to 

the existing vehicle traffic noise). The I-15 freeway corridor currently has a defined noise 

contour. A noise contour refers to an area experiencing equal levels of noise exposure. 

The I-15 freeway noise contour extends outwards from the freeway center line; the areas 

closest to the freeway would experience higher noise levels, while areas farther from the 

freeway centerline would experience lower noise levels. The existing topography of the 

area also affects the defined noise contours. The I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour 

extends approximately 100 to 150 feet from the centerline of the I-15 freeway. In other 

words, individuals within 100 to 150 feet of the I-15 freeway centerline would experience 

noise levels of about 65 dBA. Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be 

located within the I-15 freeway ROW, the train passbys on the rail alignment would alter 

the existing I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour by expanding the area affected by the 

transportation noise. The 65 dBA noise contour would increase the most in distance in 

areas that are currently undeveloped and unpopulated. With high-speed rail operations, 

the I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour in these undeveloped areas would be extended an 

additional 30 feet. Thus, the I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour with operation of the 

Preferred Alternative would extend approximately 130 to 180 feet from the centerline of 

the I-15 freeway in these undeveloped areas. 

In Barstow, the current I-15 freeway 65 dBA contour extends approximately 200 to 250 

feet from the centerline of the I-15 freeway in either direction. Implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative would extend the I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour an additional 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-14

500 feet to the north of the I-15 freeway during train passby, resulting in a 65 dBA noise 

contour of approximately 750 feet to the north from the I-15 freeway centerline. The 

Preferred Alternative would extend the I-15 freeway 65 dBA noise contour by about 350 

feet to the south of the I-15 freeway, resulting in a 65 dBA noise contour of approximately 

600 feet to the south from the I-15 freeway centerline. This extension of the I-15 freeway 

65 dBA noise contour would only occur during train passby (less than 70 passbys per day), 

as the rail alignment itself would not generate noise. 

In the metropolitan Las Vegas area, implementation of the Preferred Alternative, with 

either Las Vegas Station site option, would extend the 65 dBA contour an additional 20 

feet, establishing a total distance of 270 feet from the centerline of the I-15 freeway for the 

65 dBA noise contour with operation of the Preferred Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative traffic noise was also assessed. The majority of the roadways in 

the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative, including the I-15 freeway and major arterials in 

Las Vegas, have significant volumes of traffic that produce existing traffic noise. Section 

3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final EIS states that the Preferred Alternative 

would result in a reduction in vehicle traffic on the I-15 freeway between Victorville and 

Las Vegas. Based on the existing ambient noise levels along the I-15 freeway, the 

associated reduction in traffic noise in areas outside of existing metropolitan areas would 

be less than 1 dB, representing a minor reduction in traffic noise that would not be 

perceptible to the human ear. 

While the implementation of high-speed passenger rail service would reduce traffic 

volumes along I-15 freeway segments, the Preferred Alternative would increase station 

area traffic near the Victorville and Las Vegas station locations. 

There are a number of intersections that are expected to experience a doubling of traffic 

volumes near the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) by year 2030, with 

the majority of the increase in traffic due to the traffic generated by the Preferred 

Alternative. A doubling of traffic volumes typically results in an audible increase in traffic 

noise, as perceived by the human ear. There are no noise sensitive receptors within 1,000 

feet of any of the roadways near the Victorville Station. Thus, the Preferred Alternative 

would not result in any adverse traffic noise effects near the Victorville Station. 

The intersections near the Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station and Central 

Station B) would also experience a doubling of traffic volumes by year 2030. The increase 

in traffic is primarily related to future growth in the metropolitan Las Vegas area; the 

Preferred Alternative would not individually result in the doubling of traffic volumes near 

either of the Las Vegas Station site option intersections. The traffic generated by the 

Preferred Alternative at either the Las Vegas Southern Station or Las Vegas Central 

Station B would represent less than half of the anticipated future increase in traffic 

volumes at these intersections. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any 

adverse traffic noise effects near either the Las Vegas Station site option. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-15

Operational Period Vibration 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse vibration effects. As stated in 

Section 3.12.2 above, the vibration evaluation utilizes the thresholds for infrequent train 

passby events, where fewer than 70 train passbys would occur within a 24-hour period. 

The sensitive vibration uses within the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

are identified as Category 2 receptors (residential). Under these criteria, a threshold of 80 

VdB was utilized for evaluating vibration impacts associated with the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be constructed on an elevated structure in 

areas within close proximity to vibration sensitive uses. The elevated structures would 

result in a 10 VdB reduction in vibration levels as a result of the attenuation (reduction) of 

vibration levels as the vibration travels through the elevated structure to the ground 

surface. Through Barstow, the resulting vibration levels with the train passbys on the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would range from 50 VdB to 74 VdB at adjacent 

residences. These vibration levels would not exceed the 80 VdB criterion and would not 

be adverse. Through Yermo and the metropolitan Las Vegas area, the Preferred 

Alternative would not result in any vibration effects due to the distance of the nearest 

vibration-sensitive uses. 

Construction Effects 

Based on the construction noise criteria described in Section 3.12.2 above, the 

construction noise impact associated with the Preferred Alternative would be minimal. 

Industrial and commercial uses within 40 to 70 feet of the Preferred Alternative 

construction activity would be exposed to temporary construction noise impacts. 

Residential land uses within 125 feet of the Preferred Alternative construction activity 

would be exposed to temporary construction noise impacts. The potential for noise 

impacts from nighttime construction could extend to residences as far as 400 feet. 

Potential construction noise impacts will be further evaluated and mitigated during the 

design-build process of the Preferred Alternative. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during the 

design-build process and included in the construction specifications for the Preferred 

Alternative. Noise monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance 

with the limits. 

3.12.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.12-4 summarizes the comparison of noise and vibration effects for the No 

Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the Preferred Alternative 

are highlighted in yellow. The table identifies the number of impacts prior to the 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-16

application of mitigation. As stated in Section 3.12.4 below, following implementation 

of mitigation measures, all noise and vibration impacts of the Preferred Alternative can be 

successfully mitigated with no residual effects. 

Train Technology Option 

The Preferred Alternative would implement the EMU train technology, which would result 

in fewer noise effects than would the DEMU train technology. The DEMU technology 

option has a higher reference noise level than the EMU option. The “reference noise level” 

refers to a noise level associated with a specific speed and distance from the noise source. 

Draft EIS Section 3.12.4.1 noted that the DEMU technology results in a higher reference 

noise level than the EMU. While the EMU technology option has a maximum speed of 150 

mph and the DEMU technology option has a maximum speed of 125 mph, the speed 

difference is not large enough to overcome the higher reference level for the DEMU 

technology option at the maximum speed conditions. 

Through Barstow and Yermo, the Preferred Alternative Segment 2C Side Running rail 

alignment (EMU technology option) would result in a total of 60 noise impacts and 33 

severe noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Under the DEMU technology option, 

the DesertXpress project would result in 139 noise impacts and 48 severe noise impacts 

through Barstow and Yermo, representing substantially greater noise effects than the 

EMU technology option. 

Through Las Vegas, the Preferred Alternative Segment 6B rail alignment (EMU 

technology option) terminating at either the Las Vegas Southern Station or the Las Vegas 

Central Station B would result in 23 noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The 

Preferred Alternative Segment 6B rail alignment would result in 12 severe noise impacts 

when terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station and 13 severe noise impacts when 

terminating at the Las Vegas Central Station B. Under the DEMU technology option, the 

train activity on the Segment 6B rail alignment would result in 215 noise impacts and 34 

severe noise impacts with termination at the Las Vegas Southern Station and 222 noise 

impacts and 37 severe noise impacts with termination at Las Vegas Central Station B. The 

EMU technology option would have substantially fewer noise effects than the DEMU 

technology option. 

Overall, the Preferred Alternative EMU train technology would result in 83 noise impacts 

to nearby sensitive receptors and 45 severe noise impacts when terminating at the Las 

Vegas Southern Station and 46 severe noise impacts when terminating at the Las Vegas 

Central Station B. Under the DEMU technology option (using the same rail alignment 

components as the Preferred Alternative), the DesertXpress project would result in 354 to 

361 noise impacts and 82 to 85 severe noise impacts to sensitive receptors when 

terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station and Las Vegas Central Station B, 

respectively. Overall, the DEMU technology option would result in substantially greater 

noise effects than the EMU technology option for the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

As previously stated, the DEMU has a higher reference noise level than the EMU due to 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-17

the use of diesel-powered engines rather than pure electric engines. The combustion of 

diesel fuel results in louder engine noise levels. While the EMU technology option has a 

maximum speed of 150 mph and the DEMU technology option has a maximum speed of 

125 mph, the speed difference is not large enough to overcome the higher reference level 

for the DEMU technology option at the maximum speed conditions. 

Rail Alignment Options 

The Preferred Alternative would primarily implement the Action Alternative B options, 

where the rail alignment would be located immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 

freeway within the I-15 freeway ROW. The Action Alternative B rail alignments, which are 

primarily located alongside the I-15 freeway, would result in fewer noise impacts than 

would the Action Alternative A rail alignment options through Barstow, Yermo, and Las 

Vegas. The Action Alternative B rail alignments would primarily result in noise impacts to 

sensitive receptors that are adjacent to the side of the I-15 freeway where the rail 

alignment would be located. The Action Alternative A rail alignment options would result 

in noise impacts to sensitive receptors on both sides of the I-15 freeway, as the rail 

alignment would be located in the median of the I-15 freeway. 

Through Barstow and Yermo, the Preferred Alternative Segment 2C Side Running rail 

alignment would result in 60 noise impacts, as compared to 80 noise impacts associated 

with Segment 2C Median. As compared to the Segment 2A/2B rail alignments that would 

deviate from the I-15 freeway alignment and traverse through the western and northern 

portions of Barstow, the Preferred Alternative Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment 

would result in three more noise impacts than Segment 2A and the same number of noise 

impacts as Segment 2B. Both Segment 2A and Segment 2B would also affect sensitive 

receptors not already exposed to noises from a major transportation corridor, since the 

rail alignment would deviate from the I-15 freeway. 

However, the Preferred Alternative Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would result 

in 33 severe noise impacts (before mitigation), where as the Segment 2C Median rail 

alignment would not result in any severe noise impacts. The Preferred Alternative 

Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would also result in two more severe noise 

impacts than Segment 2A, but two less severe noise impacts than Segment 2B. 

Both the Preferred Alternative 2C Side Running and Segment 2C Median rail alignments 

would avoid noise impacts and severe noise impacts near Route 58, Waterman Road, 

Radio Road, Poplar Street, Soapmine Road, and Balsa Avenue associated with the 

Segment 2A/2B rail alignment, since the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

remain within the I-15 freeway corridor through Barstow. However, both the Preferred 

Alternative Segment 2C Side Running and Segment 2C Median rail alignments would 

introduce noise impacts and severe noise impacts (Preferred Alternative Segment 2C Side 

Running only) to areas through central Barstow immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-18

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

Alternatives

Expected number of impacts 

under FRA criteria, before 

mitigation

Expected number of severe 

impacts under FRA criteria, 

before mitigation

Expected number of vibration 

impacts, before mitigation

No Action Alternative Anticipated Noise Increase, 

Impacts Not Quantified

Anticipated Noise Increase, 

Impacts Not Quantified

Anticipated Construction Vibration, 

Impacts Not Quantified

Alignment Routings, including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas,

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 (connecting to Segment 

2A/2B)

3 for EMU

4 for DEMU

0 for EMU

1 for DEMU None

Segment 1 (connecting to Segment 

2C) None None None

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 57 for EMU

77 for DEMU

31 for EMU

41 for DEMU 19

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 60 for EMU

83 for DEMU

35 for EMU

46 for DEMU 23

Segment 2C (Side Running) 60 for EMU 33 for EMU None

139 for DEMU 48 for DEMU

Segment 2C (Median) 80 for EMU

127 for DEMU

0 for EMU

22 for DEMU None

Segment 3 

Segment 3A None None None 

Segment 3B (Modified) None None None

Segment 4 

Segment 4A None None None

Segment 4B None None None
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-19

Alternatives

Expected number of impacts 

under FRA criteria, before 

mitigation

Expected number of severe 

impacts under FRA criteria, 

before mitigation

Expected number of vibration 

impacts, before mitigation

Segment 4C None None None

Segment 5 

Segment 5A None None None

Segment 5B None None None

Segment 6

Segment 6A (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station)

353 for EMU 55 for EMU None

260 for DEMU 165 for DEMU

Segment 6A (terminating at Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

358 for EMU 55 for EMU

268 for DEMU 165 for DEMU

Segment 6B (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station)

23 for EMU 12 for EMU None 215 for DEMU 34 for DEMU

Segment 6B (terminating at Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

23 for EMU 13 for EMU None

222 for DEMU 37 for DEMU

Segment 6C None None None

Segment 7 

Segment 7A None None None

Segment 7B 2 for EMU

1 for DEMU

19 for EMU

21 for DEMU None

Segment 7C None None 19

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 n/a n/a None

Victorville Station Site 2 n/a n/a None

Victorville Station Site 3 n/a n/a None

Victorville OMSF 1 n/a n/a None

Victorville OMSF 2 n/a n/a None
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-20

Alternatives

Expected number of impacts 

under FRA criteria, before 

mitigation

Expected number of severe 

impacts under FRA criteria, 

before mitigation

Expected number of vibration 

impacts, before mitigation

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station None None None

Las Vegas Central Station A None None None

Las Vegas Central Station B None None None

Las Vegas Downtown Station None None None

Sloan Road MSF4 None None None

Relocated Sloan Road MSF None None None

Wigwam Avenue MSF None None None

Robindale Avenue MSF None None None

Frias Substation None None None

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility None None None

Technology Options, including Autotransformers and Electric Utility Corridors (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit)

Noted Above for Each Component 

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit)

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

4 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was intended to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-21 

that would have not otherwise been affected by the Segment 2A/2B rail alignment. These 

sensitive receptors in central Barstow do, however, already experience transportation 

noise from the I-15 freeway traffic. 

Through Las Vegas, the Preferred Alternative Segment 6B rail alignment through 

metropolitan Las Vegas would result in 23 noise impacts when terminating at either the 

Las Vegas Southern Station or the Las Vegas Central Station B. The Segment 6B rail 

alignment would also result in 12 severe noise impacts when terminating at the Las Vegas 

Southern Station and 13 severe noise impacts when terminating at the Las Vegas Central 

Station B. 

Segment 6A through this same area would result in 353 noise impacts when terminating 

at the Las Vegas Southern Station and 358 noise impacts when terminating at the Las 

Vegas Central Station B and 55 severe noise impacts with either Las Vegas Station site 

option. The Segment 6A rail alignment would result in substantially greater noise impacts 

than the Preferred Alternative Segment 6B rail alignment because the Segment 6A rail 

alignment would be located within the I-15 freeway median and therefore closer to 

sensitive receptors, including residences and a mobile home park, on the eastern side of 

the I-15 freeway corridor. The Preferred Alternative Segment 6B rail alignment would be 

located on the western side of the I-15 freeway corridor and would be located at a distance 

where the train passby noise would not impact the sensitive receptors to the east. 

Segment 6C would not result in any noise impacts or severe noise impacts. 

3.12.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Draft EIS Sections 3.12.7.1 and 3.12.7.3 included mitigation measures for reducing 

noise effects from high-speed rail operation and construction. FRA requires that severe 

noise and vibration impacts be mitigated unless there are no practical means to do so. 

While mitigation is encouraged at the impact level, the implementation of such mitigation 

will depend on other project-specific factors. These other factors can include the projected 

increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses 

affected, existing outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation and the cost-effectiveness of 

mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. FRA and the Cooperating Agencies shall 

ensure that the appropriate mitigation measures are developed during project design and 

implemented during construction. 

The following mitigation measures have been updated to focus specifically on the 

components selected as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Noise Mitigation 

Mitigation Measure NV-1: Noise Barriers 

The Applicant shall install noise barriers at least four feet in height along the at 

grade portions of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment and on the elevated 

structures to reduce severe noise impacts. The noise barriers shall be installed 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-22

prior to the commencement of train operations along the rail alignment to reduce 

adverse noise effects. 

This is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface transportation 

sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are that (1) the 

barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between 

the sound source and the receiver, (2) the barrier must be of an impervious 

material with a minimum surface density of four pounds per square foot and (3) 

the barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the bottom. 

Because numerous materials meet these requirements, the selection of materials 

for noise barriers is usually dictated by aesthetics, durability, cost and maintenance 

considerations. 

Table F-3.12-5 lists the locations where noise barriers would be effective at 

mitigating noise from high-speed rail operations for the Preferred Alternative 

terminating at the Las Vegas Southern Station and the Las Vegas Central Station B, 

respectively. Figures F-3.12-1 through F-3.12-3 show the approximate locations 

of the noise mitigation measures identified in Table F-3.12-5. 

The noise analysis used standard noise barrier calculations to determine the 

effectiveness of the barriers at mitigating impacts. The barrier calculations depend 

primarily on the geometry of the situation, including the heights of the source and 

receiver, the height of the barrier, and the distances between the source and barrier 

and the barrier and the receiver. The primary purpose of the barrier is to block the 

line of sight between the source and receiver. Blocking the line of sight between 

the noise source and the receiver with a standard noise barrier is a “rule of thumb” 

used by acoustical engineers to determine if a barrier if effective in reducing the 

impact. One of the most important aspects of the barrier calculation is the 

distance from the source of the noise (in this case, the proposed high-speed train) 

and the barrier. On elevated structures, the noise barriers are located very close to 

the source of the noise, which is primarily generated at the wheel/rail interface. 

Because of this and height of the elevated structures, the barriers provide a 

substantial reduction in noise.

Noise barriers would be required to be at least four feet in height and would be 

constructed along the at grade portions of the rail alignment and on the elevated 

structures to reduce severe impacts and noise impacts. The noise barriers shall be 

installed prior to the commencement of train operations along the rail alignment 

to reduce adverse noise effects. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-23

Table F-3.12-5 Noise Mitigation Locations 

Location Side of 

Track Civil Station Length (ft) Relevant Figure

Preferred Alternative Terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station or Las Vegas Central Station B

Lenwood Road NB 1557 – 1563 600 F-3.12-1

Lenwood Road SB 1580 – 1587 700 F-3.12-1

L Street to H Street SB 1735 – 1743 800 F-3.12-1

Grace Street SB 1791 – 1821 3,000 F-3.12-1

Coolwater Lane SB 1882 – 1892 1,000 F-3.12-1

Western Whip Court to Kelly Drive SB 1842 – 1886 4,400 F-3.12-1

Elephant Mountain Road SB 2225 – 2235 1,000 F-3.12-1

Ghost Town Road NB 2245 – 2255 1,000 F-3.12-1

Saffredi Ln/Deluna St SB 9469 – 9531 6,200 F-3.12-3

South of Blue Diamond Rd SB 9715 – 9732 1,700 F-3.12-3

Preferred Alternative Terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B Only (In Addition to Mitigation Above)

South of W Tropicana Ave SB 9926 – 9934 800 F-3.12-3

Total Noise Mitigation Length

Total (terminating at Las Vegas Southern Station) 20,400

Total (terminating at Las Vegas Central Station B) 21,200

Source: HMMH, 2010.

Mitigation Measure NV-2: Relocation of Crossovers or Special 

Trackwork at Crossovers 

To reduce severe noise impacts, the Applicant shall locate crossovers away from 

residential area where feasible, or use spring-rail or moveable point frogs in place 

of standard rigid frogs at turnouts where relocation is not feasible. Because the 

impacts of wheels over rail gaps at track crossover locations, or turn-outs for 

passing tracks, increases vibration by about 6 dBA, crossovers are a major source 

of vibration noise impact when they are located in sensitive areas. If crossovers 

cannot be relocated away from residential areas, another approach is to use springrail or moveable point frogs in place of standard rigid frogs at turnouts. These 

devices allow the flangeway gap to remain closed in the main traffic direction for 

revenue service trains. 

Mitigation Measure NV-3: Building Sound Insulation 

Where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature , the Applicant 

may choose install building sound insulation rather than implementing noise 

barriers defined under Mitigation Measure NV-1 to mitigate severe noise 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-24

impacts. Sound insulation to improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction has 

been widely applied around airports and has seen limited application for rail 

projects. Although this approach has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it may be 

the best choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, and for 

buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements 

in building sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by 

adding an extra layer of glazing to the windows, by sealing any holes in exterior 

surfaces that act as sound leaks, and by providing forced ventilation and airconditioning so that windows do not need to be opened. 

Mitigation Measure NV-4: Property Acquisitions or Easements 

Where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature , the Applicant 

may choose to implement Mitigation Measure NV-4 rather than Mitigation 

Measure NV-1 to mitigate severe noise impacts. The Applicant may purchase 

residences likely to be impacted by train operations or to acquire easements for 

such residences by paying the homeowners to accept the future train noise 

conditions. These approaches are usually taken only in isolated cases where other 

mitigation options are infeasible, impractical, or too costly. 

Vibration Mitigation 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse vibration effects and no mitigation 

would be required. Mitigation Measures NV-5 through NV-9 identified in Draft EIS 

Section 3.12.7.2 would not be required for the Preferred Alternative. 

Construction Noise Mitigation 

Temporary noise during construction of the Preferred may be intrusive to residents near 

the construction sites. Most of the construction would consist of site preparation and 

laying new track, and would only occur during daytime hours. 

Mitigation Measure NV-10: Construction Noise and Vibration 

Measures

The Applicant shall conduct construction activities in compliance with all 

applicable local noise regulations. In addition, the Applicant shall develop specific 

residential property line noise limits would be developed during the design-build 

process, include these noise limits in the construction specifications for the 

Preferred Alternative, and perform noise monitoring during construction to verify 

compliance with the limits. This approach allows the contractor flexibility to meet 

the noise limits in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Noise control 

measures that would be applied as needed to meet the noise limits include the 

following: 

 Avoiding nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.12-25

 Using specially quieted equipment with enclosed engines and/or highperformance mufflers. 

 Locating stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noisesensitive sites. 

 Constructing noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated 

material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. 

 Re-routing construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the 

least disturbance to residents. 

 Avoiding impact pile driving near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. 

Drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver are quieter 

alternatives where the geological conditions permit their use. If impact pile 

drivers must be used, their use will be limited to the periods between 8:00 AM 

and 5:00 PM on weekdays. 

With the incorporation of the appropriate noise mitigation measures, impacts from 

construction-generated noise should not be adverse. To provide added assurance, 

a complaint resolution procedure shall also be put in place to rapidly address any 

noise problems that may develop during construction. 

In regards to vibration during construction, construction activities that could cause 

intrusive vibration include vibratory compaction, jackhammers, and use of tracked 

vehicles such as bulldozers. The most serious sources of construction vibration are 

blasting and pile driving. Avoiding vibration impacts during construction will be 

achieved through numeric limits in the construction specifications. 

3.12.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The severe noise impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative will be fully mitigated 

with implementation of the four foot noise barriers along the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment at the specified locations and lengths in Table F-3.12-5. With implementation 

of the noise barriers, no residual adverse noise effects would occur. 

Where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature (i.e., one residence in a 

generally undeveloped area), sound insulation or property acquisitions/easements could 

be considered in lieu of construction of a noise barrier. 

Overall, implementation of the noise mitigation measures will fully mitigate noise impacts 

and severe noise impacts associated with operation of the Preferred Alternative and no 

residual effects would remain. 

As no adverse vibration effects would occur with the Preferred Alternative, no residual 

vibration effects would remain. 
Segment 2C

Barstow

Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 2C

0 2 1

Miles

Locator Map

Legend

0 2 1.25 .5

Kilometers

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Noise Mitigation Locations

DesertXpress 

Final EIS Noise Mitigtion Locations, Barstow

FIG

F-3.12-1

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
Segment 6B

Maintenance Facility Sites

Stations

Noise Mitigation Locations FIG

F-3.12-2

Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Frias Substation

Wigwam Avenue MSF

Las Vegas

Southern Station

TCA 16

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Autotransformer 

Noise Mitigation Locations, Las Vegas

(Terminating at Southern Station)
Segment 6B

Maintenance Facility Sites

Stations

Noise Mitigation Locations FIG

F-3.12-3 Noise Mitigation Locations, Las Vegas

(Terminating at Central Station B)

Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Frias Substation

Wigwam Avenue MSF

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Autotransformer 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-1 

3.13 ENERGY 

This section describes the changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential energy impacts related 

to the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action and Other Action Alternatives and 

identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.13.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to energy impacts and provides responses to those 

comments. However, no comments were received during the public review period that 

required changes to the energy analysis contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS. 

3.13.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.13.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.13.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment relative to energy for the DesertXpress project. Since 

publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, there has been no change to the 

affected environment. In addition, no comments were received during the public review 

period that required changes to the energy analysis contained in the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus the affected environment discussions from these previous 

documents remain applicable to the Preferred Alternative. 

It should also be noted that several renewable energy projects have been approved since 

the publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. One project that will greatly 

affect the supply of renewable energy to the region is the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating 

System (ISEGS), part of what is also referred to as the Ivanpah Solar Energy Complex. 

ISEGS is located in California at the Ivanpah Dry Lake, about 5 miles west of Primm, 

Nevada. ISEGS is about 3,500 acres in area (5.5 square miles) and is expected to generate 

approximately 400 megawatts (MW) of power when complete. 

3.13.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for energy for the DesertXpress project is described in detail 

in Draft EIS Section 3.13.1. Since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS, there have been no changes to the regulatory environment regarding energy. In 

addition, no comments were received during the public review period that required 

changes to the energy regulatory discussion contained in the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS. Thus the previous regulatory environment discussions remain applicable to the 

Preferred Alternative.
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-2 

3.13.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

There has been no change to the energy section as a result of comments received on the 

Draft EIS or Supplemental Draft EIS. 

3.13.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.13.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.13.2 used to evaluate the potential 

effects of the project on energy resources remains applicable to this Final EIS and the 

analysis of the Preferred Alternative. Analysis of the environmental consequences 

includes three topics of discussion: 1) overall energy consumption, 2) peak-period 

electricity demand, and 3) construction-related energy consumption. 

In the Draft EIS, the impact analysis was divided into “direct” effects (overall energy 

consumption and electricity demand) and “indirect” effects (construction-related energy 

consumption). In the Supplemental Draft EIS, this terminology was revised, and the 

discussion was divided into “permanent” and “temporary” effects, respectively. The Final 

EIS carries forward the “permanent” and “temporary” terminology. 

Table F-3.13-1 reflects the energy consumption factor for passenger vehicles consistent 

with the most current U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) Transportation Energy Data 

Book. These rates were used in the calculations of operational energy consumption for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Table F-3.13-1 Operational Energy Consumption Factors 

Mode Factorc

Passenger vehiclesa5,517 BTUs/VMT

EMUb569,163 BTUs/TMT

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

BTUs = British thermal units. 

TMT = Train-mile traveled. 

a

 USDOE, Energy Information Administration. 2009. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Transportation 

Energy Data Book: Edition 28. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 

b

 The values in this table are on a per-train-mile basis, converted from the annual energy consumption values that this 

source provided using the planned mileage in the planned operating schedule. The values were also adjusted to reflect the 

planned 2030 operating schedule from the planned 2027 operating schedule, as provided by the source (DesertXpress 

2007). 

c

 The conversion from diesel fuel consumption to heat content (BTUs) is 130,500 BTUs/gallon. The conversion from 

electricity consumption (kWh) to heat content (BTU) for EMU is 10,812 BTUs/ kWh, accounts for generation, transmission 

and distribution losses. Calculated from generation loss factor of 9,919 BTUs/kWh for petroleum generation and a T&D loss 

factor of 1.07 (USDOE). 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-3 

3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Permanent Effects 

Overall Operation Energy Consumption 

As shown in Table F-3.13-2, passenger trips taken in the I-15 corridor between 

Victorville and Las Vegas in year 2007 resulted in approximately 3.67 billion automobile 

VMT. These trips used about 20,260,000 million British thermal units (MMBTUs), or 

about 3.7 million barrels of oil. By 2030, under No Action Alternative conditions, 

passenger trips in the study corridor would consume about 41,030,000 MMBTUs, or the 

equivalent of about 7.5 million barrels of oil. This is an increase of about 20,770,000 

MMBTUs, or 3.8 million barrels of oil, over 2007 conditions. This is a conservative 

estimate that does not take into account the fact that automobile fuel efficiency decreases 

considerably as travel speed decreases below 30 mph and stop-and-go traffic increases. 

Projections of increased travel on the I-15 corridor suggest more congested conditions and 

thus lower fuel efficiency. Therefore, the increase in energy used in 2030 could be even 

higher than the estimated 3.8 million-barrel increase, which assumes higher travel speeds. 

Table F-3.13-2 Annual Overall Operational Energy Consumption 

2007 2030

Existing No Action 

Alternative

Preferred 

Alternative

Annual Auto VMT in Study Area 

(billions of miles)

a 3.67 7.44 6.53

Estimated Project VMT (millions of miles)b NA NA 4.93

Annual Auto Energy Consumptionc(MMBTUs) 20,260,000 41,030,000 36,020,000

With Project Energy Consumptionc(MMBTUs) 0 0 2,588,000

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MMBTUs) 20,260,000 41,030,000 38,611,000

Change in Total Energy from Existing (MMBTUs) NA 20,775,000 18,354,000

Change in Total Energy from No Action (MMBTUs) NA NA -2,420,000

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

(Barrels of Oild)

3,729,200 7,553,700 7,108,800

Change in Total Energy from Existing (Barrels of Oild) NA 3,824,500 3,378,900

Change in Total Energy from No Action (Barrels of Oild) NA NA -445,600

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

a

 DMJM 2008. 

b

 Train VMT and operations were provided by the Applicant in 2007 and supplemented in 2008. See Review of Operations 

Plan (included as Appendix C of the Draft EIS). 

c Calculated using the operational energy consumption factors from Table S-3.13-2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

d One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 million British thermal units (MMBTUs). 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-4 

Peak-Period Electricity Demand 

The No Action Alternative would have a negligible effect on electricity demand resources 

insofar as the various roadway improvement projects generally do not increase peakperiod energy demands. Certain roadway improvements will involve incremental 

increases in electricity demand, including implementation of the intelligent transportation 

system in the Las Vegas area. 

Temporary Effects 

Construction-Related Energy Consumption 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the Preferred Alternative. The 

No Action Alternative consists of planned and programmed transportation improvement 

projects that would be in place by the year 2030, which primarily include the expansion of 

existing highways and roadways in and around the I-15 freeway between Victorville and 

Las Vegas. As shown in Table F-3.13-3, energy consumption factors for constructing one 

mile of one lane of freeway is considerably higher than for non-elevated railways. In 

addition, the No Action Alternative would not result in an operational energy savings, as 

constructing new traffic lanes would not result in energy payback over time (i.e., fewer 

barrels of oil consumed by automobile travel).1

 The construction of new traffic lanes 

would thus result in an irretrievable commitment of energy resources. 

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

Type of Facility Rural Compared to UrbangFactor (billions of BTUs)

Highway - At grade

Rurala17.07/one-way lane mi

Urbanb26.28/one-way lane mi

Highway - Elevated

Rurala130.38/one-way lane mi

Urbanb327.31/one-way lane mi

Railway - At grade

Ruralc12.29/one-way trackway mile

Urband19.11/one-way trackway mile

Railway - Elevated

Ruralc55.46/one-way trackway mile

Urband55.63/one-way trackway mile

Railway - Tunnel NAd99.51/one-way trackway mile

Railway - Station NAe78f/station

Source: U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; and California State Department of 

Transportation 1983. 

 

1

 Energy “payback” means the number of years required to “pay back” the energy used in construction via 

operational energy consumption savings. The payback period is calculated by dividing the estimate of 

construction energy by the amount of energy that would later be saved by the action. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-5 

Table F-3.13-3, continued. 

Notes: 

a

 Estimates reflect average roadway construction energy consumption. 

b Estimates reflect range maximum for roadway construction energy consumption. 

c

 Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. 

d Estimates reflect energy consumption for BART system construction as surrogate for DesertXpress construction through 

urban area. 

e

 Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because the data used to 

develop the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference between the actual values might be 

expected. 

f

 Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for DesertXpress station consumption factors. 

g Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural settings reflect differences in 

construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc. 

3.13.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

This section analyzes the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on energy resources. 

Permanent Effects 

Overall Operation Energy Consumption 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in lower operational energy 

consumption relative to future conditions without the railway (the No Action Alternative). 

This change is associated with an expected shift from automobile usage to train usage. 

The shift is expected to result in a reduction in annual automobile travel on I-15 of 

approximately 910 million VMT (0.91 billion VMT). Although the train would require 

energy to operate, the reduction in automobile VMT would reduce gasoline use, and thus 

result in a net decrease in energy usage (expressed in barrels of oil) relative to the No 

Action Alternative. As shown in Table F-3.13-2, in 2030, the Preferred Alternative 

would result in an annual energy savings of about 445,000 barrels of oil. 

Peak-Period Electricity Demand

Table F-3.13-4 presents estimated electricity demand associated with the Preferred 

Alternative’s peak headway rate (i.e., departures approximately every 20 minutes). It is 

reasonable to assume that peak operation levels would cause peak electricity demand. 

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

Jurisdiction Friday Saturday Sunday Monday-Thursday

California 53 MW 49 MW 65 MW 32 MW

Nevada 14 MW 13 MW 17 MW 8 MW

Project Corridor 67 MW 62 MW 82 MW 40 MW

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2008. 

Note: Peak demand calculated per [average demand per trainset] X [number of trainsets on track coincidentally during 

peak-period], where [average demand per trainset] = [18,314 kWh per train roundtrip X 60 minutes per hour / 203 minutes 

per train roundtrip / 1,000 kW per MW] = 5.41 MW per train. Trainset consumption (i.e., 18,314 kWh per train roundtrip was 

obtained from DesertXpress 10/21/08 (EMU at 150 mph). 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-6 

According to the National Energy Modeling System description, included in Draft EIS 

Section 3.13.3.1, the USDOE expects Electricity Market Modular (EMM) Region 12 

(which includes southern Nevada) and EMM Region 13 (coterminous with the State of 

California) to have production capacity values on the order of 77.8 gigawatts (GW) and 

85.9 GW, respectively. The electricity demand stemming from the Nevada and California 

portions of the Preferred Alternative would be 0.02 percent and 0.08 percent of these 

projections, respectively. The load from the Preferred Alternative on regional electricity 

resources is therefore minimal and would not result in any adverse effect. 

Temporary Effects 

Construction-Related Energy Consumption 

The Preferred Alternative would require a temporary commitment of energy resources for 

construction. Table F-3.13-5 shows construction-related energy factors associated with 

the project. This Final EIS section uses these factors to calculate construction-related 

energy, based on the number of track miles at- grade, above-grade (elevated), and in a 

tunnel. Energy related to the construction of the project facilities (stations, maintenance 

facilities) is included in these calculations. 

Table F-3.13-5 shows the construction energy consumption of the project as a whole. 

The data show that construction-related energy would be offset by energy saved during 

operations (from reduced automobile travel) in approximately two years (the “payback 

period”). 

Table F-3.13-5 Construction Energy Consumption 

Alternative

Facility Quantity 

(trackway miles & number 

of stations)

Energy Consumption 

(MMBTUS; rounded)

Payback Period 

(years)

At-Grade Rural 119 1,457,063

2.2

Above Grade Rural 46 2,557,147

Above Grade Urban 11 630,579

Tunnel 2.3 228,873

Stations 2 156,000

TOTAL 5,029,662

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010. 

The total anticipated energy consumption for the construction of the Preferred Alternative 

would be approximately 5 MMBTUs. However, this is not an unrecoverable commitment 

of energy resources because the Preferred Alternative would be a net reducer of the overall 

operational energy requirement. Energy spent on construction would be made up by 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-7 

energy saved during operations in approximately two years. The Preferred Alternative’s 

construction-related energy consumption would therefore not be anticipated to result in 

an adverse effect. 

It is reasonable to assume that secondary facilities, such as those used in the production of 

cement, steel, and so on, would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the 

interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed 

that construction-related energy consumption by secondary facilities would not consume 

nonrenewable energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. 

3.13.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Table F-3.13-6 summarizes the comparison of energy resource effects for the No Action 

Alternative and the Technology Alternatives. The detailed energy analysis examined 

project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and No Action Alternatives for energy 

consumption impacts. As a result, the table illustrates these alternatives, rather than the 

detailed component listing by segment or facility for the Action Alternatives. The 

Preferred Alternative is highlighted in yellow. 

Both the DEMU and EMU technology options would result in lower operational energy 

consumption compared to the No Action Alternative in 2030. The shift from automobiles 

in the No Action Alternative to trains under the Preferred Alternative and Action 

Alternatives would result in a reduction in annual automobile travel on I-15 by 733 million 

VMT with DEMU and 931 million VMT with EMU technology. The difference between the 

two propulsion technologies is related to expected higher top speed and higher ridership 

levels for the EMU. 

Regardless of the net direct energy benefit that would occur with the adoption of either 

propulsive technology, adoption of the EMU technology under the Preferred Alternative 

would further reduce consumption of non-renewable resources that the DEMU would not. 

This is because the DEMU alternative would (by definition) be powered by petroleum and 

would offer no change to shift at least some petroleum-powered transportation to 

renewable-powered transportation. 

Differing combinations of the Action Alternatives would influence energy usage by 

modifying the total length of the proposed rail alignment, thus influencing the total 

amount of energy required to power the system. The longer the distance between the 

Victorville and Las Vegas Station options (VV1, VV2, Central Station A, and Downtown 

Station), the more energy required to power the system. Selecting VV3 as the preferred 

Victorville Passenger Site and eliminating Segment 7 under the Preferred Alternative has 

reduced the total distance of the project rail alignment when compared to the action 

alternatives, thereby resulting in lower operational energy consumption. If the Southern 

Station is ultimately selected as the Las Vegas station, the combination of VV3 and the 

Southern Station would yield the shortest possible alignment of all site options 

considered, the lowest energy consumption, and the greatest potential for energy payback. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.13-8 

Table F-3.13-6 Alternatives Comparison – Energy Resources 

Alternative Result in Significant Change in Energy 

Consumption?

No Action Alternative Increase in energy consumption from existing conditions:

+ 3.8 million barrels of oil

Technology Options

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit)

Decrease in annual energy consumption from No Action: 

-193,400 barrels of oil

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) Decrease in annual energy consumption from No Action: 

-444,900 barrels of oil

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

3.13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in an overall reduction in total 

energy consumption (electric power demand and petroleum-based consumption). The 

project would continue to result in a reduction in automobile traffic that would be greater 

than the new energy required by the railway. As a result, operational effects of the 

Preferred Alternative would not require mitigation. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in one-time temporary energy consumption effects 

related to construction. The following measures should be applied to further conserve 

energy resources during construction: 

 Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

 Use energy efficient construction equipment and vehicles. 

 Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool 

for travel to and from construction sites. 

3.13.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The energy analysis presented in this section identifies a net energy benefit (over the No 

Action Alternative) as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, no 

mitigation measures are necessary to offset any adverse effect. 

The measures noted in Section 3.13.3 above would further reduce energy consumption 

during the construction period, thereby potentially reducing the time required for the 

“energy payback.” As no adverse effect was identified, no residual impacts would exist. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-1 

3.14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the changes made in response to comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. This section also describes the potential the biological resource 

impacts to the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action and other Action 

Alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.14.1 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

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

Supplemental Draft EIS, of this Final EIS includes all comments on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS related to biological resource impacts and provides responses to 

those comments. Several comments resulted in updates and changes to the biological 

resources analysis in the EIS and are discussed below. Substantive updates and changes 

are shown in bold underline and strikeout text. 

3.14.1.1 Affected Environment 

Draft EIS Section 3.14.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14.1 describe in detail 

the affected environment for biological resources for the DesertXpress project. 

Since publication of the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS, the biological 

resources affected environment has changed, specifically related to desert tortoises. Draft 

EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, and Supplemental Draft EIS each discussed 

the proposed Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) project as part of the 

respective cumulative analyses. The status of the ISEGS project has changed since 

publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, resulting in a change to the affected 

environment. Accordingly, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS, Section 

3.14.1, under the heading “Segment 4C”, to incorporate the following text: 

The California Energy Commission approved the Ivanpah Solar 

Electric Generating System (ISEGS) project in August 2010. The ISEGS 

project site consists of approximately 3,300 acres of permanent 

ground disturbance within suitable desert tortoise habitat. This 

suitable habitat is within an isolated portion of the Northeastern 

Recovery Unit near the Clark Mountains and the I-15 freeway corridor. 

The Northeastern Recovery Unit has undergone considerable 

development resulting in the permanent loss of suitable desert tortoise 

habitat. Due to the presence of desert tortoise in this area, the project 

incorporated desert tortoise relocation and short-distance 

translocation measures to minimize harm to individual tortoises that 

may occur within that project’s action area. As of October 2010, 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-2 

California state biologists and contract workers began the relocation 

and translocation process of desert tortoise.1 The ISEGS project 

identified specific relocation and short-distance translocation areas to 

the west and south of Segment 4 rail alignments. Figure F-3.14-4

shows the approximate locations of the desert tortoise relocation and 

translocation areas for the ISEGS project.

Comment S-64 on the Supplemental Draft EIS stated that Figure S-3.14-4 incorrectly 

omitted the Large Scale Tortoise Translocation Site from the legend. To correct this error 

and address this comment, this Final EIS amends Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S3.14-4 to include this information on the legend. The revised figure is shown as Figure 

F-3.14-1 at the end of this section. 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, an 

approximately 10 mile portion of Segment 3B in the vicinity of the Halloran Springs and 

Halloran Summit interchanges would be further modified to reduce or avoid impacts to 

sensitive resources in the area. This modification would shift the rail alignment from the 

north to the south side of the I-15 freeway, remaining within the I-15 ROW. At Halloran 

Summit, the rail alignment would cross back to the north side of the I-15 ROW. This 

modification does not alter the affected environment to include any new or different areas 

of habitat or other biological resources. 

No other changes to the affected environment regarding biological resources have 

occurred since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Thus, the 

affected environment discussions in Draft EIS Section 3.14.3 Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.1 remain applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

3.14.1.2 Regulatory Environment 

The regulatory environment for biological resources for the DesertXpress project is 

described in detail in Draft EIS Section 3.14.1. 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation process, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14. The Endangered Species Act Section 7 

process requires all federal agencies to consult with the USFWS if they are proposing an 

action that my affect listed species or their designated habitat. FRA’s informal and formal 

consultation with the USFWS has been ongoing, as detailed in Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1

and Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination. With regard to species 

identification, Appendix F-Q of this Final EIS contains the Listed, Proposed, and 

Candidate Species in southern California and Nevada provided by the USFWS. 

 

1

 San Francisco Chronicle, Relocation of Tortoises to Pave Way for Solar Plant, October 25, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-3 

As part of the Section 7 consultation process, FRA developed and submitted a draft 

Biological Assessment (BA) to the USFWS in August 2010. Per the requirements of the 

USFWS, the BA evaluates the federal agency Preferred Alternative. The USFWS provided 

specific comments on the August 2010 BA and FRA developed a revised BA in response to 

those comments and as a result of additional coordination between the USFWS and FRA. 

FRA submitted the revised BA on the Agency Preferred Alternative to the USFWS in 

December 2010. The purpose of the BA is to address the effect of the federal agency 

Preferred Alternative on federally listed, threatened, endangered, or proposed listed 

species and their designated habitat. The BA evaluates direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects to such biological resources, including desert tortoise, in the project study area. 

The December 2010 BA is included as Appendix F-M to this Final EIS. The USFWS will 

review the BA and will prepare a Biological Opinion (BO) as part of the Section 7 

consultation process. Within the BO, the USFWS will determine if the DesertXpress 

project is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat, jeopardize 

the continued existence of species that are proposed for listing, or adversely modify 

proposed critical habitat. The BO from the USFWS will be required prior to the issuance 

of a ROD on the DesertXpress project. This Final EIS incorporates that analysis from the 

BA into the substantive updates and changes in response to comments on the Draft EIS 

and Supplemental Draft EIS as appropriate. Section 3.14.2.3 below also incorporates 

this information as it relates to the Preferred Alternative. 

FRA also received comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS related to the 

regulatory environment for biological resources, discussed below. 

For clarification purposes, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.1 as follows to 

include a discussion of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (and as amended) 

protects both the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except 

under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and 

commerce in such birds. Pursuant to the ESA, permits were formerly 

available to “take” bald eagles as part of otherwise lawful activities. 

When the bald eagle was removed from the ESA (i.e., “delisted”) in 

June 2007, the provision for issuing permits for activities that could 

“disturb” or otherwise incidentally take eagles was eliminated. This 

left significant constraints on a broad range of otherwise legal 

activities as no permitting process remained which would protect 

project proponents against liability for unintended take that may occur 

associated with otherwise lawful activities. 

To address this problem, the USFWS proposed regulations to create a 

permit provision to continue to provide protection for eagles while also 

authorizing limited take of eagles, for situations where take occurs 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-4 

pursuant to otherwise lawful activities. On September 11, 2009, these 

regulations were formalized in a final ruling issued in the Federal 

Register (74 Federal Register 175). The ruling took effect on November 

10, 2009. The regulations comprise a USFWS program that will allow 

the issuance of two new types of permits, one addressing take in the 

form of disturbance or actual physical take of eagles (50 CFR 22.26), 

and a second permit, which would provide for removal of nests (50 

CFR 22.27). Most permits issued under the new regulations are 

expected to be those that would authorize disturbance, as opposed to 

physical take (e.g., take resulting in mortality). Permits for a physical 

take will be issued in very limited cases only, where every precaution 

has been implemented to avoid physical take and where other 

restrictions and requirements will apply.

Comment 81 on the Draft EIS requested that when referring to the loss or damage to 

native vegetation communities, the DesertXpress project should conform to the California 

Desert Native Desert Plant Act, consistent with BLM policy. To address this comment, 

this Final EIS amends Draft EIS, Section 3.14.1.2, to include the following text:

California Desert Native Desert Plants Act

The California Desert Native Plants Act was passed in 1981 to protect 

non-listed California desert native plants from unlawful harvesting on 

both public and privately owned lands within the State of California. 

Harvest, transport, sale, or possession of specific native desert plants 

is prohibited by the California Desert Plants Act unless a person has a 

valid permit, or wood receipt, and the required tags and seals. The 

provisions of this Desert Plants Act are applicable within the counties 

of Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and San Diego, California.

Comment 85 on the Draft EIS requested that the DesertXpress project conform to the 

minimum standards contained in the BLM Manual 6840-1. To address this comment, this 

Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.1, to include the following text: 

Bureau of Land Management Manual, 6840-1

The Bureau of Land Management Manual Handbook 6840-1 provides 

direction on the management of special status plants on BLM 

administered public lands. Special status plants are those plant 

species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened, officially 

proposed for federal listing as endangered or threatened, candidates 

for federal listing as endangered or threatened, state listed as 

endangered, threatened, or rare, or listed as sensitive by the BLM 

California State Director. It is BLM policy to conduct inventories to 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-5 

determine the occurrence and status of all special status plant species 

on lands managed by BLM or affected by BLM actions. This includes 

pro-active inventories conducted to determine the impacts of BLM 

planned or authorized actions on any special status plants that might 

be within the area of a proposed project. These inventories are to be 

conducted at the time of year when such plant species can be found and 

positively identified. The inventories are also used to ensure 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the 

Endangered Species Act, as amended, by having sufficient information 

available to adequately assess the effects of proposed actions on special 

status plants. 

Comment 106 on the Draft EIS requested that the Draft EIS include a discussion of the 

goals and objectives of the California Missing Linkages Report and California Essential 

Habitat Connectivity Project in regards to wildlife movement. To address this comment, 

this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.2, to include the following text: 

California Missing Linkages Report

The objective of the California Missing Linkages Report is to identify 

the location of, and threats to the most important movement corridors 

for California’s wildlife. This report is in response to habitat 

fragmentation reducing, often irreversibly, the permeability of the 

landscape to its native flora and fauna. The importance of habitat 

linkages and wildlife corridors is they can significantly contribute to 

both the viability of individual species but also to the integrity of the 

natural community. The DesertXpress project occurs within the 

Mojave and Sonoran Desert Ecoregion as defined by the report and key 

species used to identify the linkages include bighorn sheep (Ovis 

Canadensis), Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis), 

desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), 

and other migratory birds.

California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project

The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project was 

commissioned by the Caltrans and CDFG recognizing the need for a 

functional network of connected wildlands to the continued support of 

California’s natural communities. This Essential Habitat Connectivity 

Report includes: (1) a statewide Essential Habitat Connectivity Map, 

(2) data characterizing areas delineated on the map, and (3) guidance 

for mitigating the fragmenting effects of roads and for developing and

implementing local and regional connectivity plans. The DesertXpress 

project occurs within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion as defined by the 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-6 

California Essential Habitat Connectivity project and identifies 

transportation facilities as having a significant threat to such species as 

the federally listed threatened Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizi). It also identifies sustaining and enhancing habitat 

connectivity in the face of energy development, urban sprawl, 

transportation improvements, off-road vehicle use, and other 

environmental stressors as a major conservation concern in the 

Mojave Desert Ecoregion. In addition, the California Essential Habitat 

Connectivity Project notes populations of many of the region’s rare and 

endemic species, such as the desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus mohavensis), and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis), are becoming increasingly isolated from one another, 

leading to decreased genetic diversity and risk of extirpations.

Comment 107 on the Draft EIS requested a discussion of the California Wildlife Action 

Plan and the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. To address this comment, this Final EIS 

amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.2 to include the following text: 

California Wildlife Action Plan

The California Wildlife Action Plan focuses on species and habitats of 

greatest concern, major stressors affecting native wildlife and habitats, 

and identifying actions to restore and conserve California wildlife. The 

Mojave Desert Region is one of nine regional divisions within the State 

of California. Two of this regions contain three identified species at 

risk include the Mojave Desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. 

The major stressors affecting wildlife in the region include, but are not 

limited to, multiple use conflicts, growth and development, and 

invasive species.

To further address Comment 107 on the Draft EIS, this Final EIS also amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.1.3 to include the following text: 

Nevada Wildlife Action Plan

The Nevada Wildlife Action Plan provides a framework and 

information resource to help conserve terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

and associated land and water habitats in Nevada. The DesertXpress 

project occurs in the Mojave/Sonoran Warm Desert Scrub, identified 

as one of 27 key wildlife habitats within Nevada. The action plan 

identifies urban and suburban growth, off-highway vehicle (OHV)

recreation, invasive species spread and corresponding changes to plant 

community diversity and fire intervals, and overharvesting of reptile 

species as the greatest challenges facing wildlife in the habitat. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-7 

Comment 114 on the Draft EIS requested that additional information be added to Draft 

EIS Section 3.14.1.3 related to Nevada Regulations to provide additional context for the 

associated regulations for biological resources. To address this comment, this Final EIS 

amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.3 to include the following text: 

Conservation management and special protections for flora and fauna 

are provided mainly by State and federal laws, regulations and policies, 

with management carried out by authorized agencies. Under the 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural resources, the 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of unique and rare 

species, those experiencing population declines in all or portions of 

their range within the state, and species having been provided some 

level of State and/or federal management protection through laws and 

policies. By nature, authorities to manage plant and animals overlap 

between the State and federal natural resource management agencies.

Comments 115, 116, 118, and 119 on the Draft EIS requested additional information related 

to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) in relation 

to biological resources and the classification of State protected wildlife. To address this 

comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.3 to include the text below. It 

should be noted that Section 1.4.1.2 of this Final EIS includes a discussion of the STB 

preemptive authority, whereby STB issued a decision in DesertXpress Enterprises, LLCPetition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance Docket No. 34914 (STB served June 27, 

2007) (June 2007 Dec. Order) stating that the project would not be subject to state and 

local environmental review, land use, or to other permitting requirements. 

Nevada Revised Statute, Section 501.110

Nevada Revised Statute 501.110 creates the wildlife classification 

system for wildlife including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, 

amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans. In addition, the Nevada Revised 

Statute, Section 501.110 creates the classification of protected or 

unprotected, game, sensitive, threatened or endangered. The statute 

also directs Wildlife Commission to place each species of wildlife into 

one of these classification categories.

Nevada Administrative Code

Nevada Administrative Code 503.035 classifies all species of mammals 

which are not classified as game, fur-bearing, protected, sensitive, 

threatened or endangered animals as unprotected.

Nevada Administrative Code 503.004 defines “Sensitive” as a species 

or subspecies is classified as sensitive by the Commission pursuant to 

NAC 503.104.
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-8 

Nevada Administrative Code 503.103 provides the criteria for 

classification of wildlife as protected.

Nevada Administrative Code 503.104 provides the criteria for 

classification of wildlife as sensitive.

For clarification purposes, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Sections 3.14.1.2 and

3.14.1.3 to include the following text: 

This section identified the state regulations related to biological 

resources. While these regulations establish specific standards and 

requirements related to sensitive biological resources, the federal 

regulations identified in Section 3.14.1.1 of this Final EIS are given 

priority in regards to implementation of the specific standards and 

policies.

3.14.1.3 Other Changes to the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Several comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS resulted in changes to the 

biological resource impact analysis in the EIS and are discussed below. 

Based on the updated discussion of the biological resources affected environment in 

Section 3.14.1.1 of this Final EIS, mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14.4 have been refined and/or 

expanded as appropriate. Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS amends the mitigation 

measures to incorporate these refinements and expansions. Changes to the text are shown 

in bold underline and strikeout text. 

Comments 77 and 80 on the Draft EIS requested that the term “noxious weed species” be 

replaced with “invasive, non-native weed species.” To address this comment, this Final 

EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.3.1 as follows: 

Invasive Plant Species 

A project area comprehensive survey was not completed for invasive plant species. 

A review of the existing literature in addition to observations made by resource 

specialist during general project site visits have identified a number of noxious

invasive, non-native weed species known to occur in the study area. These 

include saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), 

white horsenettle (Solanum elaeagnifolium), yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), Russian thistle (Salsola 

tragus), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), camelthorn (Alhagi camelorum), 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-9 

giant reed (Arundo donax), Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), red brome (Bromus 

madritensis), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus 

altissima). 2

To further address Comments 77 and 80 on the Draft EIS, the Final EIS also amends the 

following Draft EIS sections by replacing the term “noxious weed species” with “invasive, 

non-native weed species” where appropriate: 

 Section 3.14.4.2, paragraph 6 

 Section 3.14.4.5, under the heading “Potential Introduction or Spread of 

Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation Communities”

 Section 3.14.4.5, under the heading “Potential Introduction or Spread of 

Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation Communities”, paragraph 1

 Section 3.14.5, Mitigation Measure BIO-2, paragraph 13 

 Section 3.14.5, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 heading “Avoid the dispersal of 

noxious weeds into uninfested areas”

 Section 3.14.5, Mitigation Measure BIO-4, paragraph 1 and bullet points 

3, 5, and 6 

Comment 79 on the Draft EIS requested that the term “permanent loss of natural 

vegetation” be revised to “permanent loss of native vegetation.” To address this comment, 

Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.1, bullet point 6, has been revised as follows: 

 Substantial permanent loss of natural native vegetation; 

To further address Comment 79 on the Draft EIS, the Final EIS also amends the following 

Draft EIS sections by replacing the term “permanent loss of natural vegetation” with 

“permanent loss of native vegetation” where appropriate: 

 Section 3.14.1.2, under the heading “California Fish and Game Code Section 

1602”, paragraph 2

 Section 3.14.4.5, heading “Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious 

Weeds into Natural Vegetation Communities”

 Section 3.14.4.5, under the heading “Potential Introduction or Spread of 

Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation Communities”, paragraph 1

Comment 82 on the Draft EIS requested information related to the timing of the required 

Invasive Weed Species Monitoring and Treatment Plan. To address this comment, this 

Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.5 as follows:3

 

2

 Mojave Weed Management Area, 2007. 

3

 The text changes to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 also incorporate the changes made to address Comments 

77 and 80 on the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-10

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid the Dispersal of noxious Invasive, 

Non-Native Weeds Species into Uninfested Areas 

To avoid the introduction or spread of noxious invasive, non-native weeds

species into uninfested areas, the Applicant will incorporate the following 

measures into the project plans and specifications: 

 Use only certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw 

in upland areas). 

 Coordinate with BLM field offices and National Park Service (NPS) to ensure 

that the appropriate best BMPs are implemented. 

 Educate construction supervisors and managers on weed identification and the 

importance of controlling and preventing the spread of noxious invasive, 

non-native weeds species. 

 Clean equipment at designated wash stations before and after entering the 

project construction area. 

 An noxious invasive, non-native weed species survey of the proposed 

project ROW, including temporary work areas, will be completed prior to 

initiating project construction. All areas disturbed by the project will be 

surveyed using approximately 30-foot meandering transects. Populations of 

noxious invasive, non-native weeds species will be identified and mapped 

using global positioning systems (GPS). 

 Develop an approved Noxious Invasive Weeds Species Monitoring and 

Treatment Plan to detect and treat any noxious invasive, non-native weeds

species in the construction area. The plan will include methods for 

monitoring, treating and reporting noxious invasive, non-native weed

species infestations within the construction area. The Invasive Weed 

Species Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be drafted and 

submitted to BLM prior to initiating construction as part of the BLM 

ROW grant requirements.

Comment 83 on the Draft EIS requested that the erosion control plan, as discussed under 

Mitigation Measure BIO-9, be submitted as part of the EIS review process. To address 

this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.5 as follows: 

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Implement Erosion Control Measures as 

Appropriate

An erosion control and restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented to 

control short-term and long-term erosion and sedimentation effects and to restore 

soils and native vegetation in areas affected by construction activities. The plan 

shall include all requirements of applicable erosion control ordinances and grading 

permits and shall implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control as necessary. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-11

The erosion control plan shall be submitted to the BLM prior to the 

commencement of construction activities. The erosion control plan 

shall be submitted as part of the BLM ROW grant process.

Comment 84 on the Draft EIS requested that the project conform to the California Desert 

Native Desert Plants Act. To address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.5 as follows: 

Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Obtain a Tree or Plant Removal Permit 

from San Bernardino County and the Nevada Division of Forestry 

This permit is issued in compliance with San Bernardino County Development 

Code Subsection 88.01.050 for removal of regulated plants. The Applicant shall 

comply with all provisions of the Permit. A permit shall be required from the 

Nevada Division of Forestry and/or the BLM in order to relocate succulents within 

the project alignment. The Applicant shall also comply with the permit 

requirements of the California Desert Native Desert Plants Act, 

consistent with BLM regulations.

Comment 85 on the Draft EIS requested that the DesertXpress project conform to the 

minimum survey and mitigation standards contained in the BLM Manual 6840-1. To 

address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.5 as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1413:

4 Avoid Known Special-Status Plant 

Populations During Project Design

To the extent possible, the Applicant shall design the project to avoid special-status 

plant populations. The Applicant shall comply with the minimum survey 

and mitigation standards as required by the BLM Manual 6840-1. 

Where avoidance is infeasible, the Applicant shall focus on minimizing the width of 

construction work areas in and around special-status plant populations. Before 

construction, special-status plant populations shall be demarcated with temporary 

orange construction fencing and posted as a restricted area. Depending on the 

proximity of the populations to the construction work area, populations shall be 

monitored to ensure adverse effects on special-status plant populations are 

avoided. If effects on special-status plant populations are unavoidable, the 

Applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-15 described below. 

 

4 The Draft EIS did not include a Mitigation Measure BIO-12. As such, the mitigation numbering for the 

biological resources mitigation measures has been revised to correct this error. Mitigation Measure BIO-14 

from the Draft EIS is now Mitigation Measure BIO-13. This error was also corrected in Section 3.14.4 of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-12

Comment 90 on the Draft EIS stated that impacts to the Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat would occur as a result of the project, particularly since the SuperiorCronese unit has already sustained huge losses from previous large-scale projects. To 

address this comment, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5 as follows: 

In addition to the adverse impacts of the DesertXpress project to the 

Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat, this area has also 

sustained substantial losses of acreage from previous large-scale 

projects, such as the Fort Irwin expansion. The portion of the critical 

habitat unit impacted by the DesertXpress project has undergone 

substantial impacts from historical and ongoing raven predation and 

modification to the vegetation community resulting from proximity 

impacts associated with the I-15 corridor. The habitat within the 

project limits cannot be adversely modified further as it currently does 

not support desert tortoise.

Comments 105, 108, 109, and 111 on the Draft EIS and Comments S-57, S-69. S-72, S-73 

and S-77 on the Supplemental Draft EIS requested additional information related to 

wildlife movement corridors and proposed wildlife crossings near the existing I-15 

freeway. The comments state that wildlife currently cross the I-15 freeway corridor, not 

only at overpasses, but also at various points along the freeway corridor, and that the Draft 

EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS should consider impacts to these crossings. To address 

these comments, this Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.14.5 as follows: 

Mitigation Measure BIO-2019:

5

 Construct Exclusion Fencing, and 

Culverts to Sustain Hydrologic Function and Provide Wildlife 

Crossings

The Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad line that match 

existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed 

to serve as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate 

intervals to allow for wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert 

tortoises and other wildlife to pass under the proposed rail alignment grade. 

The project design shall ensure flow for natural drainages equal to or 

greater than four feet in width (as measured by the distance between 

the ordinary high water mark on each side of the drainage) during 

project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and 

 

5

 The Draft EIS did not include a Mitigation Measure BIO-12. As such, the mitigation numbering for the 

biological resources mitigation measures has been revised to correct this error. Mitigation Measure 

BIO-20 from the Draft EIS is now Mitigation Measure BIO-19. This error was also corrected as part of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-13

desert bighorn sheep. In order to reduce potential effects to desert bighorn 

sheep, no natural drainages would be obstructed or block by the construction or 

operation of the proposed project. The culverts and fencing would be designed 

and spacing determined through coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, 

and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the 

rail line and would direct tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. 

3.14.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.14.2.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.14.2.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.2 used to evaluate impacts to biological resources remains applicable to this 

Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. This same methodology was 

used in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14, Biological Resources, as described 

below. 

Section 3.14.1.2 details the formal and informal consultation conducted by FRA with the 

USFWS regarding potential effects of the project on federally-listed species or their 

designated habitat. As part of this process, FRA developed and submitted a BA to the 

USFWS. The BA evaluates direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to sensitive biological 

resources, including desert tortoise, in the project study area. The December 2010 BA is 

included as Appendix F-M to this Final EIS. This Final EIS incorporates that analysis 

from the BA as it relates to the Preferred Alternative. 

The evaluation of biological resources considers direct and indirect effects. 

Direct effects would include, but are not limited to, grubbing, grading, and other 

construction and operation activities that disturb vegetation and soil resources and 

disrupt the biological or hydrologic function of surface water features. Direct effects are 

considered permanent or temporary. 

 Permanent direct effects would result from the placement of fill material for the 

railway bed and associated stations, operation, and maintenance facilities thus 

converting the area from its current condition to a transportation facility. The area 

considered for permanent direct effects to biological resources includes a 75-foot 

wide permanent rail alignment, station and maintenance facilities, 

autotransformers and substations, and utility corridors. In some cases, the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would have a width of approximately 60 feet, 

specifically near the Mojave River crossing in Barstow. The 75-foot wide area of 

analysis for permanent direct effects would cover the varied widths of the 

permanent rail alignment, since the rail alignment would not exceed a width of 75 

feet. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-14

 Temporary direct effects would result from soil compaction, construction dust, 

water and contaminant runoff from the construction area, and constructionrelated noise and vibrations from construction equipment. The area considered 

for temporary direct effects to biological resources includes an additional 162.5 

foot wide area on either side of the 75 foot wide Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment (area of permanent direct effects). As previously stated, the 75-foot 

wide area of analysis for permanent direct effects would cover the varied widths of 

the permanent rail alignment (i.e., 60 feet near the Mojave River), since the rail 

alignment would not exceed a width of 75 feet. The TCAs are also included within 

the temporary impact area. The TCAs that are within permanent disturbance 

areas, such as the station sites, have been incorporated into the analysis of 

permanent impacts. 

Indirect effects include, but are not limited to, the modification of habitat functions 

resulting from wind-blown dust, erosion of sediments, invasive, non-native weed species 

invasion, or hydrologic modifications. 

Consistent with the thresholds established in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.2, any effects to 

vegetation and wildlife would be considered adverse if any of the following were to occur: 

 Loss of individual or populations of a Federal or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat 

 Loss of critical habitat for Federally listed threatened or endangered species 

 Loss of habitat that is sensitive or rare in the region, such as Mesquite Shrubland, 

Joshua Tree Wooded Shrubland, wetlands, cliff face formations, and surface water 

sources 

 Substantial loss of populations or habitat of a species that is a Federal candidate, is 

federally proposed for listing, is a BLM sensitive species, is a California species of 

special concern, is on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory 1B or 2, 

is identified as a covered species in the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MSHCP), is regionally rare, or is otherwise so sensitive as to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the region 

 Loss of long-term disruption of wildlife movement corridor 

 Substantial permanent loss of native vegetation 

 Substantial loss of diversity of species or natural communities and wildlife habitat 

 Incompatibility with local, state, or Federal land management plans 

Information Sources 

Multiple informational sources were consulted to identify special-status plans and wildlife 

species and sensitive natural communities that have potential occur in the project region. 

The following sources were utilized: 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-15

 USFWS Ventura Ecological Services Office list of Listed, Proposed, and Candidate 

Species Which May Occur in San Bernardino County, California 

 USFWS Nevada Ecological Services Office list of Listed, Proposed, and Candidate 

Species Which May Occur in Clark County, Nevada 

 CDFG California Natural Diversity Data Base 

 CDFG Special Animals and Special Plant lists 

 CNPS (2007) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California 

 Nevada Natural Heritage Program sensitive species list for Clark County 

 BLM list of Sensitive Plant Species that occur in California 

 BLM list of Sensitive Wildlife Species that occur in California 

 Supplemental Final EIS for the Proposed Addition of Maneuver Training Land at 

Fort Irwin, California 

 Tortoise Recovery Plan 

 West Mojave Habitat Conservation Plan 

 Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan Amendment to the 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

 Clark County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 

 Results of 2007 desert tortoise field surveys in California 

 Results of habitat assessment for Mohave ground squirrel (included as Appendix 

F-O to this Final EIS) 

 Results of 2007 protocol-level field surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher and 

least Bell’s vireo, and a habitat assessment for western yellow-billed cuckoo 

 Results of 2006 vegetation mapping for sensitive botanicals in Nevada 

 Results of 2010 botanical survey in California near Mountain Pass (included as 

Appendix F-N to this Final EIS) 

 Biological Assessment for the DesertXpress Project (December 2010) (included as 

Appendix F-M to this Final EIS) 

 Results of formal jurisdictional delineation reports as part of the CWA Section 404 

permitting process (included as Appendix F-I to this Final EIS) 

Agency Coordination 

FRA convened several agency coordination meetings during the biological resources 

analysis. Draft EIS Section 3.14.2.2 and Chapter 4.0, Comments and 

Coordination, of this Final EIS include the complete list of agency coordination 

meetings. Multiple interagency meetings have been held with the USFWS, BLM, CDFG, 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-16

NPS, and the USACE. Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been ongoing 

coordination with the BLM, USFWS, NPS, and the USACE as part of the analysis for the 

Supplemental Draft EIS and for this Final EIS. 

Field Surveys 

Field surveys were also conducted, including vegetation mapping, wetland surveys, 

special-status plant surveys, and special-status wildlife surveys. Draft EIS Section 

3.14.2.3 provides a summary of these surveys conducted for the Draft EIS. Similar types 

of surveys were conducted as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS. A comprehensive 

description of the surveys to date is provided below. 

Vegetation Mapping 

Reconnaissance-level pedestrian and windshield surveys were conducted in December 

2006 to assess and map the vegetation types in a 600-foot wide corridor (400-foot-wide 

limit of disturbance plus a 200-foot buffer) of the rail alignment and ancillary facilities. 

Vegetation was identified and classified following the scheme used in the Mojave Desert 

Ecosystem Program,6 which is based on the U.S. National Vegetation Classification 

(NVC).7 

ArcGIS 9.0 software was used to create a GIS dataset of vegetation communities and other 

land-cover types, based on true color digital ortho-rectified aerial photography. The aerial 

photographs were taken in 2005 (California) and 2006 (Nevada) with one meter 

resolution (i.e., each cell represents an area on the ground of approximately one square 

meter). Vegetation was mapped using a combination of field mapping onto the aerial 

photography and digitizing polygons on a computer screen (a process known as heads-up 

digitizing). Lines were drawn to delineate land-cover polygons following visible 

differences in color tone and texture on the photographs. Minimum mapping units (the 

smallest area that was distinguished and mapped) range from 1⁄4-acre for wetland, 

riparian, and sensitive vegetation types. 

Wetlands 

Reconnaissance-level pedestrian and windshield surveys were conducted in April through 

May 2007 and March through May 2008 to assess and map the surface water and 

wetlands in the 400-foot wide corridor of the DesertXpress project rail alignments. The 

project alignments were projected onto USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps using ArcGIS 

9.0 software to create a GIS dataset of surface water features. In addition, the rail 

alignments were also projected onto true color digital ortho-rectified aerial photography to 

help identify potential surface water features not identified as a blue line on the USGS 

quadrangle maps. The aerial photographs were taken in 2005 (California) and 2006 

 

6 USGS, 2004. 

7

 Grossman et al. 1998. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-17

(Nevada) with one meter resolution. The surface water features were mapped using a 

combination of field mapping onto the aerial photography and digitizing polygons on a 

computer screen. 

Section 3.8.1 of this Final EIS describes the CWA Section 404 permitting process in 

detail, which involved additional field surveys related to wetlands and waters of the US. 

Field surveys designed to identify the presence or absence of field indicators of wetland 

vegetation, soils, and hydrology conditions, were conducted within low-lying landscape 

features where wetlands could potentially occur. These field surveys were conducted 

during the month of April, May, and June 2010.

Special-Status Plants 

Floristic surveys were conducted in the Nevada portion of the alignment in Spring 2006. 

Appendix F-P of this Final EIS includes the report documenting the survey results. 

A survey targeting potentially occurring special-status plants was not conducted in the 

California portion of the alignment in 2007 because the recorded precipitation 

measurement was below the annual average and the lack of adequate rainfall inhibits 

plant growth. Reference populations of Mojave monkeyflower (Mimulus mojavensis) 

were surveyed in April 2007. Four known populations tracked in CNDDB (2008) were 

visited during the typical flowering season; no Mojave monkeyflower plants were found, 

and few annual plants were present. Appendix F-P of this Final EIS provides the survey 

result maps. 

A botanical survey was conducted in the area north of Mountain Pass within the Ivanpah 

Valley in April and May 2010. This botanical survey is included as Appendix F-N to this 

Final EIS. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

The agencies reviewed preliminary maps of the proposed alignment and provided 

guidance and recommendations on special-status species surveys and habitat assessments 

during the agency coordination meetings. Following agency guidance, biologists 

conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project area to field verify the areas that 

USFWS had identified as needing surveys or habitat assessments for the Mojave 

population of desert tortoise (December 2007), southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s 

vireo, western yellow-billed cuckoo (April 2007), and Mohave ground squirrel (May 

2007). Based on the results of the reconnaissance surveys, biologists conducted focused 

field surveys for desert tortoise, southwestern willow flycatcher, and least Bell’s vireo in 

areas of suitable habitat. For purposes of this analysis, the term suitable habitat refers to 

those areas where the rail alignment traverses relatively undeveloped lands away from the 

I- 15 freeway ROW and undeveloped areas in the vicinity of the Mojave River. A habitat 

assessment for Mohave ground squirrel was also conducted and is included as Appendix 

F-O to this Final EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-18

Desert Tortoise Survey Methods: Biologists initially identified approximately 50 

miles of suitable habitat for desert tortoise in the project study area in California and 

Nevada. Based on coordination with USFWS Ventura Office and CDFG, it was determined 

that select areas within California would be surveyed for desert tortoise. These areas were 

selected in order to estimate desert tortoise density and surveys were conducted in from 

May 1 through 3, 2007 in areas of suitable habitat and where property access was granted. 

Based on coordination with the USFWS Nevada Ecological Services Office, it was 

determined that desert tortoise surveys were not necessary in Nevada. It was determined 

through coordination with the USFWS that all areas outside the existing I-15 ROW and 

outside urbanized development in Primm, Jean and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area were 

occupied desert tortoise habitat. No desert tortoise surveys would be required in Nevada 

as part of the EIS and ESA Section 7 process. 

Desert tortoise surveys were conducted by two biologists walking meandering transects 

within a 300-foot wide corridor, as measured from the centerline of the rail alignment. 

The USFWS did not recommend conducting desert tortoise surveys along the portions of 

the DesertXpress project that are within the I-15 freeway ROW because the I-15 freeway is 

assumed to have a substantial negative impact on desert tortoise population numbers. 

However, they requested that desert tortoise surveys be conducted in a representative 

number of drainage crossings along the I-15 freeway that may allow desert tortoise 

movement between habitat on either side of the I-15 freeway. Tortoise surveys were 

conducted at 29 drainage crossings in the project study area. The drainage bed and banks 

at these crossings were surveyed using 30-foot wide pedestrian transects at distances of 

500 feet upstream and downstream on either side of I-15 (a total of 1,000 feet per 

drainage) for a total of 21,000 feet (approximately 4 miles). 

All observed tortoises and tortoise sign (e.g., suitable burrows, pallets, scat, tracks, 

eggshells, and carcasses) were recorded on survey forms and location coordinates were 

collected using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, and Western YellowBilled Cuckoo Survey Methods: Biologists conducted a habitat assessment in April 

2007 to evaluate habitat characteristics and suitability for special-status bird species in 

the project study area. Based on the habitat assessment, it was determined that suitable 

habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo does not exist in the project study area and no 

further survey effort was necessary. Suitable habitat was present for southwestern willow 

flycatcher and marginally suitable habitat was present for least Bell’s vireo and protocollevel surveys were conducted for both species during the 2007 breeding season. The goals 

of the surveys were to document the breeding status of southwestern willow flycatcher and 

least Bell’s vireo in the project study area and identify the extent of suitable habitat. 

Following USFWS survey protocol, biologists conducted five surveys during the 2007 

southwestern willow flycatcher breeding season on May 15, June 4, June 15, June 26, and 

July 10, 2007. The first survey of the season was timed to occur about two weeks after the 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-19

arrival of the first nesting southwestern willow flycatchers in mid-May 2007. Surveys for 

least Bell’s vireos were conducted in appropriate habitats concurrently with southwestern 

willow flycatcher surveys from May 15 through July 10, 2007 when the two survey 

protocol periods overlap. The eight surveys for least Bell’s vireos were conducted during 

the 2007 breeding season on April 10, April 20, May 1, May 15, June 4, June 15, June 26, 

and July 10, 2007. 

Biologists recorded field notes of all species detected by sight or vocalization during the 

surveys and, in particular, listened for the characteristic calls and songs of least Bell’s 

vireos and willow flycatchers. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Methods: Habitat suitability for the Mohave 

ground squirrel in the project study area was evaluated by a qualified biologist. The 

assessment was performed from May 25 to May 30, 2007 within a 300-foot corridor, 150 

feet on either side of the rail alignment centerline, between Victorville and Yermo. The 

habitat assessment was conducted by walking and driving the survey area, observing and 

recording habitat characteristics such as land use, topography, soil type, and vegetation, as 

well as connectivity of adjacent areas. The survey report is provided as Appendix F-O to 

this Final EIS. The report also includes the results of trapping surveys previously 

conducted in the region and prepared a database of all records of Mohave ground squirrel 

occurrence within 10 miles of the eastern edge of the species known geographic range 

between Victorville and Yermo. On November 19, 2008, the qualified biologist also 

assessed the corridor for the proposed utility corridor near Victorville using aerial 

photographs, but did not believe that a field assessment was necessary because of the close 

proximity of the utility corridor to a previously assessed rail alignment. The findings for 

the utility corridor are also included in Appendix F-O to this Final EIS. 

3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no high-speed passenger rail system would be 

constructed or operated. However, under the No Action Alternative, public agencies in 

California and/or Nevada are anticipated to implement the planned and programmed 

transportation improvements along the I-15 freeway corridor and adjoining roadways and 

interchanges. These planned and programmed improvements would be located in the 

same vicinity as the Preferred Alternative and would therefore cross similar biological 

resources and sensitive areas. The planned and programmed transportation 

improvements under the No Action Alternative would therefore have the potential to 

affect similar biological resources as would the Preferred Alternative. Project-specific 

environmental review to be undertaken by the sponsoring lead agency/agencies would 

more precisely determine the environmental effects to biological resources associated with 

such planned and programmed improvements. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-20

3.14.2.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.14.4 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14.3 describe in detail 

the biological resources effects by individual project component. The discussion below 

summarizes the aggregated impact for the components that comprise the Preferred 

Alternative. Figures F-3.14-2 through F-3.14-6 show the biological resources within 

the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative.

Potential Effects to Vegetative Communities 

Introduction or Spread of Invasive, Non-Native Weed Species 

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative could introduce or spread 

invasive, non-native weed species to areas with native vegetative communities. Ground 

disturbing activities and operation of construction equipment could result in invasive, 

non-native weed seed dispersal as a result of the soil movement. Construction activities 

would also loosen soils in the construction areas, which could result in seed dispersal via 

wind-blown deposits which could introduce and/or spread invasive, non-native weed 

species. Many invasive, non-native weed species are adapted to and promoted by soil 

disturbance and seeds are commonly transported on vehicles (including high-speed 

passenger trains) and by wind and water. Invasive, non-native weed species often outcompete the native vegetation species because of the high germination potential and high 

seed production, and they can become locally dominant. Invasive, non-native weed 

species typically displace native plant populations, degrade sensitive native communities, 

and reduce habitat quality for special-status wildlife. This could result in permanent and 

temporary direct effects to native vegetation communities and could increase the 

frequency of wildland fires within the Preferred Alternative area due to an increase in the 

fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert.8 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in substantial indirect effects related to 

wildland fire. The Preferred Alternative would be constructed within a permanent ROW 

that would be cleared of vegetation and maintained in this state to accommodate highspeed train activities.9

 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Construction-related activities would result in the temporary direct loss of native 

vegetation in areas that are cleared for TCAs, staging areas, and equipment access routes. 

Desert vegetation communities are slow to recover after disturbance and disturbed 

communities are vulnerable to the introduction of non-native invasive species. 

Construction-related activities could result in temporary direct effects and loss of natural 

 

8 ICF, 2011. 

9 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-21

communities, including sensitive vegetation communities and habitat for special-status 

species, within the Preferred Alternative area and within the immediate vicinity the 

construction area. 

The operation and maintenance infrastructure of the Preferred Alternative would convert 

native vegetation communities to transportation use and permanently remove these 

communities. The Preferred Alternative would result in permanent direct effects to 

1,509.8 acres and temporary direct effects to approximately 4,135.2 acres of native 

vegetation communities.10 Damage to or loss of these native vegetation communities 

would be considered an adverse permanent direct effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative could result in permanent and 

temporary direct effects to sensitive vegetation communities. 

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in temporary 

direct effects to sensitive vegetation communities through ground disturbing activities, 

movement of soils, and clearing of areas for TCAs and equipment access routes. These 

temporary construction activities could result in the loss of sensitive vegetation 

communities during the construction period and could result in long-term degradation of 

a sensitive plant community. 

The operation and maintenance of the Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 

sensitive vegetation communities to transportation use and permanently remove these 

communities. Permanent direct effects would occur within the Preferred Alternative 

permanent ROW, which includes the rail alignment, the designated footprints for the 

passenger stations and maintenance facilities, and utility corridors. Sensitive vegetation 

communities in these areas would be permanently displaced and replaced with 

transportation facilities. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would result in permanent direct effects to about 

3.9 acres of Mesquite Shrubland and about 84 acres of Joshua Tree Wooded Shrubland. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would also result in temporary direct effects to 

about 16.1 acres of Mesquite Shrubland and about 194 acres of Joshua Tree Wooded 

Shrubland.11

 The Preferred Alternative would also permanently convert 4.6 acres of 

Mojave Creosote to transportation use.12

Mesquite Shrubland and Joshua Tree Wooded Shrubland are considered sensitive by state 

(CDFG) and local (San Bernardino County) authorities. Under the San Bernardino County 

Development Code (April 2007), regulated desert native plants and regulated riparian 

 

10 ICF. Biological Assessment for the DesertXpress Project. December 2010. 

11 ICF, 2011. 

12 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-22

plants shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant Removal Permit in compliance 

with Section 88.01.050 (Tree or Plant Removal Permits). Regulated desert native plants 

are defined as: 

 The following desert native plants with stems two inches or greater in diameter or 

six feet or greater in height: 

Dalea spinosa (smoketree) 

All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites) 

 All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas) 

 Creosote Rings, 10 feet or greater in diameter 

 All Joshua trees 

 Any part of any of the following species, whether living or dead: 

Olneya tesota (desert ironwood) 

All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites) 

All species of the genus Cercidium (palos verdes) 

Regulated riparian plants are defined as vegetation within 200 feet of the bank of a 

stream, or in an area indicated as a protected riparian area on an overlay map or Specific 

Plan; streams include those shown on USGS topographic maps as perennial or 

intermittent, blue or brown lines (solid or dashed), and river wash areas. 

Potential Effects to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in the loss of 

special-status plant populations through ground disturbing activities, movement of soils, 

and clearing of the ROW. The ROW needed for operation and maintenance of the 

Preferred Alternative would permanently convert areas where special-status plant 

populations and their habitat exist to transportation use, representing a permanent direct 

effect. 

Focused presence/absence surveys were not conducted for the entire Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment due to prolonged drought in the region and because sensitive botanical 

resources can change over time in any given area. In response, FRA has required that 

additional surveys along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment (as set forth in 

Mitigation Measure BIO-2), be conducted prior to initiating construction. If sensitive 

botanical resources are present, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

requirements would be implemented to reduce or mitigate adverse effects to special-status 

plant populations. The focused presence/absence surveys would be conducted just prior 

to the construction of the Preferred Alternative to provide more precise data and account 

for the most current resource conditions in the area. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-23

The California and Nevada Natural Heritage Program databases were reviewed for 

existing information regarding the location of previously observed sensitive botanical 

resources. In addition, the BLM resource specialist in the Barstow, Needles and Las Vegas 

field offices reviewed the Preferred Alternative rail alignment for potential sensitive 

botanical resource habitat. This information determined penstemon bicolor ssp. bicolor, a 

BLM sensitive species and a USFWS species of concern occurs within the I-15 ROW and 

would be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

A botanical survey was conducted in the area north of Mountain Pass within the Ivanpah 

Valley in April and May 2010. This botanical survey is included as Appendix F-N. This 

botanical survey was conducted because the rail alignment in this location would traverse 

through undisturbed lands with assumed high resource value; the vast majority of the 

remainder of the rail alignment is within the I-15 freeway corridor, where resource values 

are generally lower. 

Potential Effects to Wildlife Species 

Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

The Mojave population of the desert tortoise is federally and California state listed as a 

threatened species. In Nevada, desert tortoises are classified as a state protected and 

threatened species. 

Operation and construction of the Preferred Alternative would remove or degrade desert 

tortoise habitat. Permanent direct effects would occur within the Preferred Alternative 

permanent ROW, which includes the rail alignment, the designated footprints for the 

passenger stations and maintenance facilities, and utility corridors. Desert tortoises in 

these areas would be permanently displaced and their natural movement corridors would 

be disrupted and replaced with transportation facilities. 

Temporary direct effects would occur within the Preferred Alternative construction areas 

as a result of topsoil removal and stockpile, grading and blading, and construction activity 

including vehicular and equipment use in the area. Temporary direct effects would also 

result from soil compaction, construction dust, water and surface water runoff from 

construction areas, and noise and vibrations from construction equipment. Such 

temporary activities could cause desert tortoise to avoid the area during construction, 

thereby temporarily reducing available forage habitat and access to burrows. The 

temporary direct effects resulting from desert tortoise being relocated from the Preferred 

Alternative construction areas could further affect other desert tortoise already residing in 

the area by temporarily modifying behavior and competing for burrows and forage. This 

could result in reduced habitat productivity adjacent to the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment during construction. Furthermore, construction activity and the presence of 

construction crews could attract ravens and coyotes to the area, thereby increasing 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-24

predation of desert tortoise. Ravens and coyotes are known to prey on the juvenile desert 

tortoises and increased predator densities in the construction areas may result in direct 

mortality of the juvenile desert tortoise. 

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 1,509.8 acres and temporarily affect 

approximately 4,135.2 acres of desert tortoise habitat.13

 

Desert tortoise habitat exists in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative from the 

Victorville area to about Sloan, Nevada.14 The aforementioned impacts would occur in this 

region. There is no desert tortoise habitat located within the metropolitan Las Vegas area 

due to the intensity of the urban development and no adverse effects would occur in this 

area. The Preferred Alternative would result in permanent direct effects to 1,269.2 acres 

of desert tortoise habitat in California and 240.6 acres in Nevada. The Preferred 

Alternative would result in temporary direct effects to 3,322.59 acres of desert tortoise 

habitat in California and 812.6 acres in Nevada.15

A portion of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment is in proximity to the ISEGS project 

in the Ivanpah Valley (approved in August 2010). The ISEGS project site consists of 

approximately 3,300 acres of permanent ground disturbance within suitable desert 

tortoise habitat. This suitable habitat is within a portion of the Northeastern Recovery 

Unit near the Clark Mountains and the I-15 freeway corridor. The Northeastern Recovery 

Unit has undergone considerable development resulting in the permanent loss of suitable 

desert tortoise habitat. Due to the presence of desert tortoise in this area, the ISEGS 

project incorporated desert tortoise relocation and short-distance translocation measures 

to compensate for the loss of desert tortoise habitat associated with development of the 

solar energy facility. In October 2010, California state biologists and contract workers 

began the relocation and translocation process of desert tortoise.16

 The ISEGS project 

identified specific relocation and short-distance translocation areas to the west and south 

of the proposed project site. Figure F-3.14-4 shows the approximate locations of the 

desert tortoise relocation and translocation areas for the ISEGS project in relation to the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be 

approximately 0.25 miles east of the ISEGS designated relocation area. 

As shown in Figure F-3.14-4, a portion of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

traverse through the northern portion of the designated relocation area for desert tortoise. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would, however, avoid intrusion into the planned 

translocation areas for desert tortoise. Regardless, the intrusion into the relocation areas 

for desert tortoise would impact the quality and suitability of this area as tortoise habitat. 

 

13 ICF, Biological Assessment for the DesertXpress Project, December 2010. 

14 California Department of Fish and Game. California Wildlife habitat Relationships. 

<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx>. Accessed on February 15, 2011. 

15 ICF, Biological Assessment for the DesertXpress Project, December 2010. 

16 San Francisco Chronicle, Relocation of Tortoises to Pave Way for Solar Plant, October 25, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-25

The affect of the Preferred Alternative on desert tortoise and its habitat, including the 

impact on the relocation area identified for the ISEGS project, is addressed in the BA; and 

appropriate mitigation will be included in the Biological Opinion to be issued by the 

USFWS in concluding the Section 7 consultation process for the project. 

In regards to indirect effects, construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative 

could increase predation and mortality of desert tortoise from perching and nesting 

ravens, as the new rail alignment features, passenger stations, and maintenance facilities 

would provide perching and nesting opportunities for such predators. This could increase 

raven predation on juvenile desert tortoise along the alignment. 

Additionally, disturbance of soils within the construction areas could result in increased 

wind erosion of the soil and could indirectly affect desert tortoise. Transport of soil and 

sand could result in the degradation of soil and vegetation over a wider area than the area 

of permanent effect. Large amounts of dust can have negative effects on the physiology of 

plants and may affect their productivity, result in diminishing foraging potential for desert 

tortoises. Degradation of the soil would also have adverse effects on the ability of desert 

tortoises to create burrows, representing an adverse indirect effect on desert tortoise 

foraging and burrowing potential. 

The introduction of non-native grasses and forbs as a result of construction and operation 

of the Preferred Alternative could further indirectly affect desert tortoise. Refer to the 

discussion under the heading “Effects to Vegetative Communities” and subheading 

“Introduction or Spread of Invasive, Non-Native Weed Species” above for further 

discussion of the introduction of non-native grasses and forbs. The introduction of nonnative grasses and forbs could reduce the native vegetation species, which could cause 

short- and long-term effects to desert tortoise through the decline in forage species 

diversity. 

The Preferred Alternative would also result in modifications to the natural drainages, 

particularly in areas where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment diverges from the I-15 

freeway corridor north of the Clark Mountains in the Ivanpah Valley. The natural 

drainage modifications in this area could result in downstream effects to the natural 

hydrology and Mojave wash scrub of the alluvial fan. The Preferred Alternative would 

incorporate measures to reduce downstream effects on the natural hydrology through the 

use of culverts and bridges as described in more detail in the BA and in Mitigation 

Measure BIO-19. The Applicant has also initiated the CWA Section 404 permitting 

process with the USACE and issuance of a permit for the discharge of fill material into 

waters of the US associated with construction of the Preferred Alternative will be part of 

the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by the USACE. The Applicant will also 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-26

apply for certification under Section 401 of the CWA. 17 The Applicant will be required to 

comply with all conditions and mitigation requirements that result from the Section 404 

permit and Section 401 Certification. Refer to Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS for further 

discussion of these mitigation measures and permitting processes. However, there is still 

the potential that hydrological modifications could indirectly modify and reduce the desert 

tortoise forage base within the ephemeral drainages downstream from the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. Maintenance and clean-out of the culverts, bridges, and aerial 

structure columns associated with the Preferred Alternative rail alignment could result in 

additional modification of restored tortoise habitat associated with the ISEGS project 

immediately adjacent to the rail alignment and downstream through sediment transport 

and erosion. 

Refer to the section under the heading “Loss of Special Management Lands” below for 

further discussion of the effects to designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. Also refer 

to the section under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” below for a discussion of 

effects to desert tortoise movement through the Preferred Alternative area. 

Mohave Ground Squirrels 

The Mohave ground squirrel is listed as a threatened species under the California 

Endangered Species Act and is covered under the West Mojave Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Construction-related activities could result in injury or mortality to Mohave ground 

squirrels if construction equipment crushed squirrels, trapped squirrels in their burrows, 

and/or removed foraging habitat during the temporary construction period. Operation of 

the Preferred Alternative would replace existing Mohave ground squirrel habitat with 

transportation use, including rail alignments, passenger stations, maintenance facilities, 

and utility corridors, thereby resulting in the permanent loss of such habitat. 

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert approximately 447.38 acres and 

temporarily affect approximately 562.45 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat.18 19 

The effects on Mojave ground squirrel habitat would be limited to areas of the Preferred 

Alternative in San Bernardino County. There is no Mohave ground squirrel habitat 

located within the metropolitan Las Vegas area due to the intensity of the urban 

development and no adverse effects would occur in this area. 20 Refer to the Mohave 

Ground Squirrel Habitat Assessment in Appendix F-O of this Final EIS for additional 

information related to Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

 

17 Under federal CWA Section 401 every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity which may 

result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification (Certification) that the 

proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. Most Certifications are issued in connection 

with USACE CWA Section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges. 

18 Jones & Stokes, Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat Assessment, DesertXpress Rail Project, November 2007. 

19 ICF, 2011. 

20 Jones & Stokes, Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat Assessment, DesertXpress Rail Project, November 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-27

Refer to the section under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” below for a 

discussion of effects to Mohave ground squirrel movement through the Preferred 

Alternative area. 

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

The Mojave fringe-toed lizard is a California species of special concern and is a BLM 

sensitive species. There are no known occurrences of Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the 

vicinity of the Preferred Alternative.21 However, suitable habitat for Mojave fringe-toed 

lizards is present in the vicinity of where the rail alignment would cross the Mojave River. 

Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative, especially the use of 

heavy machinery, could crush Mojave fringe-toed lizards. Within the proposed ROW at 

the Mojave River crossing, the Preferred Alternative would permanently convert Mojave 

fringe-toed lizard habitat to transportation use.22

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 3.6 acres and temporarily affect 

approximately 8.3 acres of Mojave fringe-toed lizard habitat.23

Also refer to the section under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” below for a 

discussion of effects to Mojave fringe-toed lizard movement through the Preferred 

Alternative area. 

Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

The Preferred Alternative would be located within suitable nesting habitat for specialstatus and migratory birds and raptors. Regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, would apply to the Preferred Alternative 

effects to nesting raptors and migratory birds. Draft EIS Section 3.14.1.1 includes a 

detailed description of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as it relates to special-status and 

migratory birds and raptors. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title 16, U.S.C., Part 703) 

authorizes the US Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory 

birds and established hunting seasons and capture limits for game species and protects 

migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs.24

 Section 3.14.1.2 above includes a 

description of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which protects both the bald 

eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the 

taking, possession, and commerce in such birds. 

Construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative could disturb the nesting of 

special-status and migratory birds and raptors. Construction activities (e.g., grubbing, 

grading, excavation, tunneling through the Clark Mountains, and driving off existing 

 

21 CNDDB, 2008. 

22 ICF, 2011. 

23 ICF, 2011. 

24 Title 16 USC 703, 50 CFR 21, 50 CFR 10 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-28

roads) could result in the removal or disturbance of shrubs and trees that provide 

potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors. In addition, construction 

activities near the cliff areas, such as tunneling through the Clark Mountains, could result 

in disturbance to cliff-nesting raptors as a result of construction dust and constructionrelated noise and vibration from construction equipment. If construction occurs during 

the breeding season (generally between March 1 and August 15), nesting raptors or 

migratory birds could be disturbed. This disturbance could cause nest abandonment and 

subsequent loss of eggs or developing young at active nests in or near the project area.25

 

Trees, shrubs, and cactus between Victorville and Barstow provide suitable nesting habitat 

for migratory birds and raptors. The dry lakebed crossed by the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment north of Yermo provides potential nesting habitat for the western snowy plover. 

However, the dry lake bed has been historically used for OHV recreation resulting in 

frequent periods of air-borne dust and loose blowing sands. These conditions have 

reduced the quality of the western snowy plover potential nesting habitat. 

Joshua trees, other tree species, shrubs, and cactus between Yermo and Mountain Pass 

provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors. This portion of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment crosses the Soda Dry Lake bed, which provides 

potential nesting habitat for western snowy plover. Shrubs located in the TCAs and the 

Baker MOW provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors. 

The cliff areas through the Clark Mountains also provide potential nesting habitat for 

American peregrine falcons, prairie falcons, and golden eagles. 

Joshua trees, other tree species, shrubs, and cactus also provide suitable nesting habitat 

for migratory birds and raptors between the California/Nevada state line and the Las 

Vegas metropolitan area. Cliff areas provide potential nesting habitat for American 

peregrine falcons, prairie falcons, and golden eagles. 

The loss or abandonment of the eggs or young of migratory birds or raptors would be an 

adverse effect. Mitigation recommended in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would include 

measures, such as preconstruction surveys, to avoid disturbance of tree-, shrub-, or 

ground-nesting special-status migratory birds and raptors. 

Banded Gila Monster 

The banded gila monster is a California species of special concern and is a BLM sensitive 

species. There are no known occurrences of banded gila monsters in the vicinity of the 

Preferred Alternative.26 

Construction activities in the Mountain Pass area of the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment could affect suitable habitat for banded gila monster. While no occurrences of 

 

25 ICF, 2011. 

26 CNDDB, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-29

this species were recorded during surveys of the Preferred Alternative area, construction 

activities in this habitat, especially the use of heavy machinery, could crush banded gila 

monsters.27

Also refer to the section under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” below for a 

discussion of effects to banded gila monster movement through the Preferred Alternative 

area. 

Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Reptile Species 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative within Clark County, Nevada would affect 

suitable habitat for banded gecko, Great Basin collard lizard, desert iguana, large-spotted 

leopard lizard, desert tortoise, chuckwalla, sidewinder, speckled rattlesnake, Mojave green 

rattlesnake, glossy snake, common king snake, western leaf-nosed snake, western longnosed snake, and Sonoran lyre snake. Construction activities, such as grading and 

excavation and the use of heavy machinery, could injure or kill reptile species covered 

under the Clark County HCP. 

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 248.4 acres and temporarily affect 

821.4 acres of habitat for reptiles covered under the Clark County HCP.28 

Also refer to the section below with the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” for a 

discussion of effects to the Clark County HCP covered reptile species’ movement through 

the Preferred Alternative area.

Burrowing Owls 

Burrowing owls are a California species of special concern and a BLM sensitive species. 

The shoulders of roads, dirt mounds and berms, and other open areas located in the 

vicinity of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment provide suitable habitat for burrowing 

owls, especially where open culverts, ground squirrel burrows, desert tortoise burrows, 

and badger burrows occur. Construction activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, excavation, 

and driving off-road) could result in the removal of active nests, if construction occurs 

during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and/or foraging habitat. 

Since burrowing owls utilize similar habitat as the desert tortoise for nesting and foraging, 

the amount of burrowing owl habitat affected by the Preferred Alternative is the same as 

described for the desert tortoise. The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 

1,509.8 acres and temporarily affect approximately 4,135.2 acres of burrowing owl 

habitat.29

 

27 ICF, 2011. 

28 ICF, 2011. 

29 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-30

Also refer to the section below under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” for a 

discussion of effects to burrowing owl movement through the Preferred Alternative area.

Roosting Bats 

Bridges throughout the Preferred Alternative rail alignment provide potential roosting and 

nursery sites for bats. Caves and mines located in or near the rail alignment, specifically 

within the Clark Mountains, provide potential roosting and nursery sites. Disturbance of 

these roosting and/or nursery sites during construction activities, such as grading, 

excavation, or tunneling, as well as operation of the high-speed passenger trains could 

result in the injury or mortality of roosting bats, representing an adverse effect.30

American Badger 

American badger is a California species of special concern. Suitable habitat for American 

badger occurs in desert scrub habitats located throughout the project area. Construction 

activities such as grubbing, grading, excavation, and off-road travel through American 

badger habitat could result in the injury or mortality of badgers. 

Since American badgers utilize similar habitat as the desert tortoise, the amount of 

affected acreage is the same as described for desert tortoise habitat for the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 1,509.8 acres and 

temporarily affect approximately 4,135.2 acres of American badger habitat. 

Refer to the discussion below under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” for a 

discussion of effects to American badger movement through the Preferred Alternative 

area.

Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Desert bighorn sheep are a fully protected species under CDFG code and a BLM sensitive 

species. Suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep occurs in the Cronese Basin (Cave 

Mountain) and Mountain Pass areas near the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. In 

addition, the rail alignment may act as an additional barrier to desert bighorn sheep 

movement.31

 Construction-related activities in these areas, such as grading, excavation, or 

tunneling, could directly affect desert bighorn sheep by disrupting lambing areas. The 

construction activities could also alter the flow of natural springs, which provide critical 

supply of water. Additionally, desert bighorn sheep could use the rail alignment for 

movement and utilize the tunnels through the Clark Mountains as shelter. If desert 

bighorn sheep are located on the rail alignment, the operation of a high-speed passenger 

train could result in sheep mortality.32

 

30 ICF, 2011. 

31 California Department of Fish and Game. California Wildlife habitat Relationships. 

<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx>. Accessed on February 15, 2011. 

32 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-31

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 57.3 acres and temporarily affect 

approximately 239.1 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat.33

Also refer to the section below under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Movement” for a 

discussion of effects to desert bighorn sheep movement through the Preferred Alternative 

area. 

Potential Effects to Wildlife Movement 

Rail Alignment 

The I-15 freeway is an existing linear barrier to wildlife within the vicinity of the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would primarily be located within 

the existing I-15 freeway corridor and would incorporate fencing, walls, and crash barriers 

which would further limit wildlife crossings across the I-15 freeway. As discussed below, 

the Preferred Alternative would also incorporate culverts that connect to the existing I-15 

freeway culverts, which would allow for existing wildlife crossing patterns under these 

transportation features. 

Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would divert from the existing I-15 freeway 

corridor, such as in areas north of Yermo and the Mountain Pass/Ivanpah area, the rail 

alignment would introduce a new barrier to wildlife movement and create additional 

habitat fragmentation. 

While recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use in the Yermo area has reduced habitat 

quality within and immediately adjacent to the dry lake bed near Yermo, this portion of 

the rail alignment would increase habitat fragmentation and create an additional barrier 

to wildlife movement and may reduce the distribution of genetic material between 

populations. Individual wildlife occurring in this area would be further isolated from 

surrounding populations by the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative in 

this area. 

North of Mountain Pass to the California/Nevada state line (in the Ivanpah Valley), the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would travel away from the I-15 freeway corridor and 

would cause habitat fragmentation by creating a new linear feature through currently 

undeveloped lands. The rail alignment would create a barrier to wildlife movement for 

species including, but not limited to, larger wildlife species like the desert bighorn sheep 

and American badger and smaller wildlife species like the desert tortoise, banded gila 

monster, or burrowing owls. This portion of the rail alignment could isolate or block 

existing habitat areas between it and the I-15 freeway. This could reduce the distribution 

of genetic material between species populations, as individual wildlife occurring in this 

area would be further isolated from surrounding populations. 

 

33 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-32

The installation of appropriately constructed culverts along the proposed route (as 

recommended by Mitigation Measure BIO-19) would mitigate some of these effects for 

smaller wildlife species, such as desert tortoise. However, desert tortoise access to and 

utilization of the isolated block of habitat is expected to be reduced which would limit the 

availability of foraging and population interaction. In regards to larger wildlife species in 

the area, such as desert bighorn sheep, this isolation and blocking of existing habitat could 

also cut off access to available water resources, which would limit habitat viability in the 

area. Mitigation is provided to reduce this adverse effect (the project design shall ensure 

flow for natural drainages equal to or greater than four feet in width, as measured by 

distance between the ordinary high water mark on each side of the drainage, during 

construction and operation as included in Mitigation Measure BIO-19). Additionally, 

the use of tunnels through the Clark Mountains and elevated sections through the Ivanpah 

Valley area would also allow for ongoing wildlife access in the area. 

The Preferred Alternative would also divert from the I-15 freeway corridor for 

approximately seven miles through northern Yermo, which could also cause habitat 

fragmentation by creating a new linear feature through undeveloped lands. Similar to the 

area north of Mountain Pass in the Ivanpah Valley, this portion of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would create a barrier to wildlife movement and could isolate 

habitat on either side of the I-15 freeway corridor. This could reduce the distribution of 

genetic material between species populations, including desert tortoise, Mohave ground 

squirrel, Mojave fringe-toed lizards, burrowing owls, and American badger. The 

individual wildlife occurring in this area would be further isolated from surrounding 

populations. The installation of appropriate construction culverts, as noted above, would 

mitigate some of these effects for smaller wildlife species. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would divert from the I-15 freeway corridor for 

approximately five miles in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. The rail alignment would 

shift into the Clark County ROW within the median of an existing transportation facility 

(Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road), which is surrounded by urban development. If the 

Southern Station site option is ultimately developed as the Las Vegas Station (the 

Preferred Alternative encompasses either the Southern Station or Central Station B), 

approximately 1.8 miles of the rail alignment through the metropolitan Las Vegas area 

between Russell Road and Aldebaran Avenue (including an approximately one-mile 

portion of the rail alignment that would divert from the I-15 freeway north of Hacienda 

Avenue) would not be constructed. No wildlife movement occurs in this area. No new 

linear barriers to wildlife, such as the Clark County HCP covered reptile species, would 

occur in this area due to the presence of the existing I-15 freeway corridor and other 

transportation and urban facilities. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-33

Passenger Stations and Maintenance Facilities 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station (VV3) and OMSF (OMSF 2) and the Baker 

MOW would not introduce a new linear barrier to wildlife movement, since movement 

around the station and maintenance buildings would be maintained. Their proximity to 

the I-15 freeway corridor blunts the potential for the Victorville Station and OMSF to serve 

as a barrier to wildlife movement. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options (Southern Station or Central 

Station B) and the Las Vegas MSF (Wigwam Avenue MSF) would also not introduce a new 

linear barrier to wildlife movement, as these facilities would be located in areas 

surrounded by existing urban development that already precludes wildlife movement. 

Potential Effects to Special Management Lands 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would result in the loss of special management 

lands between Yermo and Mountain Pass. These special management lands provide 

critical habitat for desert tortoise. During operation, the Preferred Alternative would 

result in the permanent conversion of these special management lands to transportation 

use, thereby resulting in a permanent loss of critical habitat for desert tortoise. 

Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, would require specific special 

management lands to be cleared for temporary construction areas. Refer to the 

discussions above under the heading “Effects to Wildlife Species” and subheading “Desert 

Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat” for a further description of potential impact to 

desert tortoise habitat. 

The Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 249.97 acres and temporarily affect 

868.81 acres of Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. The Preferred 

Alternative would also permanently convert 202.98 acres and temporarily affect 531.48 

acres of Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. In total, the Preferred Alternative would 

permanently convert 452.95 acres and temporarily affect 1,400.29 acres of special 

management lands providing critical desert tortoise habitat. The permanent effect to the 

Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat and Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat is about 0.032 percent of each unit’s total acreage. The majority of these effects 

are to designated critical habitat immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway 

corridor.34

 

The impacted critical habitat provides limited functionality due to its proximity to the I-15 

freeway. The proximity also results in increased raven and coyote predation on juvenile 

desert tortoise, a modified vegetation structure due to the presence of non-native weed 

species, and habitat that is not protected from disturbance or human caused mortality. 

 

34 ICF, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-34

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to change the critical habitat function to serve 

the intended conversion purpose or inhibit the ability of the primary constituent’s

elements to be functionally established within the critical habitat. 

In addition, areas of the Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat have also 

sustained substantial losses of acreage from previous large-scale projects, such as the Fort 

Irwin expansion. 

The Preferred Alternative would also permanently and temporarily affect DWMAs. The 

Preferred Alternative would permanently convert 208.32 acres and temporarily affect 

726.36 acres of the Superior-Cronese DWMA. The Preferred Alternative would 

permanently convert 103.02 acres and temporarily affect 290.64 acres of the Shadow 

Valley DWMA. All of the impacts to DWMAs would occur in California.35

The Preferred Alternative would also permanently convert 3.6 acres of Cronese ACEC. 

Potential Effects to Wetlands/Waters of the United States 

The Preferred Alternative would result in direct and indirect effects to wetlands and 

waters of the US. 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, the Applicant initiated the CWA Section 404 

permitting process with the USCAE in May 2010. The Applicant submitted six formal 

jurisdictional delineation reports to the USACE in July 2010, which considered the Death 

Valley area, 36 the Cuddeback Lakes watershed,37 the Ivanpah Valley area, 38 the Jean Dry 

Lake area,39 the Las Vegas watershed,40 and the Roach Dry Lake area.41 The formal 

jurisdictional delineation reports for the Preferred Alternative area are included as 

 

35 ICF, 2011. 

36 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

37 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San Bernardino 

County, California. July 2010. 

38 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California. July 2010. 

39 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, Clark 

County, Nevada. July 2010. 

40 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

41 Huffman-Broadway Group. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, 

Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-35

Appendix F-I to this Final EIS. The delineation reports investigate the presence of 

wetlands and other waters potentially subject to USACE regulation under CWA Section 

404. The delineation reports were conducted in accordance with the CFR definitions of 

jurisdictional waters, USACE regulations, and supporting guidance documents. The 

delineation reports make recommendations to the USACE relative to the presence of 

waters of the US for a final jurisdictional determination. Issuance of a permit for the 

discharge of fill material into waters of the US associated with construction of the 

Preferred Alternative will be part of the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by 

the USACE. 

In addition to the CWA Section 404 permit, the Applicant will apply for certification under 

Section 401 of the CWA.42 Section 401 certification is administered in California through 

the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (in the case of the DesertXpress project the 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) and in Nevada by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection. Issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit by the USACE, and 

Section 401 Certification, are anticipated to follow issuance of the Records of Decision on 

the project by the Cooperating Agencies. The Applicant will be required to comply with 

all conditions and mitigation requirements that result from the Section 404 permit and 

Section 401 Certification. Refer to Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS for further discussion 

of these mitigation measures and permitting processes. 

Direct effects are effects that would occur as a result of ground disturbance, including 

earthwork (clearing, grading, excavation, and fill) to create the rail bed, construction 

vehicle traffic, and staging and storage areas. For this analysis, it was assumed that direct 

effects associated with the Preferred Alternative would be limited to the area within the 

limits of disturbance, and that the area within the proposed ROW would be directly 

affected by conversion to use by the Preferred Alternative. This analysis was carried out 

by overlaying the Preferred Alternative design on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 

minute quadrangle and assuming that all drainages within the Preferred Alternative 

footprint would be filled, with subsequent loss of all natural functions. 

Indirect effects are effects that would occur later in time and could affect the natural 

function of the drainage located outside the Preferred Alternative footprint. This analysis 

determined the area of indirect effects by assuming that all drainages within the study 

area might be indirectly affected by the Preferred Alternative. In general, indirect effects 

occur with the greatest intensity adjacent to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment and 

become less severe with distance. Some effects, such as the effects of dissolved substances 

 

42 Under federal CWA Section 401 every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity which may 

result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification (Certification) that the 

proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards. Most Certifications are issued in connection 

with USACE CWA section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharges. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-36

and suspended particles, may be manifested within 50 feet of the tracks but may extend 

up to 500 feet. Other indirect effects, such as introduction of invasive, non-native weed 

species or effects on wildlife use of and movement through the drainage feature, may 

extend for 1,000 feet. Potential direct and indirect effects that the Preferred Alternative 

could have on wetlands are listed below: 

 Construction of the Preferred Alternative would cause soil and vegetation 

disturbance within the channel and banks of project area drainages. This includes 

permanent disturbance from placement of culverts within the drainages and 

temporary effects resulting from construction activity. 

 During construction, ground disturbance may cause sediment deposition and 

potential for erosion of sediments into the drainages within the study area. In 

addition, construction activity (i.e. driving in and across washes) in or near 

ephemeral washes can cause drainage bed and bank modifications due to the 

erodible nature of the study area soils. These modifications could adversely affect 

hydrology and vegetation within the construction area and immediately 

downstream. 

 Soil disturbance and removal of existing vegetation during construction would 

increase the potential for the spread of invasive, non-native exotic plant species 

into washes within the study area. 

 Construction materials, such as fuel, oil, lubricants, and concrete that may be 

spilled into associated drainages within the study area, could have adverse affects 

on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Some of these effects would be short-term, such as construction effects. Other effects, 

such as placement of culverts and the runoff of contaminants, would be ongoing, continual 

effects. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross about 300 ephemeral drainages and 

the Ivanpah Dry Lake. Refer to Section 3.8.2.3 of this Final EIS for further surface 

water and drainage information relative to the Preferred Alternative. Of these 

approximately 300 drainages, the Mojave River, Duck Creek, Tropicana Wash and 

Flamingo Wash are the largest drainages crossed by the Preferred Alternative. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would permanently remove vegetation from 

these principal drainages and upland vegetation within the other ephemeral drainages. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-37

Based on the formal jurisdictional delineation reports submitted to the USACE by the 

Applicant, a subset of these ephemeral drainages qualify as waters of the US or wetlands 

regulated by the USACE. Of these jurisdictional waters, construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would permanently affect an estimated 5.96 acres of waters of the US 

(ephemeral drainages).43

 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently affect any wetlands, either permanently 

or temporarily.44 

In addition to the 5.96 acres of direct permanent effects to waters of the US, construction 

of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily affect an estimated 0.2 acres of waters of 

the US (ephemeral drainages).45

Refer to Section 3.8.2.3 for further discussion of the Preferred Alternative’s effects to 

waters of the US and wetlands in regards to water quality. 

3.14.2.4 Comparison with Other Action Alternatives 

Tables F-3.14-1 through F-3.14-3 summarize the comparison of biological resources 

effects for the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. Components of the 

Preferred Alternative are highlighted in yellow. 

Rail Alignment Options 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment is largely similar to the Action Alternative B rail 

alignment option articulated in the Draft EIS. Alternative B largely places the rail 

alignments immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway within the freeway ROW. 

 

43 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

44 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 

45 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-38

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

Alternative

Impose 

Barrier to 

Wildlife 

Movement

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Sensitive Plant Community 

Acreage Affected

Desert Tortoise Habitat Acreage 

Affected

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary

No Action Alternative Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Alignment Routings, Including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs), and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 (connecting to Segment 

2A/2B)

Yes, outside 

I-15 corridor 24 0 0 159 832.1

Segment 1 (connecting to Segment 

2C) No 34 0 0 33.45 321.05

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Yes, outside 

I-15 corridor 16 0 4.6 (Mesquite) 171 700

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Yes, outside 

I-15 corridor 12 0 0 151 548

Segment 2C No 12 0 0

108.26 (Side 

Running)

455.17 (Side 

Running)

37.4 (Median) 97.1 (Median)

Segment 3 

Segment 3A No 105 0 0 7.6 40.9

Segment 3B (Modified) No 117

84 (Joshua 

Tree)

2 (Mesquite)

194 (Joshua 

Tree)

13 (Mesquite)

640.45 1,882.5
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-39

Alternative

Impose 

Barrier to 

Wildlife 

Movement

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Sensitive Plant Community 

Acreage Affected

Desert Tortoise Habitat Acreage 

Affected

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary

Segment 4 

Segment 4A Yes, outside 

I-15 corridor 29 0.5 (Mesquite) 0 42.2 371.7

Segment 4B Yes 42 0 0 111.8 500.3

Segment 4C Yes 48 1.9 (Mesquite) 3.1 (Mesquite) 167.7 722.23

Segment 5 

Segment 5A No 49 0 0 0.2 8.7

Segment 5B No 49 0 0 175.5 564.6

Segment 6 

Segment 6A (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

No 16 to 18 0 0 40.2 116.6

Segment 6B (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

No 16 to 18 0 0 32.75 119.99

Segment 6C Yes 26 to 27 0 0 78.2 329.2

Segment 7 

Segment 7A No 0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Segment 7B No 0 0 0 0 0

Segment 7C No 0 0 0 0 0

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 No 0 0 0 93 0
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-40

Alternative

Impose 

Barrier to 

Wildlife 

Movement

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Sensitive Plant Community 

Acreage Affected

Desert Tortoise Habitat Acreage 

Affected

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary

Victorville Station Site 2 No 2 0 0 114.5 0

Victorville Station Site 3 No 1 0 0

205.5 (VV3A) 0

209.78 (VV3B) 0

Victorville OMSF 1 No 0 0 0 92.4 0

Victorville OMSF 2 No 2 0 0 98.31 27.23

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station No 2 0 0 0 0

Las Vegas Central Station A No 0 0 0 0 0

Las Vegas Central Station B No 0 0 0 0 0

Las Vegas Downtown Station No 0 0 0 0 0

Sloan Road MSF46 No 1 0 0 9.7 to 13.9 0

Relocated Sloan MSF No 0 0 0 9.1 11.4

Wigwam Avenue MSF No 1 0 0 0 0

Robindale Avenue MSF No 1 0 0 8.8 0

Frias Substation No 0

4.6 (Mojave 

Creosote) 0 0 0

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility No 1 0 0 3.96 3.45

 

46 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-41

Alternative

Impose 

Barrier to 

Wildlife 

Movement

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings

Sensitive Plant Community 

Acreage Affected

Desert Tortoise Habitat Acreage 

Affected

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary

Technology Options, Including Autotransformers and Electric Utility Corridors (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple 

Unit) None None None None None None

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) None None None None 39.67

84

84

38.95

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-42

Table F-3.14-2 Alternatives Comparison – Biological Resources (2 of 3) 

Alternative

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

Habitat Acreage Affected Effects to:

Permanent Temporary Mojave Fringetoed Lizard

Nesting 

Raptors/ 

Migratory 

Birds

Banded Gila 

Monster

Burrowing 

Owls

No Action Alternative Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Assumed 0

No

No

No

No

Alignment Routings, Including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 (connecting to

Segment 2A/2B) 198.5 803.3 Yes Yes No Yes

Segment 1 (connecting to 

Segment 2C) 85.11 350.77 Yes Yes No Yes

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A 23 863 Yes Yes No Yes

Segment 2A/2B, 2B 40 319 No Yes No Yes

Segment 2C 36 89.1

Yes

(Side Running) Yes No Yes

No (Median)

Segment 3 

Segment 3A 0 70.1 No No No No

Segment 3B 0 61.5 No Yes Yes Yes

Segment 4 

Segment 4A 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes

Segment 4B 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-43

Alternative

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

Habitat Acreage Affected Effects to:

Permanent Temporary Mojave Fringetoed Lizard

Nesting 

Raptors/ 

Migratory 

Birds

Banded Gila 

Monster

Burrowing 

Owls

Segment 4C 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes

Segment 5 

Segment 5A 0 0 No Yes No No

Segment 5B 0 0 No Yes No Yes

Segment 6 

Segment 6A (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

0 0 No No No No

Segment 6B (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

0 0 No Yes No Yes

Segment 6C 0 0 No Yes No Yes

Segment 7 

Segment 7A 0 0 No No No No

Segment 7B 0 0 No No No No

Segment 7C 0 0 No No No No

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 85.1 0 No No No Yes

Victorville Station Site 2 105.2 0 No No No Yes
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-44

Alternative

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

Habitat Acreage Affected Effects to:

Permanent Temporary Mojave Fringetoed Lizard

Nesting 

Raptors/ 

Migratory 

Birds

Banded Gila 

Monster

Burrowing 

Owls

Victorville Station Site 3

205.5 (VV3A) 38.5 (VV3A)

No No No Yes

224 (VV3B) 41 (VV3B)

Victorville OMSF 1 22.6 0 No No No Yes

Victorville OMSF 2 95.61 20.08 No No No Yes

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station 0 0 No No No No

Las Vegas Central Station A 0 0 No No No No

Las Vegas Central Station B 0 0 No No No No

Las Vegas Downtown Station 0 0 No No No No

Sloan Road MSF47 0 0 No Yes No No

Relocated Sloan MSF 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes

Wigwam Avenue MSF 0 0 No No No No

Robindale Avenue MSF 0 0 No No No No

Frias Substation 0 0 No No No Yes

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility 0 0 No Yes No Yes

 

47 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-45

Alternative

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

Habitat Acreage Affected Effects to:

Permanent Temporary Mojave Fringetoed Lizard

Nesting 

Raptors/ 

Migratory 

Birds

Banded Gila 

Monster

Burrowing 

Owls

Technology Options, Including Autotransformer and Electric Utility Corridors (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple 

Unit) None None None None None None

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) 6.66 None None None None None

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-46

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

Alternative

Effects to:

Acres of Special Management 

Roosting Lands Converted

Bats

American 

Badger

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep

Clark County 

MSHCP Covered 

Reptiles

No Action Alternative Assumed to be similar to Preferred Alternative rail segments within the I-15 corridor

Alignment Routings, Including Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) and Alignment Adjustment Areas

Segment 1 Routing

Segment 1 (connecting to

Segment 2A/2B) Yes Yes No No 0

Segment 1 (connecting to 

Segment 2C) Yes Yes No No 0

Segment 2 

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Yes Yes No No 60.9 (Superior-Cronese)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Yes Yes No No 60.7 (Superior-Cronese)

Segment 2C No Yes No No 0

Segment 3 

Segment 3A No Yes No No 0

Segment 3B Yes Yes Yes No

249.97 (Superior-Cronese)

202.98 (Ivanpah)

208.32 (Superior-Cronese 

DWMA)

103.02 (Shadow Valley DWMA)

3.6 (Cronese ACEC)

Segment 4 

Segment 4A Yes Yes Yes No 20.4 (Ivanpah)

13.8 (Mojave National Preserve)

Segment 4B Yes Yes Yes No 0
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-47

Alternative

Effects to:

Acres of Special Management 

Roosting Lands Converted

Bats

American 

Badger

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep

Clark County 

MSHCP Covered 

Reptiles

Segment 4C Yes Yes Yes Yes 0

Segment 5 

Segment 5A No No No Yes 0

Segment 5B Yes Yes No Yes 0

Segment 6 

Segment 6A (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

No Yes No Yes 0

Segment 6B (terminating at Las 

Vegas Southern Station or Las 

Vegas Central Station B)

Yes Yes No Yes 0

Segment 6C Yes Yes No Yes 0

Segment 7 

Segment 7A No No No No 0

Segment 7B No No No No 0

Segment 7C No No No No 0

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options 

Victorville Station Site 1 Yes Yes No No 0

Victorville Station Site 2 No Yes No No 0

Victorville Station Site 3 No Yes No No 0

Victorville OMSF 1 Yes Yes No No 0

Victorville OMSF 2 No Yes No No 0
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-48

Alternative

Effects to:

Acres of Special Management 

Roosting Lands Converted

Bats

American 

Badger

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep

Clark County 

MSHCP Covered 

Reptiles

Las Vegas Area Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options

Las Vegas Southern Station No No No No 0

Las Vegas Central Station A No No No No 0

Las Vegas Central Station B No No No No 0

Las Vegas Downtown Station No No No No 0

Sloan Road MSF48 No Yes No Yes 0

Relocated Sloan MSF No Yes No Yes 0

Wigwam Avenue MSF No Yes No Yes 0

Robindale Avenue MSF No Yes No Yes 0

Frias Substation No No No No 0

Other Facility

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility No Yes No No 0

Technology Options, Including Autotransformers and Electric Utility Corridors (EMU Only)

DEMU (Diesel-Electric Multiple 

Unit) None None None None None

EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) None None None None None

Source: CirclePoint, 2011. 

 

48 The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF considered in 

the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site location was proposed to completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-49

The Action Alternative B, I-15 side running rail alignment would generally result in greater 

impacts to biological resources than would the Alternative A (largely median) rail 

alignment options. Sensitive biological resources are not as likely to existing within the 

median of the I-15 freeway due to its confined nature between existing travel lanes. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would result in lesser effects to 

sensitive plant communities than would Segment 2A/2B, 2A. The Segment 2A/2B, 2B rail 

alignment would impact about 4.6 acres of Mesquite Shrubland just north of Yermo, while 

the Preferred Alternative Segment 2C rail alignment would avoid such impacts since the 

rail alignment would be within the existing I-15 freeway corridor at this location. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment would also result in greater effects to 

sensitive plant communities than would Segment 4A and Segment 4B. Segment 4C would 

result in permanent impacts to 1.9 acres and temporary impacts to 3.1 acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland, while Segment 4A would only permanently impact 0.5 acres of such plant 

habitat. Segment 4B would not result in any impacts to sensitive plant communities. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C would result in substantially fewer impacts to 

desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel habitat as compared to Segment 2A/2B, which 

would traverse through western and northern Barstow outside of an existing 

transportation corridor. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 2C would also avoid impacts to roosting bats 

associated with Segment 2A/2B, as the rail alignment would be within an existing 

transportation corridor with no adjacent rock outcroppings. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 3B rail alignment would also result in greater effects to 

special management lands than would Segment 3A. Segment 3B would result in impacts 

to Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat, Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat, and Cronese ACEC, where as Segment 3A would not result in any impacts to 

these special management lands. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment would impact a desert tortoise 

relocation area for the ISEGS project further degrading tortoise habitat in this area. 

However, Segment 4C would avoid effects to special management lands that would be 

affected by Segment 4A. Segment 4A would impact the Ivanpah Tortoise Critical Habitat 

and Mojave National Preserve. 

In regards to desert bighorn sheep, the Preferred Alternative Segment 4C rail alignment 

could result in greater effects than Segment 4A. The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C 

rail alignment would deviate from the existing I-15 freeway corridor within an area of 

suitable habitat for this species and would create a new linear barrier. This portion of the 

rail alignment could isolate or block existing habitat east of the rail alignment and west of 

the existing I-15 corridor. The Segment 4A rail alignment would follow the existing I-15 

freeway corridor and would not introduce a new linear barrier through previously 

undisturbed lands. Since the Segment 4B alignment would also deviate from the I-15 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-50

freeway corridor in this same area north of Mountain Pass, the Preferred Alternative 

Segment 4C and Segment 4B rail alignments would have similar effects to desert bighorn 

sheep. 

The Preferred Alternative Segment 4C would result in greater potential effects to wetlands 

and waters of the US than would Segment 4A and Segment 4B. Segment 4C would cross 

approximately 48 streams, where as Segment 4A would only cross 29 streams and 

Segment 4B would cross 42 streams. Segment 4C would, however, avoid traversing 

through the dry Ivanpah Lake bed as would Segment 4B. 

Passenger Stations and Maintenance Facilities 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would result in greater effects to desert 

tortoise habitat than would VV1 and VV2. The Victorville Station would permanently 

convert about 224 acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 93 acres and 114.5 acres 

for VV1 and VV2, respectively. The Victorville Station would result in temporary impacts 

to 41 acres of desert tortoise habitat, while VV1 and VV2 would not result in any 

temporary impacts to such habitat. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would also result in greater effects to desert 

tortoise habitat than OMSF 1. The Victorville OMSF would permanently convert 195.2

acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 92.4 acres impacted by OMSF 1. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would also result in greater effects to Mohave 

ground squirrel habitat than would VV1 and VV2. The Victorville Station would 

permanently convert up to 224 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat, as compared to 

85.1 acres and 105.2 acres for VV1 and VV2, respectively. The Victorville Station would 

result in temporary impacts to 41 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat, while VV1 and 

VV2 would not result in any temporary impacts to such habitat. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would also result in greater effects to Mohave 

ground squirrel habitat than OMSF 1. The Victorville OMSF would permanently convert 

about 339.7 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat, as compared to 22.6 acres impacted 

by OMSF 1. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would also avoid potential impacts to 

roosting bats associated with VV1. There are no rock outcroppings within the vicinity of 

Victorville Station as there are with VV1. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville Station would result in greater effects to streams than 

would VV1, as the Victorville Station would cross one stream. However, the Victorville 

Station would have lesser wetland effects than would VV2, which would cross two streams. 

The Preferred Alternative Victorville OMSF would also have greater effects to wetlands, as 

OMSF 2 would cross two streams where as OMSF 1 would not cross any. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-51

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Southern Station site option would result in greater 

effects to streams than the other Las Vegas Station site options. The Southern Station site 

option would cross two streams, while the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Central Station 

B site option, Las Vegas Central Station A, and Las Vegas Downtown Station would not 

result in any stream crossings. 

The Preferred Alternative Las Vegas MSF would result in fewer effects to biological 

resources than the Sloan Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF49 but similar effects as the 

Robindale Avenue MSF. Both the Wigwam Avenue and Robindale MSFs would be located 

within an existing urban, developed (and thus, disturbed) environment, whereas the Sloan 

Road MSF and Relocated Sloan MSF would be on currently undeveloped lands. 

3.14.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-2150 identified in Section 3.14.5 of the 

Draft EIS would be applied to the Preferred Alternative to reduce and avoid adverse effects 

to biological resources. The mitigation measures from Section 3.14.5 of the Draft EIS 

are included below, with revisions incorporated in response to addressing public comment 

on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Mandatory Environmental 

Awareness Training Program 

All personnel working within the project area shall attend an environmental 

awareness training program. The program shall be presented by qualified 

biologists and include information on the life history of special-status species that 

may be encountered during construction activities, the legal protection for each 

species, the definition of “take” for listed species, measures to protect specialstatus species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker shall 

need to employ to avoid adverse effects to individual sensitive species, a detailed 

description of environmental project commitments as described in the decision 

records (i.e. Record of Decision), ROW grants, and Biological Opinion, and 

penalties for violation of Federal and state environmental laws. 

 

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

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

completely replace the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

50 The Draft EIS did not include a Mitigation Measure BIO-12. To correct this error from the Draft EIS, the 

mitigation numbering for the biological resources mitigation measures has been revised. (This error was also 

corrected in the Supplemental Draft EIS). 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-52

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and 

Install Environmental Fencing 

Preconstruction surveys for special-status species shall be conducted by qualified 

biologists (third party contractor approved by BLM, NPS, and USFWS) prior to the 

start of construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be tailored for specific species 

based on the species biology, natural history, and regulatory requirements. The 

locations for any individual or population of sensitive species within the limit of 

disturbance shall be documented with a GPS unit and reported to the state and 

Federal regulatory agencies. 

Mohave ground squirrel surveys are only valid for 12 months. Therefore, they shall 

be done no more than 12 months prior to the start of construction in a particular 

area. If no Mohave ground squirrels are found during the surveys, no additional 

mitigation would be required. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard surveys shall occur no more than 24 hours prior to the 

start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted within the work area and a 100-

foot buffer. Any Mojave fringe-toed lizards observed in the work area shall be 

allowed to move out of the work area. Those that become trapped in the work area 

shall be captured and moved to nearby suitable habitat outside of the work area. 

Qualified biologists shall conduct preconstruction surveys for banded gila 

monsters no more than 24 hours prior to the start of construction within all 

suitable habitat in Segments 3 and 4. Surveys shall be conducted within the work 

area and a 100-foot buffer. Any gila monsters observed within the work areas shall 

be allowed to move out of the work area and those that become trapped within the 

work area shall be carefully moved to nearby suitable habitat. The handler shall 

have the necessary CDFG permit to handle and move lizards. 

Qualified biologists shall conduct preconstruction surveys for BLM sensitive and 

Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species no more than 48 hours prior to the 

start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted within the work area and include 

a 100-foot buffer. Any sensitive reptile species observed within the work areas 

shall be allowed to move out of the work area and those that become trapped 

within the work area shall be very carefully moved to nearby suitable habitat. 

The Applicant shall implement the following measures, to avoid disturbance of 

tree, shrub- or ground-nesting special-status and migratory birds and raptors: 

 If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season 

(generally between March 1 and August 15), a qualified wildlife biologist shall 

conduct focused nesting surveys within the appropriate habitat and an 

appropriate buffer distance up to 0.25 mile from the limit of project 

disturbance for nesting raptors. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-53

 The focused surveys shall include tree- and shrub-nesting birds, groundnesting birds, and cliff-nesting birds. The surveys shall be conducted within 

the two-week period before initiation of construction activities in a particular 

area between March 1 and August 15. If no active nests are detected, then no 

additional mitigation would be required. 

 Follow-up surveys shall be required on a monthly basis during the breeding 

season. If surveys indicate that active nests are present in any areas that would 

be directly affected by construction activities, a no-disturbance buffer would be 

established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site 

until after a wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged (usually 

late June to mid-July). The extent of these buffers shall be determined by a 

wildlife biologist in consultation with CDFG in California and NDOW in 

Nevada and will depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line 

of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and 

other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. These factors 

shall be analyzed to make an appropriate decision on buffer distances. 

A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for active burrows 

according to CDFG guidelines for burrowing owl (1993 and 1995). The 

preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the work 

area and include a 250-foot buffer and within the 2-week period before initiation 

of construction activities to locate active burrowing owl burrows. The 

preconstruction surveys shall include a nesting season survey and a wintering 

season survey the season immediately preceding construction. If no burrowing 

owls are detected, no further mitigation would be required. 

Focused surveys for the presence of sensitive bat species shall be conducted in 

areas that provide suitable roosting or nursery habitat. If a roosting site is active 

and cannot be avoided, the Applicant shall consult with a bat expert in conjunction 

with CDFG in California and NDOW in Nevada to develop appropriate exclusion 

methods. If it is determined that a nursery sites is active and cannot be avoided, 

construction activities that would disturb the nursing bats shall be delayed until 

the breeding cycles for the bats are completed. The Applicant shall consult with a 

bat specialist in order to determine when the breeding cycle for bats. The 

Applicant shall document the results of any exclusion or avoidance of 

roosting/nursery sites for bats. 

Qualified biologists shall conduct preconstruction surveys for American badger no 

more than 48 hours prior to the start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted 

within the work area and a 100-foot buffer. Any American badgers observed in the 

work area shall be allowed to leave the work area. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-54

Construction activities conducted within suitable desert bighorn sheep habitat in 

the Mountain Pass area of the Preferred Alternative shall not occur during the 

period of the year when desert bighorn sheep are lambing (from January 1 to April 

30). If construction activities must occur during the desert bighorn sheep lambing 

period, pre-construction surveys for lambing desert bighorn sheep shall be 

conducted prior to construction. If lambing desert bighorn sheep are found, then 

the Applicant shall consult with the BLM and CDFG to identify appropriate 

avoidance measures. 

Qualified botanists shall conduct preconstruction surveys for sensitive botanical 

species and invasive, non-native weed species prior to initiating construction of the 

project. If sensitive botanical species are observed within the temporary 

construction area of effect, avoidance and minimization measures shall be applied 

by the Applicant. 

Temporary environmental fencing shall be installed around sensitive biological 

resources prior to the commencement of on-site project construction in order to 

avoid unnecessary adverse effects to the resource. USFWS and BLM approved 

desert tortoise exclusionary fencing shall be erected by a qualified biologist within 

portions of the Preferred Alternative that occur in desert tortoise habitat. 

Temporary desert tortoise fencing shall be installed in areas of construction that 

are beyond the perimeter of the ROW or in areas where construction staging would 

occur. This includes fencing all work areas, temporary equipment and vehicle 

yards, and material staging and storage areas. Desert tortoise exclusionary fencing 

and clearance surveys shall be undertaken no more than 10 days prior to initiating 

construction activities. After installation of the temporary fencing, the entire 

Preferred Alternative shall be surveyed for desert tortoises by a qualified biologist. 

Following the procedures and precautions outlined in the Desert Tortoise Council’s 

guidelines, all desert tortoise pallets and burrows within the survey areas shall be 

examined and excavated by hand, either by or under the direct supervision of an 

authorized biologist, and unoccupied features collapsed to prevent re-entry. After 

installation, the fence shall be regularly inspected to ensure its integrity. Desert 

tortoise encountered during preconstruction surveys shall be relocated off the 

Preferred Alternative ROW based on a USFWS, BLM, and CDFG approved projectspecific Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan. At a minimum the Desert Tortoise 

Relocation Plan shall require the desert tortoises found within the Preferred 

Alternative area be removed to undisturbed areas beyond the construction site and 

relocated within their own territory where they may be familiar with alternate 

burrows. If no natural burrows are available, artificial burrows shall be created 

following the Desert Tortoise Council’s guidelines. Only biologists authorized by 

the USFWS shall handle desert tortoises and shall follow the guidelines established 

by the Desert Tortoise Council. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-55

The Applicant shall install and maintain permanent exclusionary fencing along the 

open portion of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment in areas of suitable 

bighorn sheep habitat. The fencing shall be constructed to ensure that bighorn 

sheep cannot access the rails or any culverts/tunnels. In addition, prior to 

initiating construction, temporary exclusionary fencing shall be placed around all 

sensitive botanical species that occur within the temporary construction areas. 

These areas shall be signed for avoidance by construction equipment and 

personnel. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Conduct Construction Monitoring

The following measures shall be implemented during project construction: 

 Qualified biologists shall be on site during any construction activity within or 

near special-status species habitat to ensure the implementation and 

compliance of environmental commitments and avoidance measures. 

 The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if dangers to desert 

tortoises or other special-status wildlife species arise and allow work to proceed 

after the hazard has been removed. The USFWS Las Vegas and Ventura 

Ecological Services Offices, BLM Field Offices and CDFG must be notified of 

any desert tortoise injury or death resulting from project-related activities. In 

addition, the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement shall also be notified in 

accordance with reporting requirements. 

 As part of the monitoring, the biologists shall check construction areas 

immediately before construction activities each day to ensure that no specialstatus wildlife species have moved into the construction area. If tortoises are 

discovered within the construction area they shall be relocated by an 

authorized biologist based on the Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan. 

 All construction activities shall be confined to the designated work areas. 

Grubbing of vegetation shall only be to the extent necessary for construction 

and shall be limited to areas designated for that. An authorized biologist(s) 

shall be present during all initial brushing or grading activities within the 

project area. Overnight parking and storage of equipment and materials would 

be limited to previously disturbed areas or areas identified in the BLM ROW 

grant. 

 All vehicle traffic shall be restricted to existing roads or land management 

agency approved newly constructed roads. The Applicant shall ensure that 

cross-country travel for construction purposes outside of the areas of desert 

tortoise fencing is prohibited. 

 Construction vehicles within sensitive species habitat shall not exceed 15 miles 

per hour. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-56

 A litter-control program shall be implemented during construction. The 

program shall include the use of covered, raven-proof trash receptacles, daily 

removal of trash from work areas to the trash receptacles, and proper disposal 

of trash in a designated solid waste disposal facility. Precautions shall also be 

taken to prevent trash from blowing out of construction vehicles. 

 No pets or firearms shall be permitted in the work area. 

 Both pre- and post-construction photographs shall be taken to document 

sensitive habitat conditions within the limits of project disturbance. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid the Dispersal of Invasive, Non-Native 

Weed Species into Uninfested Areas

To avoid the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native weed species into 

uninfested areas, the Applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the 

project plans and specifications: 

 Use only certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw 

in upland areas). 

 Coordinate with BLM field offices and National Park Service (NPS) to ensure 

that the appropriate best BMPs are implemented. 

 Educate construction supervisors and managers on weed identification and the 

importance of controlling and preventing the spread of invasive, non-native 

weed species. 

 Clean equipment at designated wash stations before and after entering the 

project construction area. 

 An invasive, non-native weed species survey of the Preferred Alternative ROW, 

including temporary work areas, shall be completed prior to initiating project 

construction. All areas disturbed by the Preferred Alternative shall be surveyed 

using approximately 30-foot meandering transects. Populations of invasive, 

non-native weed species shall be identified and mapped using global 

positioning systems (GPS). 

 Develop an approved Invasive Weed Species Monitoring and Treatment Plan to 

detect and treat any noxious invasive, non-native weed species in the 

construction area. The plan shall include methods for monitoring, treating and 

reporting invasive, non-native weed species infestations within the 

construction area. The Invasive Weed Species Monitoring and Treatment Plan 

shall be drafted and submitted to BLM prior to initiating construction as part 

of the BLM ROW grant requirements. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-57

Mitigation Measures BIO-5: Confine Construction Equipment to a 

Designated Work Zone (Including Access Roads) at Each Project Site 

Before construction begins, the work zone shall be clearly staked and flagged. 

During the environmental training program, construction personnel shall be 

informed about the importance of avoiding ground-disturbing activities outside 

the designated work area. During construction, the construction monitors and 

resource monitors shall ensure that construction equipment and associated 

activities avoid any disturbance of native vegetation and sensitive resources 

outside the designated work zones. Contaminant run-off shall be contained within 

the temporary construction boundaries and clean-up efforts shall be initiated 

immediately. Clean-up procedures shall be coordinated with the responsible 

agency to insure additional resource damage does not occur. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Reestablish Preconstruction Site 

Conditions to Allow Revegetation

Disturbed areas of native vegetation shall be restored to preconstruction site 

conditions. To ensure that effects on native plant species and communities are not 

long-term, native topsoil shall be stockpiled within the project ROW and 

immediately replaced, and natural site topography (including necessary 

amendments to soil structure) reestablished to allow natural colonization of plant 

species. 

In California and Nevada, all succulents within the limits of disturbance shall be 

relocated either off the Preferred Alternative rail alignment onto undeveloped BLM 

administered public lands or maintained within a temporary nursery (located 

within the ROW) and replanted within the ROW as part of site restoration 

activities. 

In areas that require immediate stabilization, non-vegetative techniques that allow 

native species to reestablish can be used, including use of weed- and disease-free 

mulch, erosion blankets, or rolled organic fiber material. 

Erosion control seed mixes may be necessary on selected sites. If sites need to be 

stabilized through seeding, the seed mix would be composed entirely of native and 

locally occurring species appropriate for stabilizing local site conditions. All seed 

mixes shall be approved by the BLM, NPS, and CDFG prior to initiating restoration 

activities. Special attention shall be given to erosion control near ephemeral 

drainages and within playas. 

Site-specific erosion control measures (nonvegetation or mechanical techniques) 

shall be determined on a site-specific basis by a vegetation specialist and project 

engineer. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-58

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Retain and Stockpile Topsoil 

Native topsoil shall be removed from areas of permanent disturbance and 

stockpiled within the ROW. To avoid altering local hydrologic conditions or flood 

flows, spoils materials shall not be placed in sensitive habitat areas or within or 

adjacent to ephemeral drainages. Prior to disturbance, native topsoil shall be 

excavated and stockpiled for later reapplication in native vegetation areas. 

Separate stockpiling areas shall be identified and clearly marked for each different 

vegetation type as appropriate. The exact depths shall be determined for each 

native vegetation type and depend upon the stratigraphy and soil profiles 

(estimated to be 6-12 inches in depth). The excavated soil depths shall exceed the 

restored soil depths to allow for soil compaction during placement. The stockpiled 

soil shall not be covered to minimize damage to propagation material from heated 

soil conditions but it shall be protected from construction activity and signed to 

identify it as a protected resource. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Restore Natural Site Topography 

The Applicant shall be responsible for restoring the natural site topography to preproject contours. The restored topography shall mimic the pre-project condition 

to the greatest extent possible. Minor modifications may be required to conform 

with post-project site condition. Construction area soil compaction shall be 

treated using grubbing, raking, and other BLM approved soil decompaction 

techniques as part of the project restoration. Proper compaction of the subsurface 

material and plow furrows is necessary to help prevent surface and subsurface 

migration of water along the plow or trench furrow, and to prevent trench 

settlement. The reapplied topsoil in the ROW shall be left in roughened condition 

to facilitate the establishment of vegetation and reduce the potential for erosion. 

Excessive passes of finish grading equipment that would compact topsoil shall be 

avoided. Upon completion of the grading operations, no further vehicular traffic 

shall be allowed, other than necessary mitigation planting equipment. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Implement Erosion Control Measures as 

Appropriate 

An erosion control and restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented to 

control short-term and long-term erosion and sedimentation effects and to restore 

soils and native vegetation in areas affected by construction activities. The plan 

shall include requirements of applicable erosion control ordinances and grading 

permits and shall implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control as necessary. 

The erosion control plan shall be drafted and submitted to the BLM prior to 

initiating construction as part of the BLM ROW grant requirements. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-59

In areas that require immediate stabilization, non-vegetative techniques that allow 

native species to reestablish can be used, including use of weed- and disease-free 

mulch, erosion blankets, or rolled organic fiber material. The use of such measures 

shall be identified in the SWPPP or recommended by a soil or civil engineer based 

on slope, soil type, or other site factors as necessary and may be required later in 

the design phase.

Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Obtain a Tree or Plant Removal Permit 

from San Bernardino County and the Nevada Division of Forestry 

This permit is issued in compliance with San Bernardino County Development 

Code Subsection 88.01.050 for removal of regulated plants. The Applicant shall 

comply with all provisions of the Permit. A permit shall be required from the 

Nevada Division of Forestry and/or the BLM in order to relocate succulents within 

the project alignment. The Applicant shall also comply with the California Desert 

Native Desert Plants Act, consistent with BLM regulations. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for the Loss of Sensitive 

Vegetation Communities

The Applicant shall compensate for the loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

prior to initiating construction. Compensation ratios shall be based on site-specific 

information and determined through coordination with state and Federal agencies 

(CDFG and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and BLM). This sitespecific information will supplement the executed studies for the Preferred 

Alternative, including the 2010 botanical survey in California near Mountain Pass 

(included as Appendix F-N to this Final EIS). Compensation should be provided 

at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre restored or created for every 1 acre 

removed/disturbed) and may be a combination of onsite restoration/creation, 

offsite restoration, or mitigation credits. The Applicant shall develop and 

implement a restoration and monitoring plan that describes enhancement of 

sensitive communities, creation, and monitoring over a select time period. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-12:51 Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and 

Identify Sensitive Areas

Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment crosses the Mojave River, specific 

areas of important riparian vegetation shall be marked with orange fencing and the 

limits of disturbance narrowed to reduce effects to sensitive vegetation. 

 

51 The Draft EIS did not include a Mitigation Measure BIO-12. To correct this error from the Draft EIS, 

Mitigation Measure BIO-13 from the Draft EIS is reflected as Mitigation Measure BIO-12 in this Final 

EIS (This error was also corrected in the Supplemental Draft EIS). Subsequent mitigation measure numbers 

were revised accordingly.) 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-60

Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Avoid Known Special-Status Plant 

Populations During Project Design

To the extent possible, the Applicant shall design the project to avoid special-status 

plant populations. The Applicant shall comply with the minimum survey and 

mitigation standards as required by the BLM Manual 6840-1. Where avoidance is 

infeasible, the Applicant shall focus on minimizing the width of construction work 

areas in and around special-status plant populations. Before construction, specialstatus plant populations shall be demarcated with temporary orange construction 

fencing and posted as a restricted area. Depending on the proximity of the 

populations to the construction work area, populations shall be monitored to 

ensure adverse effects on special-status plant populations are avoided. If effects on 

special-status plant populations are unavoidable, the Applicant shall implement 

Mitigation Measure BIO-15 described below. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-14: Compensate for Adverse Effects on 

Special-Status Plant Populations

If effects on a special-status plant population are unavoidable the Applicant shall 

coordinate with USFWS and CDFG to determine the appropriate mitigation 

strategy. If affected plants are listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), the appropriate take permits would be obtained from USFWS. Currently 

accepted mitigation of effects on special-status plants includes acquisition and 

preservation of nearby occupied habitat, or habitat creation at a ratio determined 

by the regulatory agency. Transplantation of affected populations is not 

considered a viable mitigation option. Creation of habitats with high levels of 

endemism, such as vernal pools, is effective only with stringent agency 

management guidelines. The Applicant shall coordinate with USFWS to develop 

an effective mitigation and monitoring plan for specific vernal pool plants in 

conjunction with the construction of compensatory vernal pool habitat. 

Alternatively, the Applicant could acquire and preserve nearby high-quality 

occupied habitat, with the Applicant responsible for the long-term habitat 

management. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Prepare a Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan 

A Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan shall be developed in conjunction with the 

USFWS Las Vegas and Ventura Ecological Services Offices, BLM, NPS, and the 

CDFG. The relocation plan shall outline procedures and protocols to follow when 

tortoises need to be relocated out of the areas of disturbance. The relocation plans 

shall include: 

 Clearance procedures for construction areas; 

 Relocation procedures; 

 Procedures for determining the health of tortoises; 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-61

 Relocation areas; 

 Methods that shall be used to manage and protect relocation areas; 

 Monitoring for short and long term success of the plan; and 

 Permitted activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-16: Prepare Final Mitigation Monitoring 

Report 

No more than 90 days after the completion of construction, the monitoring 

biologists shall prepare a report for USFWS, BLM, and state agencies. The report 

shall include the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the results of 

preconstruction and construction monitoring including the number of desert 

tortoises excavated and moved. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-17: Implement Mitigation Measures Outlined 

by the Nevada USFWS Ecological Services Office to Protect Desert 

Tortoises 

In accordance with the USFWS guidance, mitigation fees (2008 fees are $753 per 

acre) for disturbance to Mojave Desert Tortoise habitat on BLM administered 

public lands in Nevada shall be paid by the Applicant.52

Mitigation Measure BIO-18: Compensate for the Permanent Loss of 

Desert Tortoise Habitat

The Applicant shall provide compensation for the permanent loss of desert tortoise 

habitat. Compensation for loss of habitat in California shall be provided by the 

Applicant according to BLM, USFWS, and CDFG requirements. Current 

requirements for loss of desert tortoise habitat are based on a formula of 5:1 inside 

DWMAs and 1:1 outside of DWMAs. For the purposes of the Preferred Alternative, 

changes to the compensation formula must be reviewed and approved by the 

USFWS, NPS, and CDFG. 

For Preferred Alternative-related loss of habitat in Nevada, the Applicant shall 

follow the mitigation measures outlined by the Nevada USFWS Ecological Offices 

for the protection of desert tortoises. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-19: Construct Exclusion Fencing, Culverts, 

and Wildlife Crossings 

The Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad line that match 

existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to 

 

52 Hastey et al., 1991. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-62

serve as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals 

to allow for wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoises and 

other wildlife to pass under the proposed rail alignment. The project design shall 

ensure flow for natural drainages equal to or greater than four feet in width (as 

measured by the distance between the ordinary high water mark on each side of 

the drainage) during Preferred Alternative construction or operation in order to 

reduce potential effects to wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert 

tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. The culverts and fencing would be designed 

and spacing determined through coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and EPA to ensure they meet agency 

wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-20: Compensate for the Permanent Loss of 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat

If Mohave ground squirrels are determined to be present in the project area, 

compensatory lands shall be purchased by the Applicant to mitigate for the 

permanent loss of suitable habitat. Acreage of suitable habitats that shall be 

permanently affected by the segments alignments, associated stations, and 

operation and maintenance facilities is presented in Draft EIS Table 3.3-11. The 

mitigation ratios and the location of the compensatory lands shall be determined 

through coordination with CDFG pursuant to Section 2081. 

Mitigation Measure BIO-21: Avoid Active Burrows or Passively 

Relocate Owls

If burrowing owls are detected within 250 feet of proposed construction within the 

project area, the following measures shall be implemented: 

 Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 

through August 31). 

 If avoidance is the preferred method of dealing with potential effects, no 

disturbance shall occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the nonbreeding season or within 250 feet during the breeding season. 

If destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the non-nesting season 

(September 1–January 31), passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing one-way 

doors at burrow entrances) shall be used instead of trapping and active relocation. 

At least one week will be necessary to accomplish passive relocation and allow owls 

to acclimate to alternate burrows. Unsuitable burrows that will not be destroyed in 

the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative shall be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of 

debris). 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-63

3.14.4 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The incorporation of the above mitigation measures would mitigate permanent effects 

related to construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative. Implementation of 

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-21 would minimize and reduce potential 

temporary and permanent effects to biological resources. This includes the reclamation 

and restoration of temporary construction impacts with the ultimate goal to restore these 

areas to pre-disturbance conditions (Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-11). The 

restoration of temporary construction areas reduced permanent effects to native 

vegetation communities by accelerating the natural succession rate of the temporarily 

impacted areas as opposed to natural re-vegetation. This mitigation to restore native 

vegetation would also minimize permanent effect to sensitive wildlife species. In addition, 

implementation of the desert tortoise mitigation (Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, 

and BIO-16 through BIO-19) would reduce or eliminate the potential for direct desert 

tortoise mortality and minimize the incidental take of desert tortoise to a level acceptable 

to the USFWS. 

Even with mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would result in the permanent conversion 

of lands identified as sensitive habitat areas. Specifically, the Preferred Alternative would 

result in the permanent loss of native vegetation communities, sensitive plant 

communities, and special-status plant populations in areas where permanent project 

features would be located. Following mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would still 

result in the permanent loss of sensitive wildlife habitat, including desert tortoise habitat, 

suitable habitat for the Mohave ground squirrel, Mojave fringe-toed lizard habitat, banded 

gila monster habitat, habitat for reptile species covered under the Clark County HCP, 

burrowing owl habitat, American badger habitat, desert bighorn sheep habitat, and BLM 

special management lands. 
Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Primm

Jean

Segment 6A/6B/6C

Segment 5A/5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.14.4:

Biological Resources (4) F-3.14-1

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Large Scale Tortoise

Translocation Site

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to incorporate the Large Scale Tortoise Translocation Site in the legend.
Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Segment 2C

Segment 1

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Ord-Rodman DWMA

Fremont-Kramer DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

0

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Boulder Rd

Dale Evans Pky

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

15

TCA 1B

0

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

4

5

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Biological Resources (1)

FIG

F-3.14-2

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

TCA 1B
Lenwood Barstow

Yermo

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Ord-Rodman DWMA Ord-Rodman DWMA

0

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 2A Segment 2C

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

67

65

67

69 67

3

3 11

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C North Main St.

0

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Legend

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

3

67

69 3

11

28

67

67

65

67

54

Biological Resources (2)

FIG

F-3.14-3

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Segment 4C

Baker

Halloran

Springs

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Shadow Valley DWMA

Ivanpah DWMA

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

41

15

79

53 4

6

2

17

49 49

36

36 49 17

49 17

49

17

17

34 36

17 49

49 49

35 36

23

48 36

29

40

15

49

17

Ivanpah DWMA

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

Segment 3B 15

Shadow Valley DWMA

4

5

Biological Resources (3)

FIG

F-3.14-4

Legend

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

1 inch equals 5 miles NORTH

0 5 2.5

Miles

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

28

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Primm

Tunnels

Baker MOW
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5 B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada California

Biological Resources (4)

FIG

F-3.14-5

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

NO

R

TH

0 6 3

Miles

Legend

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Large Scale Tortoise

Translocation Site
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E

.

T

r

o

p

i

c

a

n

a

A

v

e

Las Vegas B vl d

Segment 6 B Robindale Av

e

.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

W

.

R

u

s

s

e

l

l

R

d

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

160

Biological Resources (5)

FIG

F-3.14-6

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NO

R

T

H

0 2 1

Miles

Legend

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.14-70

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-1 

3.15 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

3.15.1 SECTION 4(F) 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 23 

U.S.C 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States 

Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the 

countryside and public park and recreation land, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 

historic sites.”

Section 4(f) states that the Secretary of Transportation “may approve a transportation 

program or project . . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, 

recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or 

land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the 

federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only 

if: 

1. there is no prudent and feasible avoidance alternative to the use of the land from 

the Section 4(f) property; and 

2. the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

Section 4(f) property resulting from the use.1

There are two broad classes of Section 4(f) uses: direct and constructive. 

A direct use occurs when a property protected by Section 4(f) is permanently incorporated 

into a transportation facility or is temporarily occupied, causing minor effects that are 

subsequently restored. Removal of a historic/cultural property is considered a direct use. 

Constructive use can occur when there is no direct use, but when the proximity impacts of 

the project on the property or resource protected by Section 4(f) are so severe that the 

activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property or resource for protection are 

substantially impaired. Five criteria are used to evaluate this type of use: 

 Noise: For constructive use to occur, noise must substantially interfere with the 

use of the Section 4(f) property sensitive to noise, such as amphitheaters, 

campgrounds, and properties where significant attributes include serenity and 

quiet. 

 Vibration: For constructive use to occur, vibration must be substantial enough to 

result in damage or substantially diminish the use of historic structures, buildings 

or other resources. 

 

1

 49 U.S.C. 303 (c) 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-2 

 Property access: For constructive use to occur, the transportation facility must 

substantially restrict access to the Section 4(f) property. 

 Visual/Aesthetic character: For constructive use to occur, the transportation 

facility must result in substantial impairment to the visual qualities of the Section 

4(f) property, such as the obstruction of visual resources that contribute to the 

setting and value of the property. 

 Ecological intrusion: For constructive use to occur, the transportation facility 

must substantially affect the value of wildlife habitat and/or access to a Federal, 

state, or local wildlife refuge or area, including waterfowl production areas and 

refuges. 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts2 (FRA Procedures) require that 

a Section 4(f) determination be prepared prior to the approval of any FRA action which 

requires the use of any Section 4(f)-protected properties.3

 FRA Procedures Section 12(d) 

sets forth the minimum level of information for a Section 4(f) determination. 

The implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

permit the head of a Federal Agency to withhold from public disclosure information about 

the “location, character, or ownership of a historic property when disclosure may cause a 

significant invasion of privacy; risk harm to the historic property; or impede the use of a 

traditional religious site by practitioners...” 36 CFR 800.11(c). As described below, FRA 

underwent an extensive cultural resource identification process and has identified one 

archeological resource qualifying as a Section 4(f) property that would be affected by the 

Segment 3 alignment alternatives presented in both the Draft EIS and the Supplemental 

Draft EIS. As outlined below, FRA developed an avoidance alternative in cooperation with 

BLM and the other Cooperating Agencies. FRA has conducted a thorough analysis of the 

potential impacts of the alignment alternatives on this resource and identified the 

Preferred Alternative alignment that would avoid a 4(f) use. 

After extensive tribal consultation, coordination with BLM, and a site visit to the resource 

with tribal members, FRA representatives determined that the resource is significant to 

Native American Tribes and would be in danger of irreparable harm in the form of 

vandalism and theft should the location and nature of the resource be disclosed to the 

public. For those reasons, FRA has determined that public disclosure places the resource 

in risk of serious harm and will withhold information that might identify the location and 

character of the resource. However, a detailed analysis has been provided to FRA and 

Cooperating Agency decision makers, which will allow them to fully understand the 

Section 4(f) issues presented by the various alignment alternatives. 

 

2

 64 FR 28546, May 26, 1999. 

3

 FRA Procedures, §§ 3(g) and 12(b) (4). 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-3 

As will be fully described and documented below, the Preferred Alternative would not 

result in the direct or constructive use of any Section 4(f) property. 

FRA has prepared this Final Section 4(f) evaluation to more fully describe the process FRA 

followed to reach the conclusion that the Preferred Alternative does not result in a use of 

any Section 4(f) property. 

3.15.2 SECTION 4(F) AND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

The consideration of cultural resources under Section 4(f) differs from their consideration 

under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),4 particularly Section 106 of the 

NHPA. 

Section 4(f) applies to programs and projects undertaken by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) that use publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and 

wildlife refuges, and cultural sites (historical or archaeological), whether publicly or 

privately owned, that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register) - the Nation’s official list of properties recognized for their significance 

in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Section 4(f) does 

not apply to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) or the National Park Service (NPS), but does apply to FHWA and FRA. FRA and 

FHWA are modal administrations of USDOT and must comply with Section 4(f), generally 

in conjunction with the environmental review process. 

In contrast, Section 106 imposes different obligations that apply to all Federal agencies. 

Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of the action on any 

property (site, district, building, structure, or object) that is included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. An adverse effect on a property would be one that 

endangers the eligibility for inclusion on the National Register. 

Under Section 106 eligibility for the National Register is determined by the lead Federal 

agency in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and Native American Tribes. This eligibility 

determination is also significant for purposes of Section 4(f) as described in more detail 

below.5 

 

4 16 U.S.C. 470f (as amended). 

5

 Obligations in this region are different per a 2007 State Protocol Agreement among the California State 

Director of the BLM and the SHPOs of California and Nevada. The Protocol Agreement recognizes the unique 

requirements of managing cultural resources on public lands in California and Nevada. This Protocol allows 

BLM’s cultural resource staff to act on the SHPO’s behalf under limited circumstances. BLM assists agencies in 

defining areas of potential effect (APEs) and the required level of inventory efforts, recommend eligibility 

determinations to federal agencies and provide opinions on effects of undertakings without consulting with 

SHPO. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-4 

In sum, the Section 106 process evaluates whether a proposed action would result in 

effects on a cultural resource site while a Section 4(f) evaluation examines whether a 

proposed action would result in a use of a cultural resource site. While the two statutory 

requirements are similar, even if a proposed action results in an "adverse effect" under 

Section 106, there will not automatically be a Section 4(f) “use” absent a separate analysis 

and determination by a modal administration of the USDOT. 

In order for a cultural resource to be protected by Section 4(f), it must be eligible for the 

National Register under specific criteria. Specifically, archaeological sites whose 

importance as a resource can be documented through a data recovery process alone are 

not protected under Section 4(f). In other words, Section 4(f) does not apply to a site if, a 

Federal agency, after consultation with the SHPO (or, in this region, the BLM) and the 

appropriate Native American Tribes and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), 

concludes that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be 

learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place.6

 

The NHPA provides specific criteria to assist in making this determination.7 An 

archaeological resource that is eligible only under NHPA “Criterion D” is considered 

valuable only in terms of the data that can be recovered from it. For such resources (such 

as pottery scatters and refuse deposits), it is generally assumed that there is minimal value 

attributed to preserving such resources in place. Conversely, resources eligible under 

Criteria A, B, and/or C are considered to have value intrinsic to the resource’s location. 

These criteria apply to resources such as prehistoric or historic habitation sites (places 

that were occupied by people for a sustained time period), petroglyph sites (also known as 

“rock art sites”), and prehistoric quarries.

3.15.3 APPROACH TO FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

This section expands upon the Section 4(f) evaluations presented in the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS documents. 

Section 4(f) broadly defines protected resources to encompass park and recreation lands, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. These resources and subcategories 

therein are discussed below. 

Park and Recreation lands include Federal, state, and local parks. 

Clean Air Act “Class I” Areas: A subcategory of park and recreation lands here 

include those parklands identified by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 85) as having 

particular sensitivity to any visual intrusion that could result from degraded air 

 

6 FRA does not have separate 4(f) regulations but relies on the process described in the FRA Procedures and 

also looks to FHWA regulations as guidance which are codified in 23 CFR 774. 

7

 36 CFR 60.4. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-5 

quality. The Clean Air Act designates national wilderness areas and national parks 

meeting certain criteria as “Class I Areas.”8 These areas include all: 

1. international parks, or

2. national wilderness areas which exceed 5,000 acres in size, or

3. national memorial parks which exceed 5,000 acres in size, or

4. national parks which exceed 6,000 acres in size, and

5. any or all which were in existence on August 7, 1977. 

These areas are considered highly susceptible to adverse visual effects that could 

occur with the emission of air pollution associated with a proposed action. The 

Clean Air Act states that it is a national goal to prevent impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges include Federal, state, and local areas set 

aside for the preservation of wildlife and/or waterfowl. 

Historic Sites include historic architectural resources (buildings, structures, 

landscapes, etc.) and archaeological resources. Historic sites qualifying for 

protection under Section 4(f) include only those on or eligible for listing on the 

National Register and warrant preservation in place as discussed above. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment and associated facilities traverse nearly 200 miles 

between Victorville and Las Vegas. As required by Section 4(f), FRA has examined 

whether the Preferred Alternative would traverse or permanently incorporate any 

properties protected by Section 4(f) resulting in a direct use or pass in such proximity so 

as to substantially impair the features or attributes of the property resulting in a 

constructive use. 

To determine the area within which constructive use of Section 4(f) protected properties 

could potentially occur, FRA employed specific distance thresholds from the Preferred 

Alternative. The distance thresholds employed were determined based on noise, 

vibration, visual, access, and ecological intrusion factors as described below. 

Noise: As documented in Section 3.12.6.1 of the Draft EIS, operating noise from the 

proposed high speed trains would exceed 65 dBA at a distance of about 300 feet. During 

construction, the distance could be increased to as much as 400 feet. Noise-sensitive land 

uses within this distance could be adversely affected by excessive noise levels. 

Vibration: The area potentially affected by vibration is similar to that related to noise, so 

distances up to 400 feet were considered. 

 

8 42 U.S.C. 7472. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-6 

Access: The Preferred Alternative rail alignment is proposed to be fully grade-separated. 

There would be no at-grade crossings of any existing roadways. Therefore, access impacts 

would occur only where the proposed action would otherwise severely restrict access to a 

protected property. 

Ecological Intrusion: As documented in Section 3.14.2.3 of the Draft EIS, a 400 foot 

wide corridor centered on the proposed rail centerline representing the area of potential 

indirect (or constructive use) was examined for the presence of ecologically important 

features (e.g. wetlands and endangered species). The actual width of the proposed rail 

corridor is typically about 65 feet, with many narrower sections. For Clean Air Act Class I 

areas, a much greater distance (100 miles) was utilized, given the potential for air 

pollutants to travel substantial distances. 

To ensure all Section 4(f) properties within the project area were considered, FRA utilized 

the following distance criteria to develop the list of Section 4(f) properties to be evaluated 

for direct and constructive use. 

 Parks and Recreation Lands: 1 mile 

 Clean Air Act “Class I” Areas: 100 miles 

 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges: 1 mile 

 Historic Sites (Historic Architecture or Archaeological Resources): 

Within the Area of Potential Effect identified for the project, which is generally 

400 feet. The APE is described in detail below in Section 3.15.4.5. 

3.15.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES QUALIFYING FOR SECTION 4(F)

PROTECTION

The following descriptions of properties located within the project study area that qualify 

for protection under Section 4(f) is based on information previously presented in the Draft 

EIS (Section 3.15.1) and Supplemental Draft EIS (Section 3.15.1).

3.15.4.1 Park and Recreation Lands 

Table F-3.15-1 below lists all federal, state, and local parks within 1 mile of the Preferred 

Alternative. By virtue of their status as park and/or recreation facilities, each is 

considered protected under Section 4(f). Figures F-3.15-1 through F-3.15-5 show the 

locations of these park and recreation lands in relation to the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-7 

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

Alternative9

Park Address Preferred Alternative Feature 

Within One Mile

National Park Service

Mojave National Preserve 1.6 million acre area bounded 

generally by I-15 and I-40 freeways, 

the BNSF Railway and the 

California/Nevada state line 

Segment 3B, Segments 4A and 

4C, Baker MOW, Baker Utility 

Corridor, several autotransformers, 

several TCAs

City of Victorville 

Rockview Park 17800 National Trails Hwy

Electric Utility Corridor

Grady Trammel Park 17184 Stoddard Wells Road

San Bernardino County

Chet Hoffman Park Hillview Drive and Park Avenue, 

Baker

Segment 3B, Electric Utility 

Corridor, Baker MOW

Smith Park Yermo Road at McCormick Street, Segment 2A

City of Barstow

Waterman Park 417 North 3rd Avenue

Segment 2C

Barstow Heights Park Rimrock Road and H Street

Dana Park10 850 Barstow Road

Stringham Park11 Rimrock Road

Lillian Park 901 Bigger Street

John Sturnacle Park 1434 Sage Drive

Foglesong Park 300 Avenue G

Mint Park Harvard Drive

“H” Avenue Soccer Fields Avenue H at Vineyard Street

Cameron Park12 Yucca Street and Kelly Drive

 

9 The Section 4(f) Evaluations included in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS identified additional park 

and recreation lands in proximity to project alignments/features that have not been carried forward into the 

Preferred Alternative. Table F-3.15-1 above and Figures F-3.15-1 through F-3.15-5 reflect only those park 

and recreation lands within 1 mile of any component of the Preferred Alternative. 

10 Due to an editing error, Section 3.15, Section 4(f) Evaluation, of the Supplemental Draft EIS identified 

a “Daha Park” in the City of Barstow. No such resource exists. However, the City of Barstow Parks and 

Recreation Department identifies both a “Dana Park Community Center” and adjacent “Lower Dana Park.” 

11 The Supplemental Draft EIS depicted but did not describe Stringham Park. Stringham Park is an active park 

resource including a basketball court and lighted playing field. 

12 Cameron Park is identified as a park site on the City of Barstow’s General Plan land use map. However, the 

City of Barstow Parks and Recreation Department does not manage this facility. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-8 

Park Address Preferred Alternative Feature 

Within One Mile

City of Barstow, continued.

Montara Park13 Montara Road and Church Street Segment 2C

Clark County

Western Trails Park 7355 Rogers Street

Segment 6B

Stonewater Park Southern Highlands Parkway & 

Valley View

Silverado Ranch Park East Silverado Ranch Boulevard

and Gillespie Street

Undesignated Parklands in 

Enterprise Land Use Plan

Various Locations in Clark County Segment 6B, Frias Substation, 

and/or Wigwam Avenue MSF

Source: CirclePoint, 2010-2011.

Mojave National Preserve 

The Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) is a unit of the NPS and is a public park with 

recreational function, and, therefore, qualifies for protection under Section 4(f). The 

Preserve is approximately 1.6 million acres in area, spanning a combination of Great 

Basin, Sonoran, and Mojave Desert ecosystems. The Preserve contains diverse mountain 

ranges, the Kelso dune system, dry lake beds and remains of volcanic activity (domes, lava 

flows, and cinder cones). According to NPS, the Preserve is visited by approximately 

650,000 people per year as of 2010. 

The Preserve’s boundaries encompass Providence Mountain State Recreation Area 

(Mitchell Caverns), the University of California’s Granite Mountains Natural Reserve and 

California State University’s Desert Studies Center at Soda Springs. 

The vast majority of the Preserve is located south of I-15, but a smaller, separate unit 

(Clark Mountain Unit) is located north of I-15 near Mountain Pass. 

The Preserve fully qualifies as a Section 4(f) resource because it is a Federally-designated 

park. While the Preserve is well within 100 miles of the Preferred Alternative, the 

Preserve is not a “Class I” Area under the Clean Air Act. On either basis alone a parkland 

resource could qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 

 

13 Montara Park is associated with the adjacent Montara School. The City of Barstow General Plan map 

identifies Montara Park as a park but the City of Barstow Parks and Recreation Department does not manage 

this facility. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-9 

The Preserve was created by Congress in 1994, via the California Desert Protection Act 

(CDCA). Per the criteria set forth at 42 U.S.C. 7472, a Class I area must have been in 

existence on or before August 7, 1977.14 Nevertheless, the CDCA states that the Preserve 

has notable scenic vistas; clean air contributes substantially to the ongoing protection of 

such vistas. 

City of Victorville Parks 

Draft EIS Section 3.15.3.3 provides descriptions of the City of Victorville park lands 

noted in Table F-3.15-1 above as being within 1 mile of the Preferred Alternative. 

City of Barstow Parks 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.15.1 provides descriptions of the City of Barstow park 

lands noted in Table F-3.15-1 above as being within 1 mile of the Preferred Alternative, 

with the exception of Mint Park, which has been added and is described below. 

Mint Park is a Section 4(f) Resource because it is a City of Barstow Park. Mint 

Park is undeveloped but provides open space within an existing residential 

neighborhood in southern Barstow. 

San Bernardino County Parks 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.15.1 describes the San Bernardino County park lands 

noted in Table F-3.15-1 above, with the exception of Chet Hoffman Park which has been 

added and is described below. 

Chet Hoffman Park is a Section 4(f) resource as it is a County of San Bernardino 

Park. Chet Hoffman Park includes a playground and seating areas and primarily 

serves the unincorporated community of Baker. 

Clark County Parks 

Figure S-3.15-5 of the Supplemental Draft EIS showed the locations of two parks in 

Clark County within 1 mile of the modified Segment 6B alignment: Western Trails Park 

and Stonewater Park. The Supplemental Draft EIS did not provide descriptions of these 

resources. Accordingly, descriptions of these parks are provided below. In addition, other 

park lands identified subsequent to publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS are noted 

below. 

Western Trails Park is a Section 4(f) resource as it is a County owned park. The 

park includes a horse trail, playground, and picnic areas. The park is located in an 

urbanized area off West Warm Springs Boulevard, about 1 mile west of I-15. 

 

14 The California Desert Protection Act also created Death Valley National Park; for the same reason, Death 

Valley National Park is not a Class I Area under the Clean Air Act, although it is within 100 miles of the 

Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-10

Stonewater Park is a Section 4(f) resource as it is a County owned park. The 

park includes a picnic area and playground. The park is located in the Southern 

Highlands neighborhood of Clark County, about 0.75 miles west of I-15. 

Silverado Ranch Park is a Section 4(f) resource as it is a County owned park. 

The park includes a ball field, basketball courts, exercise stations, and a fenced dog 

area. Figure F-3.15-5 shows the location of this park along Gillespie Street and 

East Silverado Ranch Boulevard. 

Undesignated Park Lands: Clark County’s Enterprise Land Use Plan identifies 

numerous sites for the development of future parks within 1 mile of the Preferred 

Alternative. Figure F-3.15-5 depicts these locations where future parks may be 

located. These are noted as Section 4(f) resources because the Enterprise Land 

Use Plan specifically notes these sites as parks. 

3.15.4.2 Clean Air Act Class I Areas 

Clean Air Act „Class 1 Areas‟

The following Clean Air Act Class 1 Areas are located within 100 miles of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Domeland Wilderness San Gabriel Wilderness

San Gorgonio Wilderness San Jacinto Wilderness

Agua Tibia Wilderness Joshua Tree National Park

Grand Canyon National Park Cucamonga Wilderness

Figure F-3.15-6 depicts the location of these Section 4(f) resources in relation to the 

project area. 

3.15.4.3 Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges 

Biologists under the direction of FRA consulted with state and Federal resource agencies, 

including the BLM, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife (NDOW) in preparation of the NEPA documents for the 

DesertXpress project and the related consultation required under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (Section 7). There are no Federal, State, or local wildlife refuges 

within 1 mile of the proposed action. The closest known wildlife refuge area in California 

is the Camp Cady Wildlife Area about 20 miles east of Barstow near the community of 

Harvard. This is a state wildlife refuge as designated by the CDFG. This 1,870 acre site is 

about 3 miles from the Segment 2 rail alignment. 

In Nevada, the closest known wildlife refuge area to the proposed project is the Desert 

National Wildlife Refuge (also known as the Desert National Wildlife Range). This 2,200 

square mile area is approximately 25 miles northwest of the City of Las Vegas and 

approximately the same distance from the proposed action. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-11

3.15.4.4 Historic Architectural Resources Qualifying for Protection under 

Section 4(f) 

Section 3.7.2.1 of the Draft EIS describes the approach that was used to identify historic 

architectural resources. This process was led by qualified architectural historians15

working under the direction of FRA. The architectural historians conducted records 

searches at state and regional data centers, including the California Historical Resources 

Information System and the State of Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs. In addition, 

the architectural historians consulted with the SHPOs and numerous groups and 

individuals with knowledge of historic properties in the region (See Draft EIS, Section 

3.7.2.1, Table 3.7-2). 

The records search and consultation were followed by field investigations of all historic 

buildings, structures, and objects within the APE established for the project. 

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS each identified historic architectural resources 

in the APE, which encompassed all alternatives under consideration (including all rail 

alignments and station/maintenance facility options). Section 3.7.3.2 of the Draft EIS 

and Section 3.7.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS identify the results of the above 

investigations. Specifically, Table 3.7-12 of the Draft EIS lists the 41 historic resources 

identified and provides summary information about each. Eligibility of these resources 

had been previously established as part of surveys related to other projects. This 

information was furnished to the project architectural historians by the Nevada SHPO. 

The 41 historic properties are concentrated in the metropolitan Clark County/City of Las 

Vegas within the APE for Segments 7A, 7B, and 7C, which are not included in the 

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative terminates at the “Central Station B” site 

at Dean Martin Drive and Flamingo Road in Clark County, south of all Segment 7 

alignments. Please see Table 3.7-12 within Section 3.7.3.2 of the Draft EIS as well as 

Appendix F-1 of the Draft EIS for a detailed listing of these resources.16

 

Therefore, there are no historic architectural resources within the APE for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

 

15 “Qualified” means meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior – see 36 

CFR 61. 

16 Section 3.7.1 of the Supplemental DEIS noted that none of the project modifications and additions analyzed 

therein introduced any new historic architectural resources due to associated changes to the APE. This 

includes Segment 2C through the City of Barstow. While Section 3.7.1 of the Supplemental DEIS discussed in 

some detail some notable architectural resources in or adjacent to the APE for Segment 2C, none of these 

resources were found to qualify for eligibility on the National Register. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-12

3.15.4.5 Archaeological Resources Qualifying for Protection under 

Section 4(f) 

The identification of archaeological resources qualifying for protection under Section 4(f) 

is closely related to the Section 106 process (see Section 3.15.2 above). Draft EIS 

Section 3.7.2.1 contains a full description of the methodology employed to evaluate for 

the presence of archaeological resources. That methodology is briefly summarized below. 

Area of Potential Effect 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) was developed for the project in consultation with the 

BLM, STB, and SHPOs of California and Nevada. Both “Direct” and “Indirect” APEs were 

developed for the DesertXpress project. 

The Direct APE was assumed to be the area that would be permanently occupied 

by the proposed rail alignment or project facilities. 

The Indirect APE encompasses rail alignment area that would be permanently 

occupied plus an additional buffer area incorporating those lands likely to be 

disturbed during project construction. 

The Indirect APE was defined as the area 200 feet on either side of the centerline of the 

proposed rail alignment (400 feet in total width). The Indirect APE was also defined as 50 

feet from the centerline of the center of a proposed utility corridor (100 feet in total 

width). The Direct APE is defined as the actual width of the finished rail alignment 

(inclusive of tracks, maintenance/access areas, catenary structures, equipment and other 

infrastructure). This width is typically 60 feet, narrowing to 40 feet in several locations, 

where the maintenance road is omitted to ensure highway safety or avoid sensitive 

resources. 

For the purposes of the Section 4(f) evaluation, FRA assumed that any archaeological 

resource in the Direct APE would be directly used; any archaeological resource in the 

Indirect APE was further evaluated for possible constructive use. 

Records Search 

For both the direct and indirect APE, a records search of both prehistoric and historic 

resource files was conducted. These included files/databases at the San Bernardino 

Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information 

System (CHRIS) in Redlands, California; the Mojave River Valley Museum in Barstow, 

and the Harry Reid Center in Las Vegas. Numerous other resources were consulted, 

including historic maps, other project area cultural resource inventories, and pertinent 

reference documents. The records search was performed by qualified archaeologists 

meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-13

Pedestrian Surveys 

In order to achieve a comprehensive resource identification process, FRA engaged thirdparty contractor archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualification Standards to carry out pedestrian surveys. These archaeologists consulted 

with the BLM to develop pedestrian survey criteria for the project. These criteria 

stipulated that the pedestrian surveys of the APE be conducted for those areas outside the 

I-15 freeway right-of-way fence, which were determined to have the greatest potential for 

previously unidentified resources. The freeway right-of-way was determined to be 

previously disturbed and therefore unlikely to contain unidentified Section 4(f) resources 

with integrity. 

Assessment of Eligibility 

FRA’s third-party archaeologists made preliminary assessments of the eligibility of the 

resource identified within the APE for the National Register. These preliminary 

assessments were made in close consultation with the appropriate BLM field office 

(Barstow, Needles, or Las Vegas). 

All cultural resources were assigned a preliminary assessment of eligibility as follows: 

Eligible: Previously identified sites for which eligibility was previously and 

formally established were categorized as “eligible.”

Not Eligible: Previously identified sites for which non-eligibility had been 

previously and formally established were categorized as “not eligible.” 

Assumption of Eligibility: Newly discovered resources (for which no previous, 

formal determination had been made) were categorized as “assumed eligible.”

The assumption of eligibility relates to the use of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to fulfill 

FRA’s Section 106 obligations. Section 3.7.2 of this Final EIS and Section 3.7.1.1 of the 

Draft EIS explain the development of a PA for this proposed action. Appendix F-H 

includes the executed PA for the DesertXpress project. 

The purpose of the PA for the project is multi-fold. Among its requirements, the PA sets 

forth numerous procedures to ensure the appropriate treatment of historic resources 

during project construction. The PA also stipulates protocols for how and when formal 

eligibility determinations would be made. Specifically, while extensive efforts have 

occurred to identify potential historic resources, the PA describes a phased 

implementation approach consistent with 36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(2) permitting formal 

eligibility determinations to be made after the Preferred Alternative is identified and 

ratified by the lead and cooperating agencies via Records of Decision on the proposed 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-14

action.17 Eligibility determinations will be made by the appropriate agency (in this region, 

either BLM or FRA in consultation with the respective SHPO and PA signatory parties) 

based on information presented in completed state-appropriate site records forms. 

For the NEPA documents, information on archaeological resources was drawn from 

extensive field notes, literature reviews, consultations with agencies and Tribes, map and 

database reviews, and other sources. A complete listing of all resources identified for all 

alternatives evaluated can be found in Appendix F-3 of the Draft EIS and Tables 

S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Notwithstanding the phased implementation process described in the PA, completion of 

the Section 4(f) evaluation required FRA to engage in detailed cultural resource 

investigations to ascertain whether the proposed action would use any archaeological 

resource meeting the criteria for protection under Section 4(f). 

In consultation with BLM, third-party contractor project archaeologists reviewed field 

notes and background information on all identified resources and employed screening 

criteria to develop a sublist of all historic resources that could qualify for protection under 

Section 4(f). These screening criteria included a detailed description of the resource, a 

preliminary eligibility assessment, and clarification of the presence of the resource within 

the APE. 18 Through this effort, a total of 32 potential Section 4(f) cultural resources were 

initially identified. All of these are located on BLM land, meaning that formal eligibility 

determinations are the prerogative of the appropriate BLM field office (Barstow, Needles, 

or Las Vegas). 

These 32 cultural resources were singled out as potential Section 4(f) resources because 

project archaeologists made a preliminary assessment that each of these resources might 

be eligible under National Register criteria that ascribe resource value to its preservation 

in place. Accordingly, FRA’s third-party contractor archaeologists undertook additional 

research, field visits, and consultation to more specifically assess likely National Register 

eligibility.19 

Research included online and printed materials, input from BLM personnel, and input 

from Native American representatives during meetings and field visits to some of the sites 

conducted January 6-8, 2010. Please see Chapter 6.0, References, of this Final EIS for 

a detailed listing of sources consulted in these efforts. 

 

17 The Lead and Federal Cooperating Agencies are expected to adopt separate, agency-specific RODs on this 

proposed action. 

18 Numerous resources identified via literature and/or database search were subsequently found to be outside 

the APE during pedestrian surveys. 

19 The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in the Draft EIS was preliminary in nature. In that preliminary evaluation, 

any resource that had been identified as potentially eligible or eligible for the National Register and in the 

APE was assumed to be directly used. The subsequent work described herein updates and clarifies these 

earlier, preliminary conclusions. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-15

Table F-3.15-2 lists those resources that FRA has concluded are not protected under 

Section 4(f). The table lists the site record number, the resource type, resource 

description, discussion of the preliminary Section 106 eligibility determination, and the 

reason why FRA has concluded the resource does not qualify for protection under Section 

4(f). 

Through this process, one resource site was determined to meet the criteria for protection 

under Section 4(f). This resource was found to be within the APE for both Segment 3A 

(which would run in the median of I-15) and Segment 3B (which would run on the north 

side of the I-15 corridor). As described above, FRA determined that constructing the 

Segment 3B alternative would constitute a Section 4(f) use of this resource thus requiring 

the identification of potential avoidance alternatives. However, because the resource is a 

significant Native American cultural site and FRA is concerned about the risk to the 

resource caused by the public disclosure of information possibly identifying the location 

and character to the resource, FRA is withholding such information and is instead 

providing the summary which is available below. 

After extensive evaluation and consideration, FHWA and Caltrans determined that 

locating Segment 3A in the median on the I-15 could result in significant staging and 

traffic management issues, safety concerns, and long-term operational issues. These 

agencies thus voiced strong concerns to allowing a railroad use of the freeway median in 

this location. 

FRA, in consultation with the Cooperating Agencies and the Tribes, determined that the 

range of alternatives needed to be expanded. In the Supplemental Draft EIS, FRA 

presented a profile modification for Segment 3B that sought to minimize potential impacts 

to the resource. However, after extensive consultation efforts with the Native American 

Tribes and BLM, this alignment was determined to adversely affect the resource. 

FRA also considered a modified Segment 3A alignment that utilized the median only as 

necessary to avoid the resource and provide for engineering considerations to cross from 

the north side of the freeway to the median. However, FHWA and Caltrans expressed 

similar concerns about the median usage, particularly in consideration of the narrow 

width of the median through this area and the impact its use would have on any future 

highway widening efforts. Moreover, the resource was still within the APE. As a result, 

FRA determined it was necessary to consider alternatives that would avoid the resource. 

The potential additional avoidance alternatives FRA considered were: 

 Outside freeway corridor: Moving the rail line away from the resource area by 

departing from the freeway corridor and substantially looping to the north around 

the resource. A similar alternative looping a substantial distance to the south 

would directly traverse the Preserve and therefore was ruled out as a true 

avoidance alternative insofar as it would result in direct use of the Preserve (a 

Section 4(f) resource). 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-16

 South side of freeway corridor: Moving the rail line to the south side of the I15 freeway but within the existing freeway right of way. 

With regard to the outside freeway corridor alternative, FRA, in consultation with BLM, 

determined that an alignment looping north of the resource would encounter 

topographical constraints and would have the potential to impact substantially more 

sensitive biological, cultural, and other resources than the existing alignment (Segment 

3B) or a south side of freeway corridor alignment. In addition, this alignment would 

position the resource with transportation uses on both sides of the resource since the 

highway would still remain to the south, which would have the potential to restrict access 

to the resource. Since the outside freeway corridor north loop did not appear to 

substantially reduce potential Section 4(f) impacts, and could actually result in 

substantially increased overall impacts, it was withdrawn from further study. As 

previously indicated, any alignment departing substantially from the freeway corridor to 

the south would traverse the Preserve, thus constituting a direct 4(f) use of the Preserve. 

The south side of freeway corridor was developed in consultation with the BLM, NPS, and 

Tribes, as a feasible and prudent alternative. This alignment includes shifting a 10 mile 

portion of the Segment 3B alignment to the south side of the I-15 freeway corridor. While 

shifting to the south side of the I-15, the rail line would remain within the I-15 right-ofway area. The APE for the modified south side alignment does not include the resource. 

However, the south side alignment would move the rail line closer to the Preserve (a 

Section 4(f) park resource) to within 175 feet of its northern edge. 

Detailed analysis of the south side of freeway corridor is presented in the sections below. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-17

Table F-3.15-2 Archaeological Resources Not Qualifying for Protection under Section 4(f) Resources 

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

Historic and Modern Period Resources

26CK3542 Railroad Grade This is a temporary grade portion of the San 

Pedro, Los Angeles, & Salt Lake Railroad. The 

railroad grade is highly disturbed.

Not Eligible Ineligible for National Register; no intact 

remnants of 26CK3542 within the project 

APE. 

26CK4958 Road The site is a portion of the Arrowhead Trail 

Highway (U.S. 91).

Eligible (A) Site not in APE; no intact remnants of 

26CK4958 within the project APE. 

26CK5685 Railroad Grade The site is the existing historic Union Pacific 

Railroad.

Eligible (A, D) Will not be impacted by project. While eligible 

for the National Register under A and D, 

since it is a railroad currently in use, site 

26CK5685 will not be directly impacted by the 

proposed project. 

26CK5729 Habitation Site Railroad construction campsite with tent pads, 

hearths, walls, water retention basins, stone 

ovens, and refuse deposits.

Eligible (D) Eligible under National Register criterion D 

only, and outside the APE for the Preferred 

Alternative; Would not be eligible under A, B, 

or C of the National Register in itself, and 

though it is associated with 26CK5685, a 

resource eligible under A, it is not an 

uncommon resource in the area. 

26CK5801 Water 

Conveyance 

Canal

This resource consists of a low, linear berm that 

is likely the remains of a historic water line that 

once served the railroad construction camps in 

the area.

Not Eligible Ineligible for National Register; Would not be 

eligible under A, B, or C of the National 

Register.

26CK7212 Road The site consists of a 1.6 mile long segment of 

the Arrowhead Trail Highway (U.S. Route 91). 

Eligible (A, D) Site not in APE; no intact remnants of 

26CK7212 within the APE. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-18

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

26CK7214 Road Remnant of the historic Roach Road and 

associated refuse deposits. Historically, the road 

was an early access road leading to the Roach 

Siding.

Not Eligible Ineligible or eligible under National Register 

criterion D only; Would not be eligible under 

A, B, C, and probably D, of the National 

Register. The road is visible on the available 

historic maps 1910 (Ivanpah; 1:192000).

26CK7217 Road The site consists of an early frontage road to old 

Highway 91 and its associated refuse deposits.

Eligible (A, D) Site not in APE. Portions of the Arrowhead 

Highway have been evaluated and are 

recommended eligible under criteria A and D. 

However within the project APE, there are no 

intact portions of the resource. 

26CK7218 Road Two remnants of early roads and associated 

refuse deposits.

Eligible (A, D) Site not in APE. Portions of the Arrowhead 

Highway have been evaluated and are 

recommended eligible under criteria A and D. 

However, within the project APE there are no 

intact portions of the resource. 

26CK7223 Transmission 

Line

The site consists of the remnant of an 

abandoned utility pole line.

Likely ineligible Site appears ineligible for National Register, 

and there is no documentation about the 

resource to support a finding of eligibility.

CA-SBR-03048H 

Update

Road, Refuse 

Deposit

This is a segment of the Old Traction Road with 

a "newer" 1920s era refuse deposit. The site is 

the remnant of the 1904 Traction Road 

developed by Francis Marion Smith to reduce 

dependence on the 20 Mule Team to transport 

ore from the Lila C mine and the railhead at 

Ivanpah. The traction road was a gravel-based 

road upon which a steam tractor was to operate. 

The tractor broke down 14 miles into its first run.

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Per BLM, Old Traction Road is eligible under 

criteria (a) and (b); however, the portion of 

this resource within the APE lacks integrity; 

construction across this resource would 

therefore not result in any adverse effect. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-19

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

CA-SBR-03159H 

Update

Railroad Grade This site consists of the original 5.5 mile 

alignment of the Mojave Northern Railroad built 

by the Southwestern Portland Cement Company 

between 1915 and 1916. Today, this alignment 

(site) consists of existing rails, removed rails, and 

an abandoned siding. The original alignment 

connected the limestone quarry at Powell to the 

processing plant in Leon. Currently, there is 

approximately 2.5 miles of the southern portion 

of the alignment in use by the CEMEX 

Corporation still processing ore at the same plant 

in Leon (northern Victorville). In 1925, a 1.5 mile 

segment of the track, as well as a midpoint 

siding, were abandoned and their rails removed 

in favor of a slightly straighter and more level 

parallel track (JSA-CS-S-220H). Following the 

1.5 mile easterly deviation, the alignments rejoin 

and continue north-northeasterly for the 

remaining 1.25 mile trek to the Powell Quarry. A 

1956 USGS map (Victorville 1:62500) depicts 

this northerly 1.25 mile segment as operable 

although a 1968 aerial photograph clearly

illustrates the track as abandoned. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under National Register criterion D 

only; Would not be eligible under A, B, or C of 

the National Register. Moreover, only within 

the APE for the electrical utility corridor 

extending from Victorville OMSF – outside of 

APE for any other project feature. 

CA-SBR-07347H 

Update

Road The site is a segment of the historic IvanpahProvidence Road. Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under National Register criterion D 

only; Would not be eligible under A, B, or C of 

the National Register. Originally recorded as 

CA-SBR-7347H. May also be recorded as 

JSA-CS-S-108H or CA-SBR-10806H at I-15. 

A review of the available historic maps 1910 

(Ivanpah; 1:192000) 1912 (Ivanpah; 

1:250000), 1947, 1953 (Kingman; 1:250000) 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-20

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

CA-SBR-07347H 

Update, 

continued.

depict the road crossing the alluvial beds. No 

data available on the road through the GLO 

archives.

CA-SBR-10315H 

Update

Power 

Transmission 

Line

This is the old San Bernardino to Boulder Dam 

287.5 kV Transmission Line 

Eligibility under 

Criteria (a) and 

(c) determined by 

BLM.

The proposed project would not require 

directly impact or require the relocation of any 

part of this resource. The historic property is 

significant for its role in bringing electrical 

power from the Hoover Dam to Los Angeles, 

and as a civil engineering achievement. The 

historic property is a linear feature, traversing 

hundreds of miles, and is industrial in visual 

character. During operations, the proposed 

DesertXpress tracks would introduce another 

linear feature with industrial character into the 

setting at several points near Victorville, 

Segment 3, and Segment 4. However this 

affect to the setting would not diminish the 

qualities that contribute to the National 

Register eligibility of the transmission lines 

because there are many other linear features 

(e.g. I-15 freeway, pipelines and electrical 

transmission lines) already located within the 

existing setting. Therefore, no Section 4(f) 

use would result as no lands from the historic 

property would be incorporated into the 

project nor would any features or attributes 

that contribute to its National Register 

eligibility be impaired.
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-21

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

JSA-CS-S-115H Highway Old Highway 58. Several original "C" 

monuments recorded in the vicinity of the DXE 

overcrossing

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

The segment is an early intact portion of 

historic US Route 466 which became State 

Route 58 in 1964. The route first appears on 

1932 maps of Barstow (1:125000), but wasn’t 

officially commissioned until 1935. 

JSA-CS-S-220H Railroad Grade This site consists of a 1.5 mile segment of 

railroad grade believed to have been constructed 

in 1925. This alignment appears to have 

orphaned the original 1915-1916 segment of the

Mojave Northern Railroad in favor of a straighter 

and more level route. A review of historic quad 

maps depicts the alignment as still operable in 

1956 (Victorville 1:62500) although a later aerial 

photograph shows that the northern 0.6 mile was 

abandoned by 1968. The southern 0.9 mile 

segment is still in use and an active part of the 

CEMEX concrete quarry operation. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

Moreover, only within the APE for the 

electrical utility corridor extending from 

Victorville OMSF – outside of APE for any 

other project feature. 

JSA-CS-S-223H Railroad Grade Site consists of an approximately 4.5 mile 

segment of existing railroad track built in 1947. 

The track extends from the location of No. 7 

Dock which served as a railroad loading dock for 

ore transported by truck on Black Mountain 

Quarry Road. Ore was driven approximately 7 

miles from Black Mountain Quarry and loaded 

onto rail cars for the 7.5 mile trek to the 

processing plant in Leon (northern Victorville). 

This segment of the rail line is currently in use by 

CEMEX.

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Ineligible or eligible under NRHP criterion D 

only; Would not be eligible under A, B, or C of 

the NRHP. Moreover, only within the APE for 

the electrical utility corridor extending from 

Victorville OMSF – outside of APE for any 

other project feature. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-22

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

JSA-CS-S-081H Refuse Deposit, 

Road, Rock 

Cairn 

Site consists of a cairn marker, a prospector's pit 

measuring approx. 5ft in diameter, a dirt road 

and a historic refuse deposit containing sanitary, 

coffee and tobacco cans and clear glass. 

According to GLO records, this location is not 

associated with any known patentees. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

A review of the available historic maps 1934, 

1948 1957, (1:24000, 62500, 125000) and 

aerial photography (1968), suggests that 

there are no 4(f) site elements at this site.

JSA-CS-S-101H Railroad Grade Site consists of a 0.4 mile long section of berm 

associated with an approximately 5 mile long 

abandoned spur of the San Pedro, Los Angeles, 

& Salt Lake Railroad as identified in GLO plat 

maps. The line was never completed According 

to GLO records, the alignment was initially 

acquired by San Pedro, Los Angeles, & Salt 

Lake Railroad May 8 and May 13, 1903 through 

the General Right of Way Act (18 Stat. 482). 

However on November 8, 1916, the acquisition 

was cancelled by the GLO and the land returned 

to federal ownership. Cancellations of such 

grants were not uncommon if the patentee failed 

to meet all of the requirements for ownership.

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

A review of the available historic maps 1948, 

1956, (1:250000 and 1:62500) did not 

indicate any portion of the site in existence. 

According to the GLO data, a 100 ft right of 

way was acquired by the San Pedro, Los 

Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad on May 8, 

1903 (LA028069). The patent was cancelled 

on November 8, 1916. No reason indicated.

JSA-CS-S-109H Road Site consists of a historic road. Likely Not 

Eligible

Appears ineligible for NRHP; Would not be 

eligible under A, B, C, and probably D of the 

NRHP. The road first appears on the 1953 

map (Kingman; 1:250000). No data available 

on the road through the GLO archives.
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-23

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

JSA-CS-S-111H Road Site consists of a historic road measuring 

approx. 8 to 9 feet wide. 

Likely Not 

Eligible*

Appears ineligible for NRHP; Would not be 

eligible under A, B, C, or probably D of the 

NRHP. The road first appears on the 1980 

(Clark Mountain; 1:24000). Prior to that there 

is no evidence the road existed. A historic 

1956 15' series did not depict the road (Clark 

Mountain 1:62500) No data available on the 

road through the GLO archives.

JSA-CS-S-113H Road Site consists of a historic road approx. 8ft wide 

with no signs of recent use. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Likely ineligible or eligible under NRHP 

criterion D only; Would not be eligible under 

A, B, or C of the NRHP. The road first 

appears on the 1980 (Clark Mountain; 

1:24000). Prior to that there is no evidence 

the road existed. A historic 1956 15' series 

did not depict the road (Clark Mountain 

1:62500) No data available on the road 

through the GLO archives.

JSA-CS-S-148H Refuse Deposit The site consists of five loci of refuse along a 

north south trending dirt road.

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Likely ineligible or eligible under NRHP 

criterion D only; Would not be eligible under 

A, B, or C of the NRHP. The site cannot be 

linked to any historic period map feature. The 

dirt road identified in the site record is 

identified in the aerial imagery as early as 

1950. A review of a 1907 and 1908 Las 

Vegas 60' quads (1:250000) identified a road 

in the vicinity but the course of direction is 

substantially different.
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-24

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

JSA-CS-S-171M Ethnographic 

Site

The site is comprised of approximately 200 

locally collected cobbles mounded approximately 

2 ft high. The feature measures approximately 

7.5 ft north/south by 6 ft east/west and also 

contains modern offerings of exotic minerals. 

Offerings include sandstone, quartz, obsidian, 

rhyolite, jasper, gneiss, chert, quartzite, siltstone, 

hematite, geode, and basalt in the matrix.

Likely Not 

Eligible*

Likely ineligible for NRHP; Would not be 

eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

Possible sub-modern animal burial.

Prehistoric Resources

CA-SBR07098/H UpdateHabitation Site Site includes both historic and prehistoric 

components. Historic well feature with berms 

and associated refuse deposits. The berms may 

be associated with CA-SBR-3048H. The 

prehistoric element to this site consists of at least 

three hearth features, bifaces, groundstone and 

debitage.

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

The historic features (berms) associated with 

this site could not be definitively tied into the 

historic Traction Road (CA-SBR-3048). A 

review of the GLO Records for this location 

did not yield any information regarding 

ownership.

CA-SBR-00885 

Update

Rock Alignments, 

Rock Shelter

This site is comprised of several circular rock 

alignments laid out on an east facing limestone 

slope. A rock shelter with groundstone and 

pottery was recorded at the apex of the 

limestone outcrop. A second rockshelter was 

added to the site record at the recommendation 

of Anthony Morales, but it does significantly alter 

the boundary.

Assumption of 

Eligibility (D)

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only, and not 

in APE; FRA visited this site with members of 

the Native American community. The 

preliminary conclusion is that the rock rings 

are part of a prehistoric food storage feature 

(i.e. granary), not uncommon to other 

environments. In the Mojave Desert, 

however, features like this are not 

commonplace. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-25

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

CA-SBR-03694 

Update

Habitation Site Extensive habitation site with cobble reduction 

quarry features and two prehistoric trails.

Eligible Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

Two orphaned trail segments extend 

northward from Interstate 15. No other 

features were associated with the trails.

JSA-SD-S-002 Trail Site consists of an approximately 300 meter-long 

prehistoric trail (35-40cm wide). 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

The trail is an orphaned segment of a 

prehistoric trail between a large drainage and 

I-15. The trail appears to be a remnant of 

CA-SBR-5236 identified on the south side of 

Interstate 15 in 1983. The general 

north/south trend of JSA-SD-S-002 does 

indicate it may have intersected with CASBR-7170, an anthropomorphic rock 

alignment approximately 0.5 mile to the north, 

but there is no continuity or demonstrable 

association between the two.

PSBR-52 Trails The original record for PSBR-52 consists only of 

the Cave Mountain 15 minute (1:62,500 Scale) 

USGS quadrangle illustrated with large dots and 

lines to depict the locations of sites and trails. 

The SBAIC map was the result of fieldwork 

conducted by advocationalist Eugene Shepard 

between 1981 and 1983. No other specific data 

has yet been produced for PSBR-52. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility

Not present in APE; No intact portions of 

PSBR-52 have been identified within the 

project APE. Furthermore, no segments of 

PSBR-52 were identified in the locations 

depicted on SBAIC location maps. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-26

Site 

Designation Type Description

Preliminary 

Assessment of 

Section 106 

Eligibility 

(NHPA eligibility 

Criteria)

Reason for Exclusion from Section 4(f)

JSA-CS-S-186 Trail The site consists of an approximately 100 meterlong east/west trending trail.Assumption of 

Eligibility

Eligible under NRHP criterion D only; Would 

not be eligible under A, B, or C of the NRHP. 

The trail is not visible on any aerial image 

consulted nor do other prehistoric trails 

appear in the vicinity that could possibly link 

up to this one. The trail disappears in the 

rock fall near the apex of the knoll. No known 

significant associations.

Source: ICF International, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-27

3.15.5 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL USE OF QUALIFYING SECTION 4(F)

PROPERTIES 

3.15.5.1 Potential Use of Park and Recreation Lands Qualifying for 

Protection under Section 4(f) 

Mojave National Preserve: Potential Direct Use 

As described in Section 3.15.4 of the Draft EIS, if selected, Segment 4A would have 

resulted in a direct use of the Preserve because it would cross a portion of the Preserve in 

the Mountain Pass area in the vicinity of Nipton Road. 

No other alignment or project feature would result in any direct use of the Preserve. 

Segment 4A, however, is not included in the Preferred Alternative. As the Preferred 

Alternative includes Segment 4C and fully excludes Segment 4A, the Preferred Alternative 

would not result in a direct use of the Preserve. 

However, Segment 4A has been identified by FRA and the Cooperating Agencies as part of 

the environmentally preferable alternative. Identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative is a requirement under NEPA and may vary from the Agency 

Preferred Alternative. Segment 4A is identified as the environmentally preferable 

alternative because it would substantially reduce the biological and hydrological impacts 

associated with Segment 4C. 

The NPS has advised FRA that the area of the Preserve that this segment would impact 

has already been disturbed and used for a local mine as well as used as a right-of-way for 

several underground utilities. 

At present, no administrative mechanism exists for the NPS to grant use of a right-of-way 

through land on the Preserve. As set forth in more detail in Section 2.5.4 of this Final 

EIS, the RODs for FRA and the Cooperating Agencies are expected to stipulate that in the 

event that the United States Congress takes legislative action permitting the NPS or other 

Federal agency to grant the right-of-way for Segment 4A, the Preferred Alternative should 

be updated accordingly. 

While there is no certainty as to exactly what (or any) action Congress may take, the 

viability of Segment 4A could be established by direct legislative action. 

Accordingly, if there is future Congressional action that makes Segment 4A viable and the 

Lead and Federal Cooperating Agencies so direct the revision of the Preferred Alternative 

to incorporate Segment 4A, a reevaluation of this Final EIS and a supplemental Section 

4(f) evaluation would be published if necessary to reflect the specific Congressional action 

and ascertain whether any direct or constructive use would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-28

Mojave National Preserve: Potential for Constructive Use: 

Two rail segments included in the Preferred Alternative are in proximity to the Preserve, 

thus presenting a potential for constructive use. Each Segment is evaluated below under 

the constructive use criteria (noise, vibration, visual impacts, access, and ecological 

intrusion). 

Segment 3B: Approximately 40 miles of Segment 3B would run within the I-15 

corridor. The northern boundary of the Preserve is as close as 175 feet south of the outer 

edge of the freeway right-of-way area. 

Within Segment 3B, an avoidance alternative was developed for a 10-mile portion of 

Segment 3B that would locate the rail alignment on the south side of the freeway corridor 

to avoid impacts a Section 4(f) archaeological resource (CA-SBR 2535). 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Increased Noise 

FRA’s guidance on measuring noise and vibration associated with high-speed trains20

requires noise impact assessment at locations where there would be human activity such 

as trails, picnic areas, campgrounds, or other places where human activity would occur 

also called “sensitive receptors.” 

Portions of the Preserve near the I-15 freeway are currently subject to noise from ongoing 

freeway operations, including existing interchanges and roadways providing access to the 

Preserve (including but not limited to Zzyzx Road, Halloran Summit Road, Cima Road, 

and others). Therefore, portions of the Preserve closest to the freeway cannot reasonably 

be considered areas where serenity and quiet are key attributes and there are no sensitive 

receptors for study purposes. 

Notably, there are no established public use areas such as hiking trails and few attractions 

within the Preserve within 3 to 5 miles of the I-15 freeway. The Zzyzx Desert Studies 

Center, for example, is about 5 miles south of I-15. Key Preserve elements in close 

proximity to the I-15 freeway are primarily unpaved dirt roads, primarily for the use of offroad/4-wheel drive vehicles. Consultation with NPS confirmed that there are no sensitive 

receptors or extremely noise sensitive uses in the areas of the Preserve closest to the I-15 

freeway. 

However, even if one were to consider the northern boundary of the Preserve as a location 

to assess noise impact, at 175 feet away from the south edge of the freeway right-of-way, 

there would be no impact under FRA guidance from the anticipated train operations. The 

project noise levels would be less than the existing highway noise levels at that distance. 

 

20 U. S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment, October 2005. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-29

Under FRA’s noise guidance, there would be no effects on wildlife within the Preserve. 

Areas within approximately 50 feet of the freeway right-of-way would have some potential 

for wildlife effects, but these areas are not located within the Preserve and already exposed 

to high noise levels. Therefore there would be no additional noise effects on wildlife 

within the Preserve. 

Potential for Constructive Use from Increased Vibration 

Impact from vibration is not typically assessed for outdoor land uses, such as the Preserve. 

Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with 

the shaking of a building, the motion does not provide the sort of impact to the resource 

that is considered an adverse effect. In addition, any “rumble” noise that usually 

accompanies the building vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. 

However, based on the analysis, the vibration levels at the boundary of the Preserve would 

be well below the impact thresholds, and significantly below any damage criteria. As 

noted above, there are no established public use areas such as hiking trails and few 

attractions within the Preserve within 3 to 5 miles of the I-15 freeway. 

Please refer this Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 for a full discussion of vibration criteria. 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Visual/Aesthetic Changes 

The Preferred Alternative would be located outside the Preserve, in an area that already 

visually compromised by the presence of the I-15 freeway and its fences; and the 

intermittent presence of interchanges, rest stops, and electrical transmission lines. In 

certain locations, the Preferred Alternative would introduce new visual elements of 

retaining walls, catenary poles and wires, and passing trains. As stated above, there are 

few Preserve attractions in the area closest to the I-15 freeway, except some dirt roads 

primarily used by off-road vehicles. In sum, introducing the rail alignment and associated 

features would all occur within the existing transportation corridor where many similar 

uses are present. Therefore, the visual and aesthetic setting of the Preserve would not be 

substantially affected by the project and no constructive use would occur. The NPS has 

concurred that even the south side alignment (on the same side of the I-15 corridor as the 

Preserve) would not substantially affect the Preserve’s visual resources. 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Changes in Access 

The Preferred Alternative would not alter existing access to the Preserve. In the vicinity of 

the Preserve, the rail alignment would be fully grade separated from all existing roadways, 

thereby avoiding the need to sever or change access to and from the Preserve. As a result, 

no constructive use because of change in access would occur. 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Ecological Intrusion 

Many areas of the Preserve contain suitable desert tortoise habitat. As noted in Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.3, desert tortoise habitat was observed in proximity to Segment 3; evidence 

was found of tortoise use of existing washes that pass under I-15 and provide access for the 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-30

tortoise into and out of the Preserve. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not 

alter the existing location or size of culverts and bridges that cross over existing washes. 

As a result, tortoise would continue to be able to move north and south under the I-15 

corridor (into and out of the Preserve) as at present. There would thus be no interference 

with the species’ movement corridor or critical life cycle processes. In terms of other 

species, Mitigation Measure BIO-19 requires that the railroad alignment include 

culverts that match existing culverts on the I-15 and/or UPRR railroad. To make such 

culverts more effective, the mitigation measure also requires coordination with resource 

protection agencies in the construction of exclusion fencing to direct species towards the 

culverts. Therefore, no constructive use because of ecological intrusion would occur. 

Conclusion Regarding Segment 3B and Potential for Constructive Use of the 

Mojave National Preserve 

Based on the foregoing analysis, FRA concludes that Segment 3B would not result in 

constructive use of any portion of the Mojave National Preserve. 

Segment 4C: Approximately 5 miles of Segment 4C would run in an area approximately 

1 mile to the east of the Preserve’s Clark Mountain Unit, north of the I-15 corridor. 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Noise and Vibration 

At its closest point, Segment 4C would be located approximately 1 mile east of the Clark 

Mountain Unit of the Preserve. Interior portions of the Clark Mountain Unit of the 

Preserve are accessible via unimproved roads or by foot. There are no officially designated 

hiking trails present in the Clark Mountain Unit, although the NPS informed FRA that the 

area is known to be used by rock climbers and similar recreational users. 

Segment 4C would be located largely atop a plain located at a substantial elevation below 

the mostly rugged terrain of the northern unit of the Preserve. Because of the distance 

between the Clark Mountain Unit and Segment 4C, noise levels in the Preserve would be 

well below any impact criterion and would not interfere with the use or activities present 

in this portion of the Preserve. 

As stated with regard to Segment 3B, impact from vibration is not typically assessed for 

outdoor land uses, such as the Preserve. Nonetheless, the vibration levels at the boundary 

of the Preserve would be well below the impact thresholds, and significantly below any 

damage criteria. As a result, no constructive use from noise or vibration would occur. 

Potential for Constructive Use resulting from Visual/Aesthetic Changes 

In consultation with the NPS, FRA developed a visual simulation of Segment 4C from a 

vantage point within the Preserve to assist in evaluating the potential change in the 

visual/aesthetic character of the area resulting from the Preferred Alternative. This visual 

simulation also includes the ISEGS Solar Energy Project which was recently approved and 

has begun construction (described more fully in Section 3.16.1.2 of this Final EIS). 

Given the approval and construction status of this project, it is proper to consider it as part 

of the existing environment. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-31

Figure F-3.15-7 shows that Segment 4C is visible but almost undetectable within the 

broader viewshed. Accordingly, FRA has concluded (and the NPS has concurred) that the 

potential visual intrusion effects of Segment 4C on the Preserve are minimal and thus no 

constructive use resulting from visual/aesthetic changes would occur. 

Potential for Constructive Use Resulting from Changes in Access 

Segment 4C would depart the I-15 corridor at Mountain Pass, traversing a total of about 

20 miles before rejoining the I-15 freeway near Primm. Primary access to the Clark 

Mountain Unit is via Excelsior Mine Road, about 5 miles west of Mountain Pass. 

However, the NPS advised FRA that secondary, off-road vehicle access to the Clark 

Mountain Unit is provided by existing dirt roads that originate near Yates Well Road and 

I-15. To avoid interfering with this secondary access, final project design will be required 

to provide a suitable grade separation to facilitate ongoing access to the east side of the 

Clark Mountain Unit thus avoiding any constructive use due to changes in access to the 

Preserve. 

Potential for Constructive Use Result from Ecological Intrusion

Segment 4C would be located at a substantial elevation below the Clark Mountain Unit. 

The use of tunnels and elevated sections in the immediate vicinity of the Clark Mountain 

Unit would allow for ongoing wildlife access into and out of the Preserve. As set forth in 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.3.3, a portion of the Clark Mountain Unit, as well as 

most of the land surrounding the Clark Mountain Unit, is under a grazing allotment 

(jointly issued by the BLM and NPS). Grazing is not necessarily an ecological intrusion, 

but can degrade the quality of the lands, particularly in terms of suitability for sensitive 

plant species. Mitigation related to grazing at Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.3.4

would either allow existing grazing to continue by integrating cattle crossings into the final 

design of Segment 4C or would result in the termination of grazing in the Clark Mountain 

Unit and immediate surrounding area. Accordingly, Segment 4C would either maintain 

the status quo in terms of grazing or eliminate grazing all together, the latter of which 

would constitute a beneficial ecological impact. 

Conclusion Regarding Segment 4C and Potential for Constructive Use of the 

Mojave National Preserve 

Based on the foregoing analysis, FRA concludes that Segment 4C would not result in 

constructive use of any portion of the Mojave National Preserve. 

Other Park and Recreational Facilities 

City of Victorville Parks: Direct Use and Potential for Constructive Use – VV3 

and OMSF 2, included in the Preferred Alternative, would not result in a direct use 

because they are located more than 5 miles from Rockview and Grady Trammel parks. 

Given that VV3 and OMSF 2 are further separated from these parks by many intervening 

land uses and topographic features, this would preclude the potential for any constructive 

use of these parks. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-32

The closest component of the Preferred Alternative to Rockview Park and Grady Trammel 

Park is the southern end of the electrical utility corridor. Figure F-3.15-1 depicts the 

location of this utility corridor relative to Rockview and Grady Trammel Parks. However, 

the Preferred Alternative would not result in a direct use because the electrical utility 

corridor would be approximately 1 mile away from each park. 

In the immediate vicinity of the electric utility corridor, existing surrounding development 

includes several large industrial developments to the southeast and a large power 

transmission station to the southwest, as well as existing, more distant power line 

corridors to the north. Given that the electric utility corridor would be about 1 mile from 

either Rockview or Grady Trammel Park, noise and vibration impacts would be negligible. 

Moreover, the existing visual environment of the electric utility corridor is highly 

industrial and developed in character. The incremental addition of the electric utility 

corridor would not adversely degrade existing views from Rockview or Grady Trammel 

Park. As the electric utility corridor would consist of electric lines and towers, the electric 

corridor could not result in any foreseeable impact to access or ecological conditions of 

either Rockview or Grady Trammel Park. Accordingly, FRA concludes that no 

constructive use of these parks would occur. 

City of Barstow Parks: Direct Use and Potential for Constructive Use – A total 

of 8 City of Barstow parks are located within 1 mile of the Preferred Alternative. Table F3.15-4 below identifies the approximate minimum distance between these parks and the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment (in this area, Segment 2C Side Running). The data in 

the table show that the closest portion of the Preferred Alternative would be about 0.16 

miles from the closest City of Barstow park (the “H” Avenue Soccer fields). Given this 

distance, no direct use of these parks would occur. 

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

City of Barstow Park Distance from Preferred Alternative

“H” Avenue Soccer Fields 0.16 mile

Dana Park 0.23 mile

Cameron Park 0.24 mile

Sturnacle Park 0.30 mile

Lillian Park 0.62 mile

Barstow Heights Park 0.63 mile

Stringham Park 0.80 mile

Montara Park 0.80 mile

Mint Park 0.90 mile

Waterman Park 1.0 mile

Source: CirclePoint, 2010-2011.
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-33

Segment 2C would be located within the existing I-15 freeway corridor. All of the City of 

Barstow park and recreation facilities are located at distances of at least 800 feet from the 

Preferred Alternative and the I-15 freeway. The park and recreation facilities are 

separated from the Preferred Alternative and I-15 freeway by intervening urban 

development to such an extent that noise, vibration, and aesthetic effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on these resources would be minimal to none. In addition, access to these 

parks would not be altered in any way by the Preferred Alternative, which will be fully 

grade-separated from all existing roads. Finally, the parks are located in an 

urban/suburban environment; many include substantial areas of hardscape (basketball 

courts, playgrounds, etc) which are generally inhospitable to significant ecological 

resources. For these reasons, no constructive use of these parks would occur. 

San Bernardino County Parks: Direct Use and Potential for Constructive 

Use – Both Smith Park and Chet Hoffman Park are located at 3/4 of a mile and 1/3 of a 

mile respectively from the Preferred Alternative which parallels the I-15 Freeway. There 

parks are also separated from the Preferred Alternative alignment by intervening urban 

development. Given the distance and intervening land uses, the Preferred Alternative 

would result in neither a direct use nor a constructive use due to noise, vibration or 

aesthetic effect. In addition, access to these parks would not be altered in any way by the 

Preferred Alternative, which would be fully grade-separated from all existing roads. Both 

of these parks are located within urbanized environments which do not afford 

opportunities for significant ecological resources. 

Clark County Parks: Direct Use and Potential for Constructive Use 

Figure F-3.15-5 identifies three existing, developed Clark County parks located 

approximately 0.75 to 1 mile away from rail alignments of the Preferred Alternative. 

These are Stonewater Park, Western Trails Park, and Silverado Ranch Park. Given their 

distance from the Preferred Alternative rail alignment, no direct use would occur. 

These developed Clark County parks as well as the undesignated park lands shown on the 

Enterprise land use plan are located at distances from the Preferred Alternative and the I15 Freeway and separated from the Preferred Alternative and I-15 Freeway by intervening 

urban development to the extent that noise, vibration and aesthetic effects would be 

minimal to none. Lands designated for park land use on the Enterprise Land Use Plan are 

a minimum 0.25 miles from the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. In addition, access 

to these parks and undesignated park lands would not be altered in any way by the 

Preferred Alternative, given that it would be fully grade-separated from all existing roads. 

Finally, these parks and undesignated park lands are located within an urbanized 

environment which does not afford opportunities for significant ecological resources. For 

these reasons, no constructive use of these parks or undesignated park lands would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-34

3.15.5.2 Potential Use of Clean Air Act “Class I” Areas

Section 3.15.4.2 of the Draft EIS evaluated the potential for impacts to the Class I areas 

from the two technology options considered: DEMU and EMU. The Preferred Alternative 

incorporates the EMU technology. 

The Draft EIS concluded that with the EMU technology option, the project would operate 

in general conformity with criteria air pollutant thresholds and therefore would not 

contribute adversely to visibility impairment within the identified Class I areas. 

The closest Class I area to any portion of the Preferred Alternative is the Cucamonga 

Wilderness, more than 30 miles south of Victorville. The distance of the Preferred 

Alternative to these resources would not substantially impair protected activities, features 

or attributes which qualify them for protection as a Section 4(f) Resource. Nor would the 

Preferred Alternative result in severe proximity impacts to aesthetics, noise, vibration, 

access, or ecological resources at these properties. Therefore, there would be no 

constructive use of these resources. 

3.15.5.3 Potential Use of Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Qualifying for 

Protection under Section 4(f) 

As set forth in Section 3.15.4.3 above, there are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges within a 

mile of the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative would not result 

in any direct or constructive use of any such resource area. 

3.15.5.4 Potential Use of Historic Architectural Resources Qualifying for 

Protection under Section 4(f) 

As set forth in Section 3.15.4.4 above, there are no historic architectural resources 

within the APE for the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative would 

not result in the direct use or constructive use of any such resources. 

3.15.5.5 Potential Use of Archaeological Resources Qualifying for 

Protection under Section 4(f) 

As described in Section 3.15.4.5, Segment 3B as depicted in the Draft EIS and the 

certain modifications described in the Supplemental Draft EIS would constitute a 

proximity or constructive use of a 4(f) Resource. The FRA has consulted with the BLM 

and Native American tribes regarding potential impacts to this site and has made its final 

determination regarding the impacts to this site in this Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. As a 

result of FRA’s continuing tribal consultation efforts, FRA has determined that disclosing 

any information about the location, character, or ownership of the property may risk harm 

to the resource. Therefore, FRA is withholding additional information that may have the 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-35

potential to disclose the location or character of the resource. However, FRA and the 

Cooperating Agencies have prepared a detailed internal 4(f) Evaluation which provides all 

available information to decision makers, a summary of which is available below. 

Based on FRA’s analysis of Segment 3B, the north side alignment would result in 

constructive use of the resource due to the combination of significant potential noise and 

vibration impacts (during both construction and operation) and from significant changes 

in the visual/aesthetic setting of the site. FRA concludes that the Segment 3B north side 

alignment would constitute a substantial impairment of the activities, features and 

attributes associated with this resource. 

Based on the analysis and consultation conducted to date, the Segment 3B (Modified) 

south side running alignment, would not result in any constructive use of the site 

primarily because the alignment would be located on the opposite side of the I-15 freeway. 

This would substantially reduce and avoid potential vibration and visual/aesthetic impacts 

to the site. 

Summary 

As discussed in sections above, the Preferred Alternative, with the incorporation of the 

Segment 3B (Modified) south side running alignment in the vicinity of the resource would 

not result in the direct or constructive use of any property qualifying for protection under 

Section 4(f). 

3.15.6 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Based on this analysis, FRA hereby finds that the Preferred Alternative is a feasible and 

prudent build alternative that avoids direct and constructive use of all Section 4(f) 

resources. 

3.15.7 LETTERS AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The following agencies and organizations provided comments on the Draft and 

Supplemental Draft EIS relating to this Section 4(f) Evaluation. Comments from these 

agencies are summarized below. Other comments from agencies, organizations, and 

individuals on the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS are included in Chapter 4.0, 

Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS. 

Bureau of Land Management, Needles Field Office: In further support of FRA’s 

determination, on January 4, 2011, the BLM Needles Field Office informed FRA of its 

finding of effects under Section 106 for both the north side and south side running 

alignments. BLM found that the north side running alignment would result in an 

adverse effect. The south side running alignment would result in no adverse effect. 

The BLM’s finding of effect is thus consistent with FRA’s analysis of potential Section 4(f) 
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-36

use of this resource. As the result of this consultation and analysis, FRA has concluded 

that the south side running alignment would avoid both direct and constructive use of this 

resource. 

National Park Service, Mojave National Preserve Superintendent‟s Office: In 

communication to FRA dated February 16, 2011, the Acting Superintendent of the Mojave 

National Preserve stated it concurred with FRA’s conclusions that Segments 3B and 4C 

would not result in constructive use of the Preserve. 
Segment 2C

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

TCA 1B

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Grady Trammel Park

Rockview Park

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

TCA 1B

NOTE: TCA 1B is located

entirely within OMSF 2

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 01.13.11

4

5

Section 4(f) Resources (1)

FIG

F-3.15-1

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: DesertXpress 2008, ESRI 2005, 

CirclePoint 2008-2011, NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities
Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 2C 

Smith

Park

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A

H Avenue

Soccer Fields

Foglesong

Park

Dana Park

Lillian Park

Sturnacle

Park

Barstow

Heights Park

Stringham

Park

Montara

Park

Mint Park

Geografika Consulting 01.13.11

4

5

Section 4(f) Resources (2)

FIG

F-3.15-2

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

CirclePoint 2008-2011, NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 5 01

Kilometers

0 4 8

Miles

NORTH

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

Legend

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Cameron

Park
NEVADA

CALIFORN

15 IA

Primm

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 4C

Mojave National

Preserve

Chet Hoffman Park

Mojave National

Preserve

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 01.13.11

4

5

Baker Blvd.

TCA 9

15

Baker

Segment 3B

Baker

MOW

127

Section 4(f) Resources (3)

FIG

F-3.15-3

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

Legend

Tunnels

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

0 63

Kilometers

0 2.5 5

Miles
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

Stonewater Park

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada

California

Section 4(f) Resources (4)

FIG

F-3.15-4

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Legend

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Segment 6B

Stonewater Park

Undesignated

Park Lands

Undesignated

Park Lands

Silverado Ranch Park

Western

Trails Park

Undesignated

Park Lands

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.28.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E. Tropicana Ave

L

a

s

Ve

g

a

s

Blv

d

W. Russell Rd

Segment 6 B

Robindale Ave.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

160

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

Western

Trails Park

Undesignated

Park Lands

Section 4(f) Resources (5)

FIG

F-3.15-5

Legend

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2 1.25 .5

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles
Barstow

Baker

Primm

Mountain

Halloran Pass

Springs

Victorville

Las Vegas

Lake

Mead

Los

Angeles

1 inch equals 38 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005

CirclePoint 2008-2011

Clean Air Act Designated Class I Areas

FIG

F-3.15-6

Geografika Consulting 01.13.11

0 6 30 0

Miles

0 6 30 0

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Grand Canyon

National Park

Joshua Tree

Wilderness and

National Park

San Gorgonio

Wilderness

San Jacinto

Wilderness

Agua Tibia

Wilderness

Cucamonga

Wilderness

San Gabriel

Wilderness

Domeland

Wilderness

UTAH

ARIZONA

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

Clean Air Act Designated

Class I Areas

Mojave

National Preserve

Death Valley

National Park

Other National Park Service

Lands (Not Class I Airsheds)

Note: Please refer to Appendix F-A, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"200’ and detailed

site plans for all ancillary facilities.

DesertXpress Alignments

Preferred Alternative

Legend

DesertXpress

Final EIS

100-Mile Boundary

Zion

National Park
FIG

View Comparison, North of Clark

Mountains (With Approved Ivanpah

Solar Electric Generation System)

Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

Visual simulation of Victorville Station 3

Existing view from I-15 eastbound

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Simulated Existing Conditions: Ivanpah Solar Electric

Generation System from Mojave National Preserve

Visual Simulation - DesertXpress Segment 4C and 

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generation System

Proposed Alignment

F-3.15-7

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Source: CH2M Hill
DesertXpress 3.15 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.15-44

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-1 

3.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

This section provides a comprehensive update of the cumulative analysis and thus 

replaces Draft EIS and Supplemental EIS Sections 3.16, Cumulative Impacts. This 

section summarizes the potential cumulative physical and growth-related environmental 

consequences of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative when combined 

with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

3.16.1 REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS

Under NEPA, a cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the environment that results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts may result from individually 

minor actions by collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.0F

1

 

A cumulative impact includes the total effect on a natural resource, ecosystem, or human 

community that is attributable to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

activities/actions of federal, nonfederal, public, or private entities. Cumulative impacts 

may also include the effects of natural processes and events, depending on the specific 

resource in question. Cumulative impacts include the total of all impacts on a particular 

resource that have occurred, are occurring, and will likely occur as a result of any action or 

influence, including the direct and indirect effects of a federal activity. Accordingly, there 

may be different levels of cumulative impacts on different environmental resources. 

3.16.2 RELATED PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

3.16.2.1 Past Activities and Actions 

Past activities and projects considered in this analysis include existing projects that are 

closely related in location to the Preferred Alternative, depending on the area of 

cumulative analysis identified for each environmental topic area. 

The Preferred Alternative area consists of both rural and urban environments. The two 

terminals in Victorville and Las Vegas are situated in or are proximate to urban areas. 

Areas in between along the rail alignment are primarily undeveloped and rural, with the 

exception of several relatively isolated communities (Barstow, Baker, Primm, and Jean). 

Over the past decades, rapid urbanization of Victorville and Las Vegas have resulted in the 

development and implementation of numerous past projects, such as residential, 

industrial, commercial, or service area projects. In the area between Victorville and Las 

Vegas, trends in growth and development have been much more gradual. 

 

1

 40 CFR §1508.7 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-2 

The Preferred Alternative was selected considering the location of these past projects, so 

as to limit disruption or displacement where possible. The majority of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment has been located within the existing I-15 freeway corridor to 

avoid impacts to past projects, such as existing solar and wind energy generating facilities 

located in the California Desert Conservation Area, existing mining operation near 

Mountain Pass, and residential, commercial, agricultural, and recreational developments 

in Victorville, Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, and Las Vegas. These past projects are a part 

of the existing environmental conditions and establish a baseline for the potentially 

affected environment. 

Section 3.16.3 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.16.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

described the reasonably present and foreseeable future actions and projects within the 

area of cumulative analysis for the DesertXpress project. Several present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects identified in the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS have since 

been constructed and are identified below. These projects have been constructed and are 

now considered past activities and actions for inclusion in the baseline for the potentially 

affected environment relative to cumulative impacts for this Final EIS and the evaluation 

of the Preferred Alternative. 

Desert Gateway Specific Plan2 

The Desert Gateway Specific Plan, formerly referred to as the North Triangle Specific Plan, 

encompasses a 10,203 acre area in the northern portion of Victorville. The Desert 

Gateway Specific Plan was adopted by the Victorville City Council in December 2009. 

Multi-modal TOD principles are central to the Desert Gateway Specific Plan. The Desert 

Gateway Specific Plan includes plans for potential future passenger rail services to link 

Victorville with northern and southern California, as well as Las Vegas. The Preferred 

Alternative Victorville Station (VV3) and OMSF (OMSF 2) are located within the Desert 

Gateway Specific Plan. Figure F-3.16-1 shows the boundaries of the Desert Gateway 

Specific Plan. 

Fast Food Restaurant Development – Primm, Nevada 

A Kentucky Fried Chicken/Taco Bell restaurant was constructed in Primm in 2009. The 

fast food restaurant is located just north of the California-Nevada state border and 

immediately east of the I-15 freeway. The fast food restaurant is at 32120 Las Vegas 

Boulevard South, adjacent to the existing shopping mall constructed in 1998 (Fashion 

Outlets of Las Vegas) and in proximity to longer-established gaming resorts. Figure F3.16-5 shows the location of the fast food restaurant. 

 

2

 The Desert Gateway Specific Plan was referred to as the North Triangle Specific Plan in Section 3.16.3.3 of 

the Draft EIS and Section 3.16.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-3 

I-15 Mountain Pass Truck Lane 

Caltrans completed the I-15 Mountain Pass Truck Lane in fall 2010. Construction of the 

truck lane began in May 2008.2F

3

 This project involved the construction of a truck 

descending lane on the northbound side of the I-15 freeway and the repaving of the 

existing southbound truck lane from the Bailey Road interchange to the Yates Well Road 

interchange, a distance of about 12 miles. The project also included the widening and repaving of the existing lanes and median on both the northbound and southbound sides of 

the I-15 freeway corridor. 

Bonneville Transit Center4

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) constructed a new 

21,000 square foot transit terminal at the corner of Casino Center Boulevard and 

Bonneville Avenue in Downtown Las Vegas, replacing the existing Downtown 

Transportation Center. The Bonneville Transit Center, formerly referred to as the 

Intermodal Transport Terminal, became operational in November 2010.5

 The Bonneville 

Transit Center serves as the main transit hub for the RTC’s transit system, including the 

Strip & Downtown Express, MAX (Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express Bus Rapid 

Transit), and Boulder Highway Express lines. The Bonneville Transit Center is located 

approximately five miles north of Las Vegas Central Station B and about 7 miles north of 

the Las Vegas Southern Station site. Figure F-3.16-7 shows the location of this facility. 

West Mojave Plan 

The BLM developed the West Mojave Plan to define a regional strategy for conserving 

plant and animal species and their habitats. The West Mojave Plan also provides an 

efficient, equitable, and cost-effective process for complying with threatened and 

endangered species. The West Mojave Plan targets the desert tortoise, Mojave ground 

squirrel, and over 100 special status plant and wildlife species. The West Mojave Plan 

encompasses approximately 9.4 million acres of public land managed by BLM. The 

Record of Decision to adopt the West Mojave Plan was signed on March 13, 2006.6

 Due to 

the large expanse of land covered by the West Mojave Plan, this potential cumulative 

project is not shown on Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7. 

 

3

 Caltrans. I-15 Mountain Pass Truck Lane. 

<http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/i15mtnpass/index.htm>. Website access January 21, 

2011. 

4 The Bonneville Transit Center was referred to as the Intermodal Transport Terminal near Downtown Las 

Vegas in Section 3.16.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

5

 Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. 

<http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/servicechange/index.cfm>. Website accessed January 20, 2011. 

6 Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decision, West Mojave Plan, Amendment to the California Desert 

Conservation Area Plan. March 2006. 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib//blm/ca/pdf/pdfs/cdd_pdfs/wemo_pdfs.Par.4dfb777f.File.pdf/

wemo_rod_3-06.pdf>. Website accessed January 20, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-4 

3.16.2.2 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions and 

Projects 

Section 3.16.3 of the Draft EIS and Section 3.16.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

identify the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and projects considered in 

the cumulative analysis. This section updates and replaces Section 3.16.3 of the Draft 

EIS and Section 3.16.1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7 show the location of all the present and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects considered in the cumulative analysis for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Transportation Projects7

I-15 Capacity Improvements 

Caltrans and NDOT are planning for future highway improvements along I-15 between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7 show the general location 

of the proposed I-15 capacity improvements. 

The Caltrans improvements include widening the I-15 bridge over the Mojave River, 

several interchange modifications, and widening portions of the I-15 freeway to increase 

capacity. 

NDOT is proposing several improvements and projects along the I-15 corridor, including 

Project NEON and the I-15 South Design-Build project, which involves the widening the I15 freeway, reconstruction of existing interchanges, local access improvements, addition of 

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and the construction of new interchanges, bridges, 

retaining walls, and sound walls. New interchanges would be located at Bermuda Road, 

Starr Avenue, Cactus Road, and near the proposed SNSA. 

A number of other projects are under consideration to improve capacity and/or operations 

of the I-15 corridor. These include: 

 I-15 from California state line to Sloan Road: widen from 6 to 8 lanes 

 I-15 from Sloan Road to Blue Diamond Road: widen from 6 lanes to 10 lanes

 

7 Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.16.1 included an updated description of the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train System (maglev project) reflecting NDOT’s progress defining a scope of work for a funding

agreement to support preparation of an environmental document analyzing the potential impact of a rail 

system using magnetic levitation technology from Las Vegas to Primm, Nevada. This update was not intended 

to suggest that the Maglev system is considered a reasonably foreseeable requiring analysis in cumulative 

impact section of this Final EIS. The information contained in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.16.1 has 

been integrated into the description of the maglev project in Section 1.6.1 of this Final EIS and for the 

reasons described therein is not considered reasonably foreseeable thus no analysis of the potential cumulative 

impacts of the maglev project are presented here. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-5 

 I-15 between I-215 and Interstate 515 (I-515): widen from 10 to 14 lanes 

(preliminary engineering)

 I-15 between Russell Road and Sahara Avenue: widen from 8 to 10 lanes 

(preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition) 

 Reversible carpool lanes between Interstate 210 (I-210) (Ontario) and U.S. Route 

395 (U.S. 395) (Victorville) 

 Northbound truck climbing lane between Bailey Road and Yates Road 

Victorville I-15 Interchange Improvements 

Caltrans and FHWA are planning a project that would add a third mixed-flow lane on 

southbound I-15 and construct interchange improvements at six interchanges in 

Victorville, including the Stoddard Wells interchanges and those at D Street and E 

Street/State Route 18 (SR 18). 

New Roadways Intersecting I-15 

The following new roadways are proposed and would intersect with the I-15 freeway 

corridor within the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. These roadways improvements 

are located within the same area of the I-15 freeway capacity improvement projects, as 

shown on Figures 3.16-6 and 3.16-7.

 Starr Avenue: construction of a 6 lane roadway from I-15 to St. Rose Parkway 

(Clark County) 

 I-15 at I-215: construction of new direct connector high-occupancy vehicle ramps 

(Clark County) 

I-15 Joint Point of Entry 

The I-15 Joint Point of Entry project would include a Commercial Vehicle Enforcement 

Facility and an Agricultural Inspection Facility between Nipton Road and Yates Road on 

southbound I-15, located in the Ivanpah Valley, just south of the California-Nevada state 

line. This project would also include construction of a truck bypass, bridges, traffic lanes 

through the facilities, weigh-in motion scales, and demolition of the existing California 

Department of Food and Agriculture Inspection Station in Yermo. 

The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility would be in operation 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week with the primary focus on inspection of vehicle equipment and loads. The 

Agricultural Inspection Facility would consist of six passenger vehicle and four truck lanes 

through the inspection facility. As of January 2011, construction is scheduled to begin in 

the summer of 2011 for a period of about 19 months.8 

 

8 Jason Bennecke. Project Manager. Caltrans District 8. Personal communication. January 18, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-6 

The I-15 Joint Point of Entry project would be located approximately five miles east of the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment. Figure F-3.16-5 shows the location of the I-15 

Joint Point of Entry site. 

California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) 

The California High Speed Rail project is a proposed high-speed rail system in California. 

The project would include an 800-mile high-speed train system serving Sacramento, the 

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

County, and San Diego. The California High-Speed Rail Authority will design, build, and 

operate the system. The environmental review process is being conducted in two parts 

due to the large scope of the project. These phases include a statewide program-level 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS followed by a more specific project-level 

EIR/EIS of each of the nine sections. The Statewide Final Program-Level EIR/EIS was 

certified in 2005. The project-level EIR/EIS is underway and will determine the specific 

track alignments and station locations for each of the nine sections. The system is forecast 

to potentially carry between 88 million to 117 million passengers annually by 2030.9

 The 

closest potential CHSR station to the Preferred Alternative is the Ontario station, located 

approximately 45 miles south of the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station (VV3). Due 

to the distance, the CHSR is not shown in Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7. 

Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) 

Pursuant to the Ivanpah Valley Airport Lands Transfer Act of 2000,10 the CCDOA 

proposes to construct a new supplemental commercial airport in the Ivanpah Valley of 

southern Nevada. The new SNSA would provide additional capacity to serve the residents 

of the Las Vegas area and Clark County area. It would not replace McCarran International 

Airport but would supplement the existing airport and serve Las Vegas. 

Specific site plans for the SNSA are not yet complete. The proposed SNSA site would be 

just east of I-15 and the Preferred Alternative rail alignment, between Primm and Jean. 

Figure F-3.16-6 shows the location of the proposed SNSA. Congress has allowed for a 

transportation and utility corridor to be established between the Las Vegas Valley and the 

SNSA. 

The Preferred Alternative could potentially serve the proposed new airport. The Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would pass by the site of the proposed new airport, allowing for 

the potential future construction of an airport rail link.11

 Any such future link would likely 

 

9 California High Speed Rail. California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2011. 

<http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/other_systems.aspx>.

10 CCDOA, Clark County Department of Aviation Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS for the 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train, October 18, 2010. 

11 Construction of a link to the proposed SNSA is not part of the current DesertXpress proposal and is not 

evaluated in this EIS. Construction and operations of such a link would require separate environmental 

review. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-7 

require construction of a spur track off the mainline into the terminal area. This would 

allow for the possibility of dedicated service to the airport. DesertXpress Enterprises, 

LLC, airport officials, and Clark County may consider this possibility at some future date.12 

Planning of the SNSA has been considerably slowed due to the economic downturn and 

resultant decrease in air traffic at the McCarran International Airport. Accordingly, in 

2010, the FAA suspended environmental work on the SNSA without identifying a date 

certain at which work would resume. As of January 2011, the precise location of any 

roadway, utilities, or other related infrastructure within this corridor has not been 

established. 

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport 

The proposed Southern Nevada Regional Heliport site would be located in Clark County, 

about 15 miles south of the McCarran International Airport, just south of Sloan to the east 

of I-15. The CCDOA completed its initial helicopter noise assessment in December 2000, 

with the Needs Assessment and Site Suitability Assessment for a Southern Nevada 

Regional Heliport completed in late 2003.13

 A Draft Environmental Assessment was 

publicly released for comment in April 2008. In February 2009, the FAA signed the 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/ ROD for the project. As of January 2011, there 

is no scheduled date for construction. The project is on hold due to insufficient funding.14

 

The proposed Heliport site location would be situated to the east of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment, south of the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Figure F-3.16-7 

shows the location of the proposed Southern Nevada Regional Heliport. 

I-15/U.S. 95 Managed Lanes Demonstration Project 

This project is an initiative set forth by NDOT to analyze the effectiveness, value, and 

functionality of managed High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes as a solution to traffic 

congestion problems in the Las Vegas Valley. The managed HOT lanes, also known as 

express lanes, would run approximately 19 miles within the median of the U.S. 95 and I-15 

corridors. Under the current plan, the HOT lanes would begin at the I-15/I-215 

intersection in the south and divert to north of Downtown Las Vegas, and beyond the 

proposed terminus of the Preferred Alternative. These HOT lanes would be constructed in 

the same area as proposed for future I-15 capacity improvements. Figure F-3.16-7

shows the location of the HOT lanes as part of the I-15 capacity improvements. 

 

12 The economic viability of the DesertXpress project does not rely upon an airport shuttle or other forms of 

transportation linking to the proposed SNSA. Ridership projections for DesertXpress (Appendix F-D) 

exclude any allowance for passengers that might be related to the proposed SNSA. 

13

 Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, Clark County, Nevada. 

<http://www.ricondoprojects.com/Heliport/background.html>.

14 Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, Clark County, Nevada. 

<http://www.ricondoprojects.com/Heliport/background.html>.
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-8 

High Desert Corridor–New SR 138 Project 

Caltrans is proposing to construct a new 63 mile freeway/expressway connecting 

California State Route 14 (SR 14) in City of Palmdale within Los Angeles County and 

California State Route 18 (SR 18) in Apple Valley within San Bernardino County. The 

proposed route would run primarily in an east-west direction roughly following the 

alignment of the Avenue P-8 near SR 14 in Los Angeles County and Air Expressway near I15 in San Bernardino County. East of the I-15 corridor, the proposed route would turn 

south and terminate at SR 18. Figure F-3.16-1 shows the approximate location of the 

High Desert Corridor—New California State Route 138 (SR 138) Project alignment. This 

crossing would be approximately 6 miles south of the Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station at Dale Evans Parkway. 

The High Desert corridor is expected to improve capacity and accessibility to the region 

due to the traffic demands projected from residential growth and increasing development 

in the Antelope, Victor, and Apple Valley areas. While the corridor is planned for 

automobiles and truck use, the alternative routings under consideration would 

accommodate the future addition of a rail corridor. The CHSR project has a proposed 

station in the City of Palmdale, about 65 miles west of Victorville. The High Desert 

corridor project could thus provide a basis for an interconnection between CHSR and 

DesertXpress. 

FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed 

High Desert Corridor—New State Route 138 Freeway/Expressway project in September 

2010. A Draft EIR/EIS is anticipated to be published in the fall of 2012. 

U.S. 395 Realignment 

Realignment and widening for a portion of U.S. 395 west of Victorville was under the 

consideration of SANBAG. In March 2008, the SANBAG terminated its work on an EIR 

that would have identified various route alternatives. Although SANBAG has terminated 

efforts on the project, Caltrans has determined that it will continue to pursue realignment 

activities and improvements on U.S. Route 395 (U.S. 395). Caltrans has made various 

improvements to the highway, including the widening of several lanes, shoulders, and 

medians, installation of rumble strips, and the signalization of intersections.15

 Due to the 

distance of this project from the Preferred Alternative, this project is not identified on 

Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7.

 

15 Referenced at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/index.htm; accessed 

November 5, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-9 

ACE Rapid Transit System 

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) is developing a rapid 

transit system in downtown Las Vegas. The ACE Rapid Transit Downtown Connector will 

provide a rapid transit link between downtown Las Vegas and the southern resort corridor 

(the Las Vegas Strip). Project components will include dedicated transit lanes along a 

portion of the alignment along with passenger stations with station canopies, lighting, 

ticket vending machines and displays announcing vehicle arrival times. Since this project 

involves an entire transit system with multiple routes in the Las Vegas area, the project is 

not shown on Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7. 

The City of Las Vegas in partnership with the RTC have begun work on the project, which 

includes roadway and station platform improvements along Grand Central Parkway, 

Casino Center Boulevard, 3rd Street, and Paradise Road.16 

The RTC has started rapid bus transit service on two of several scheduled lines. In March 

2010, service began on the Gold and C Lines. The Gold Line serves Downtown Las Vegas 

and The Strip; the C Line provides express service from Northeast Las Vegas towards the 

University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) campus, northwest of McCarran International 

Airport. Other lines in the system are expected to be operational by late 2011. 

Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Monorail Extension 

The Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC) is proposing an extension to the Resort 

Corridor Fixed Guideway Monorail System (Monorail), which is an automated (driverless) 

and elevated rail system, running along side streets east of the Las Vegas Strip (Las Vegas 

Boulevard). The 4-mile long route opened in 2004 and runs roughly north-south. The 

system has a total of 7 stations, associated with major hotels along the Las Vegas Strip.17

 

The RTC included the extension of the monorail south to McCarran International Airport, 

in its Regional Transportation Plan 2009-2030, Draft for Consultation, September 2008 

(Project #4200). 

Parks, Recreation, or Natural Preservation Projects 

Ivanpah Dry Lake Recreation Area 

The Ivanpah Dry Lake is located on the I-15 corridor at the California/Nevada border and 

is managed by the BLM Needles Field Office. The Dry Lake is used by recreationists for 

non-motorized recreationalist activities such as archery, kite buggying, and land sailing. 

Approximately 200 Casual Use Permits are issued annually for various non-motorized 

recreational activities within the Ivanpah Dry Lake. Additionally, Special Recreation 

Permits are issued annually for commercial, competitive, vending, special area, organized 

 

16 Available at :http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/mpo/downtownconnector/ 

17 Available at http://www.lvmonorail.com/. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-10

group activity, and event uses. It is assumed that this recreational use of Ivanpah Dry 

Lake will continue into the foreseeable future and that permits will continue to be granted. 

Figure F-3.16-5 shows the location of the Ivanpah Dry Lake Recreation Area. 

Development Projects 

Mixed-Use Development – Jean, Nevada 

MGM Mirage and Jeanco Realty Development, LLC, propose to develop a master-planned 

community on 166 acres in Jean, Nevada. Figure F-3.16-6 shows the location of the 

proposed Mixed-Use Development. The project would feature residential, commercial, 

and retail elements in addition to a new hotel casino adjacent to the I-15 corridor. 

Implementation of this project entails the demolition of two casinos, the Nevada Landing 

Hotel and Casino and the Gold Strike Hotel and Gambling Hall. Demolition of the Nevada 

Landing was completed in April 2008. However, as of January 2011, work on the project 

has halted with no date certain as to when efforts might resume. 

Energy Projects 

Bureau of Land Management Solar and Wind Energy Projects 

The BLM has received several applications for solar energy projects within close proximity 

to the Preferred Alternative. The locations of these solar energy projects are shown on 

Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-5 and listed below by BLM serial number18 The 

following list includes the most current solar energy project applications as of January 

2011. 

 350 Megawatt (MW) Baker Solar Project on 8,384 acres near Baker (CACA 48741)

 350 MW Caithness Soda Mountain Solar Project on 7,995 acres near Baker (CACA 

49584)

 380 MW Stateline Solar Project on 5,440 acres in Ivanpah Valley (CACA 48669)

 370 MW Ivanpah 2 Solar Project, also referred to as the Ivanpah Solar Electric 

Generating System (ISEGS) project, on 1,076 acres in Ivanpah Valley (CACA 

048668)

The ISEGS project was approved by the California Energy Commission in September 

2010.19 The project involves the construction of a 370 megawatt solar complex using 

mirrors to focus the power of the sun on solar receivers atop power towers. The project 

includes three separate plants to be built between 2010 and 2013. Groundbreaking for the 

 

18 Bureau of Land Management, Solar Applications Table. December 2010. 

<http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/alternative_energy/SolarEnergy.html>.

19 BrightSource, Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, September 22, 2010. 

<http://ivanpahsolar.com/green-light-from-the-california-energy-commission-2>. Accessed November 4, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-11

project began in October 2010.20 As of January 2011, at least two lawsuits have been filed 

against the United States Department of Interior (DOI) regarding Federal approvals of 

this and other solar energy projects in the Mojave Desert.21 This analysis nonetheless 

includes these projects as a conservative approach to addressing possible cumulative 

effects. 

In addition to the solar energy projects, BLM has also received several applications for 

wind energy projects in the California Desert. The location of these wind energy projects 

are shown on Figures F-3.16-1 through Figure F-3.16-5. These projects are listed 

below by BLM serial number.22 The following list includes the most current wind energy 

project applications as of January 2011. 

 82.5 Megawatt (MW) Daggett Ridge Wind Energy Project on 1,691 acres near 

Barstow (CACA 49575)

 Wind Energy Application near Barstow (CACA 50612)

 Wind Energy Application near Barstow (CACA 50896)

 Wind Energy Application near Barstow (CACA 51605)

 Wind Energy Application near Stoddard Mountain (CACA 51772)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Barstow (CACA 43088)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Apple Valley (CACA 44975)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Barstow (CACA 46881)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Newberry-Baker (CACA 47455)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Newberry-Baker (CACA 48472)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Barstow (CACA 49053)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project near Barstow (CACA 49204)

 Authorized Wind Energy Project on 3,520 acres near Barstow (CACA 49202) 

 75 MW Iberdrola Wind Project on 2,330 acres between Mineral Mountain and the 

I-15 corridor (CACA 44988)

 Three wind towers near Daggett (CACA 046803) 

 Two wind towers near Calico Dry Lakebed (CACA 049052) 

 

20 BrightSource, Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, October 27, 2010. 

<http://ivanpahsolar.com/green-light-from-the-california-energy-commission-2>. Accessed November 4, 

2010. 

21

 ―Western Watersheds Project Sues to Stop Solar Power Towers,‖ Environment News Service, January 18, 

2011. Accessed January 24, 2011 at < http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2011/2011-01-18-091.html> 

22 Bureau of Land Management, Wind Applications Table. December 2010. < 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/alternative_energy/WindEnergy.html>.
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-12

Nextlight Silver State South Solar Project 

The proposed Nextlight Silver State Solar project would construct three photovoltaic 

power plants totaling 400 MW on 2,967 acres. As shown on Figure F-3-16-5, the 

Nextlight solar project would be located in the Ivanpah Valley, two miles east of Primm, 

Nevada. A Final EIS was published in September 2010 and the Record of Decision for the 

project was signed in October 2010. 

McCullough Pass Southern Nevada Solar Project 

The proposed project would construct a 1,000 MW solar thermal energy facility on 

approximately 19,840 acres of land east of Jean in Ivanpah Valley. The BLM received an 

application for the project to in January 2007. As of January 2011, the project is still 

pending. Figure F-3.16-6 shows the location of the McCullough Pass Southern Nevada 

Solar project. 

Public Utility Projects

Ivanpah Energy Center 

The proposed Ivanpah Energy Center would be located near the community of 

Goodsprings, Nevada, about 5 miles east of I-15 and about 25 miles south of Las Vegas. 

The proposed Ivanpah Energy Center would include development of a 500 MW gasturbine combined-cycle power plant. While construction was expected to begin in early 

2006, no construction on the site has yet taken place as of January 2011. 

Comment S-5 on the Supplemental Draft EIS stated that the Ivanpah Energy Center 

project site location was not accurately depicted. Figure F-3.16-6 shows the corrected 

location of the Ivanpah Energy Center. 

Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project 

The Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) would provide the electrical facilities 

and capacity necessary to access and deliver power from the ISEGS site, and other nearby 

proposed energy projects. Figures F-3.16-5 and F-3.16-6 show the location of the 

EITP. 

The EITP would construct a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 

approximately 35 miles long, between the existing Eldorado Substation in Nevada and the 

approved ISEGS project site. This transmission line would replace a portion of the 

existing 115-kV transmission line that runs from Eldorado through Baker and Mountain 

Pass. The EITP also includes an Ivanpah Substation at the ISEGS site and a 

subtransmission line to connect to the existing 115-kV subtransmission system in the area. 

The EITP would also include distribution lines to provide light and auxiliary power to the 

ISEGS and Ivanpah Substation. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-13

Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted an application to the California Public 

Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct and operate the EITP and filed a right-of-way 

application with the BLM for a permit to construct in May 2009. CPUC and the BLM 

(Needles Field Office) published a Final EIR/EIS in November 2010; the California Public 

Utilities Commission approved the EITP project in December 2010. As of January 2011, 

SCE is awaiting final regulatory approvals from local jurisdictions, state and federal 

regulatory agencies. The project is expected to be complete and operational by 2013. 

Kinder Morgan Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project 

The Calnev Pipeline, operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, transports gasoline, 

diesel, and jet fuel from refineries in Southern California to the Las Vegas area through 

two parallel pipelines, 8 and 14 inches in diameter. The largely underground pipeline 

system generally parallels the I-15 corridor, running from the North Colton terminal in 

Colton, California to the Bracken Junction in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Calnev Pipeline 

system includes laterals serving Edwards Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base, and 

McCarran International Airport. 

Due to the projected increase in commercial air traffic to and from McCarran Airport 

which would significantly increases demand on jet fuel supplies, Kinder Morgan proposed 

adding a third pipeline to the existing Calnev system. The expansion project would 

include the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new 16-inch diameter pipeline 

from Colton to Las Vegas; new ancillary facilities at Colton and Baker; and new or 

modified connections to existing laterals. As of January 2011, a Draft EIR/EIS for the 

Kinder Morgan Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project is anticipated to be published in April 

2011.23

 Figures F-3.16-1 through F-3.16-7 show the location of the proposed expansion 

of the Kinder Morgan Calnev Pipeline.

Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral 

The Kern River Gas Transmission Company has proposed to construct a distribution gas 

line off the Kern River mainline as means to provide natural gas supplies to Molycorp 

Minerals, LLC’s Mountain Pass rare earth mine. The Mountain Pass lateral is 

conceptualized to be an 8.6-mile, 8-inch diameter pipeline routing south from the Kern 

River mainlines along the western edge of Ivanpah Valley, over the Clark Mountains, and 

terminating at the Molycorp Minerals property. The project also includes construction of 

new associated facilities, including a pig launcher,24 pig receiver,25 and meter station to be 

located at the Molycorp facility in San Bernardino County. 

 

23 Richard Rotte, BLM Barstow Field Office. Personal communication, January 10, 2011. 

24 A pig launcher is a funnel shaped section in a pipeline that can be closed, which allows pressure to build in 

the pipeline that can send the product in the pipeline to the pig receiver. 

25 A pig receiver is a product catching device that receives the product within the pipeline that has been sent 

via the pig launcher. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-14

As of January 2011, the Kern River Gas Transmission Company has filed an application 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act. Kern River Gas anticipates receiving FERC approval of the location and 

construction of the interstate pipeline by July 2011. Construction is scheduled to begin in 

August 2011, with facilities to be in service by January 2012. Figures F-3.16-5 shows the 

location of the Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral. 

Other Related Projects 

Molycorp Minerals, LLC, Mountain Pass Mine 

Molycorp Minerals, LLC (Molycorp) is proposing to restart rare-earth mining operations 

at its existing Mountain Pass mine location in California. Following publication of an EIR 

in 2004 outlining proposed mining and reclamation plans, Molycorp proposed 

modifications to improve the efficiency of its mining operations. These modifications 

were examined in a subsequent Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) published in 

September 2010. The proposed modifications include equipment upgrades/replacements 

and construction of new major facilities (a power plant, salt recovery system, recycling 

facilities). In addition, Molycorp proposed relocation of its crusher plant and stockpiles; 

modifying existing mineral recovery facilities; constructing a new warehouse and truck 

shop to the central shop; and improving the extension of the access road to the new 

facilities/plants. Molycorp anticipates reinitiating mining activities at the existing 

Mountain Pass mine location within the first quarter of 2012.26

San Bernardino County and other relevant regulatory agencies, including the California 

Department of Fish and Game, issued environmental permits to Molycorp in December 

2010 to allow construction of the new processing facility and plant. Groundbreaking for 

the project began in January 2011 and mining activities are expected to commence later in 

2011. Figure F-3.16-5 shows the location of the Molycorp Minerals Mountain Pass 

Mine. The Molycorp Minerals Mountain Pass Mine would be located less than a mile 

north of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment within the Clark Mountains. 

On-Going Projects 

In addition to the foregoing, the metropolitan Las Vegas area is expected to continue to 

generate numerous development projects. The metropolitan Las Vegas area is a dynamic 

urban environment. Various urban developments (hotels, casinos, other commercial 

development), are assumed to occur in the future, as they have occurred in the past. 

These types of projects would reinforce the existing urban context of the metropolitan 

area. While no specific development projects are identified, the continuing urban context 

of the metropolitan Las Vegas area is considered in the cumulative analysis. 

 

26 MineWeb. Molcorp approves Mountain Pass expansion, combined stock offering. January 25, 2011. 

<http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page67?oid=119108&sn=Detail>. Access on 

February 15, 2011. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-15

3.16.3 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

3.16.3.1 Methods of Evaluation 

The cumulative impact methodology described in Section 3.16.1 of the Draft EIS and 

Section 3.16.2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS remains applicable to this Final EIS and 

the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. The cumulative analysis describes the 

potential for the Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related past, present and 

future project, to result in cumulatively adverse environmental effects. Each analysis 

considers the area of cumulative analysis and identifies the relevant past, present, and 

future related to the potential cumulative impact. The evaluation identified whether the 

cumulative impact would be substantial and whether the Preferred Alternative’s 

contribution to a substantial cumulative impact would be considerable. 

An evaluation of the cumulative impacts associated with the No Action Alternative is also 

included. 

3.16.3.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the 

Preferred Alternative. However, the past, present, and future projects, as described above, 

would continue to be implemented. For example, land use changes, development, 

transportation projects, utility projects, energy projects, and redevelopment of properties 

would continue to occur. As such, for most environmental resource areas the No Action 

Alternative would not avoid or greatly reduce the cumulative effects of the Preferred 

Alternative described in this section. For example, improvements under the No Action 

Alternative would be located in the same vicinity as the Preferred Alternative, and would 

thus contend with many of the same utilities and emergency service impacts, cultural and 

paleontological resources, geological hazards, hazardous material risks. 

The No Action Alternative, in combination with the present and future projects, would 

result in cumulative air quality and energy effects. While the Preferred Alternative would 

not substantially contribute to these cumulative impacts (see Section 3.16.3 below), 

under the No Action Alternative, traffic along this corridor is expected to grow 

substantially by year 2030. The regional criteria pollutant and GHG emissions that would 

result from vehicular travel along the I-15 project corridor under the No Action Alternative 

would be considered a substantial contribution to the cumulative air quality impacts. 

Similarly, the capacity improvements on I-15 would substantially contribute to an increase 

in automobile energy consumption on this highway. 

Construction emissions related to the tunnel boring under the Preferred Alternative would 

not occur under the No Action Alternative. As such, cumulative emissions related to 

construction activity would be less under the No Action Alternative when compared to the 

Preferred Alternative, as tunneling requires a substantial construction effort. In addition, 

the Preferred Alternative would result in a shorter duration construction schedule 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-16

(approximately three years) when compared to construction of No Action Alternative 

improvements, which would result in higher annual emissions under the Preferred 

Alternative when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

In addition, the No Action Alternative would not result in an operational energy savings, 

as constructing new traffic lanes would not result in energy payback over time (i.e., fewer 

barrels of oil consumed by automobile travel).27

 The construction of new traffic lanes 

would thus result in an irretrievable commitment of energy resources and a substantial 

contribution to the cumulative energy impact. Several project specific impacts associated 

with the Preferred Alternative would be avoided under the No Action Alternative, such as 

cumulative traffic effects at location intersections surrounding station and maintenance 

facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas. The No Action Alternative would also avoid the 

construction of tracks, fencing, elevated structured, station and maintenance facilities that 

would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative, which would in turn reduce or avoid a 

portion of the cumulative visual changes that would occur with the Preferred Alternative. 

The No Action Alternative would also not introduce any development to the Ivanpah 

Valley area north of Mountain pass, which would avoid cumulative effects related to 

grazing land, hydrology and water quality, cultural and paleontological resources, and 

biological resources that would occur with the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Action 

Alternative, no planned or programmed developments would combine with the proposed 

solar and wind energy projects, such as the ISEGS project, and public utility projects, such 

as the EITP and Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral. The No Action Alternative would 

not combine with these related projects to cumulatively limit grazing land activities and 

limit livestock access across grazing land allotments. The No Action Alternative, in 

combination with the related projects, would also not cumulatively affect ephemeral 

drainages in the Ivanpah Valley and would not result in adverse cumulative water quality 

effects in this area. Similarly, no cumulative effects to sensitive plant and wildlife species 

would occur in this area under the No Action Alternative, since none of the planned or 

programmed developments considered as part of the No Action Alternative are proposed 

within the Ivanpah Valley. 

3.16.3.3 Preferred Alternative 

Draft EIS Section 3.16.4 evaluated the cumulative impacts of DesertXpress project as a 

whole; Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.16.3 evaluated the cumulative impacts of the 

DesertXpress project in combination with the project additions and modifications since 

publication of the Draft EIS. The following analysis considers the cumulative impacts of 

the Preferred Alternative and thus completely replaces Draft EIS Section 3.16.4 and 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.16.3. 

 

27 The energy payback period measures the number of years that would be required to pay back the energy 

used in construction with operational energy consumption savings. The payback period is calculated by 

dividing the estimate of construction energy by the amount of energy that would later be saved by the action. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-17

3.16.3.4 Land Use and Community Impacts 

The area of cumulative analysis for land use and community impacts includes San 

Bernardino County and Clark County. Since the majority of the alignment along the I-15 

freeway is undeveloped, the area considered for cumulative impacts primarily includes 

Victorville and Las Vegas, as well as the communities within close proximity to the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment, such as Barstow, Baker, Yermo, Lenwood, Primm, 

Jean, and Sloan. 

The Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related transportation, energy, and 

development projects, could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with land use. 

Changes in land uses over time have been relatively slow over much of the area around the 

DesertXpress rail alignment, with the exception of Victorville and Las Vegas. Over the 

past ten years, land use changes in Victorville and Las Vegas have rapidly changed through 

the development of urban uses, such as residential developments and industrial and 

commercial areas. The open space areas between Victorville and Las Vegas have 

experienced a slower trend in land use change, as much of this area has remained 

undeveloped. The Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related projects, would 

further this land use trend, as the proposed development and transportation projects are 

primarily concentrated in Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Capacity improvements to I-15 are primarily located within the Victorville and Las Vegas 

areas. These capacity improvements would cumulatively contribute to land use effects, as 

the roadway improvements could encourage previously undeveloped areas near the 

roadway to develop residential, commercial, or service uses. The Desert Gateway Specific 

Plan would also allow urban developed near the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station 

and OMSF sites. Development within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan would allow for 

more pronounced commercial, residential, or transit-oriented development in the area. 

Ongoing urban development in Las Vegas could also combine with the Preferred 

Alternative Las Vegas Station (either site option) and Las Vegas MSF to establish greater 

transit-oriented development in the area. For a discussion of the associated cumulative 

growth effects, refer to the discussion under the heading ―Growth,‖ below. When 

considered with the Preferred Alternative, these projects could cumulatively contribute to 

the regional trends of rapid land use changes in Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Related projects located between Victorville and Las Vegas are, however, spread out and 

isolated in nature and would maintain the slow trend in the change to land uses. 

There are a number of solar and wind energy projects proposed within the vicinity of the 

Preferred Alternative between Victorville and Las Vegas. The majority of the proposed 

energy projects are located south of Barstow or in the Ivanpah Valley area. In the Barstow 

area, the proposed energy projects would be located south of the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment, as shown in Figure F-3.16-2. These proposed energy projects could 

cumulatively combine to alter the existing undeveloped and rural land uses south of 

Barstow to industrial/institutional uses associated with the energy projects. The Preferred 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-18

Alternative rail alignment would remain within the I-15 freeway corridor in this area and 

thus would not cumulatively combine with the energy projects to transform the existing 

land use in the area. 

Figure F-3.16-5 shows these proposed energy projects in Ivanpah Valley. The ISEGS 

project was approved in September 2010, which would alter the existing vacant and 

undeveloped land use within the Ivanpah Valley with the development of this solar energy 

project. There are also a number of other energy projects proposed within the same area, 

which could cumulatively combine to further transform the existing land use from 

undeveloped, grazing lands to industrial or institutional uses associated with the energy 

projects. The ISEGS project also includes a tortoise translocation area to mitigate for its 

impacts to desert tortoise habitat, which introduces land areas designated for habitat 

conservation. These future related projects would cumulatively combine to alter the 

normal functioning of the existing lands in the Ivanpah Valley area. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would be within close proximity to these energy 

projects within the Ivanpah Valley. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would avoid 

land use conflicts with the ISEGS site. Segment 4C was designed especially to avoid the 

ISEGS site. However, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross through a 

portion of a site for which BLM has received an application to develop another solar 

energy project (CACA 48869), as depicted on Figure F-3.16-5, which could result in 

potential cumulative land use conflicts. As of January 2011, the application for the solar 

energy project CACA 48869 is pending and no development permits have been approved. 

This solar energy project will be required to consider other projects in area, such as the 

DesertXpress project, during project development and planning stages. This potential 

cumulative conflict could be resolved through good land use planning in future 

coordination with the BLM. Assuming the DesertXpress project is approved prior to the 

formalization of the solar energy project application, potential land use conflicts at this 

site could be resolved through such appropriate planning efforts. 

The Preferred Alternative would also cross through a proposed solar energy project west of 

Baker. The site designated for this project (CACA 049584; see Figure F-3.16-4) spans 

over the existing I-15 freeway corridor, but is not understood to contemplate locating any 

solar collection or ancillary facilities within the I-15 ROW. As the Preferred Alternative 

would be within the I-15 ROW through this site, it is assumed that no cumulative land use 

conflict would result. 

The SNSA, Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, I-15 Joint Port of Entry, and the MixedUse Development project near Jean are also situated in isolated locations, away from 

urban land uses. It is anticipated that these projects would not interfere with the normal 

functioning of existing land uses, but that these projects would convert previously 

undeveloped lands to transportation and mixed-use developments. As these 

transportation and energy facilities would not be located within an existing community, 

they would not result in cumulative impacts related to the disruption or displacement of 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-19

an existing community, the displacement of a residential community, posing an adverse 

effect to a minority or low-income population, or interfering with adjacent land uses. As 

the Preferred Alternative does not propose significant land use changes along the rail 

alignment, these related projects in combination with the Preferred Alternative would 

maintain the slow trend in land use changes in this area. 

The construction of the Preferred Alternative would occur primarily within existing 

freeway ROWs, except in Yermo, north of Mountain Pass, and in portions within 

metropolitan Las Vegas, and at the proposed station and maintenance facility sites. There 

are no proposed community interfaces (i.e., stations or maintenance facilities) located 

along the portions of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment that deviate from the I-15 

freeway corridor. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not substantially alter the 

existing land uses in the areas, as the land use effects would be limited to the rail 

alignment. As such, the Preferred Alternative would not have a considerable contribution 

to the cumulative land use and community impacts. 

3.16.3.5 Growth 

Cumulative growth effects were evaluated on a county-wide basis (within San Bernardino 

County and Clark County). Both San Bernardino County and Clark County are expected to 

experience population, household, and employment growth through 2030. Present and 

future related projects that could impact growth in the area for cumulative analysis 

include transportation and development projects, such as the capacity improvements to I15, California High Speed Rail, the SNSA, the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, the 

Desert Gateway Specific Plan in Victorville, the Mixed-Use Development in Jean, and the 

ISEGS project just north of Mountain Pass. 

San Bernardino County and Clark County are anticipated to experience rapid population 

growth, and associated job and housing growth, through the year 2030. The Preferred 

Alternative in combination with transportation improvements and development projects 

would contribute to growth in San Bernardino County and Clark County. While the 

planned I-15 capacity improvements would not directly construct new homes or jobs, 

these improvements would allow more individuals to travel on I-15 on a daily basis, which 

could indirectly promote commercial and service uses in the urbanized areas along the I15 corridor, including Victorville, Barstow, Baker, and Las Vegas. Construction of the I-15 

freeway capacity improvements would create temporary construction jobs during the 

respective construction periods. Construction of the ISEGS project would also introduce 

temporary construction jobs to the area. The temporary construction jobs associated with 

the Preferred Alternative could combine with these related projects to temporarily 

increase potential job opportunities in the project area. The increase in temporary 

construction jobs in the project area could have a positive cumulative impact on the local 

economies within Victorville, Barstow, and Las Vegas, as the construction jobs would 

create new salaries and thereby allow for greater spending in the local economies. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-20

Development of the SNSA and Southern Nevada Regional Heliport could induce indirect 

growth effects around the facilities, similar to the Preferred Alternative stations and 

maintenance facilities. The potential indirect growth associated with these related 

projects would be less profound in comparison to the overall anticipated growth in San 

Bernardino County and Clark County. While these transportation projects, in 

combination with the Preferred Alternative, could increase the number of visitors to the 

Las Vegas area, no new substantial permanent population or increment of new housing 

stock would be established as a result of project development. 

Construction period jobs may have a more substantial effect on local growth especially if 

the construction period for the Preferred Alternative overlaps with construction of several 

other large transportation and land development projects in the area. The effect of 

construction period employment on local growth tends primarily affects service industries 

(food, retail, etc.) and is generally temporary (duration of the construction period). While 

the project will create some permanent jobs, the number of new permanent jobs in San 

Bernardino County and Clark County created by the Preferred Alternative would be small 

in comparison to the projected employment growth in these areas. Direct and indirect 

growth associated with the Preferred Alternative is expected to contribute less than one 

percent of the total anticipated growth for San Bernardino and Clark County and would, 

thus, not result in a cumulative impact to growth. 

With regard to economic growth and vitality, operation of the Preferred Alternative in 

combination with the SNSA and the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport could exacerbate 

the negative cumulative economic effects to San Bernardino County, specifically within 

Barstow. Both the Preferred Alternative and these projects would provide non-automotive 

travel between southern California and Las Vegas. Section 3.2.2.3 of this Final EIS state 

that the diversion of freeway-related traffic to the high-speed passenger train would have a 

negative effect to economic growth in Barstow, since the Barstow economy relies heavily 

on taxable retail sales from pass-by freeway traffic traveling along the I-15 freeway 

corridor. These other transportation projects could similarly divert auto trips from 

southern California to other modes. The SNSA in particular could allow for expanded air 

travel between southern California and the Las Vegas region. DesertXpress plus the SNSA 

could cumulatively contribute to adverse economic effects in Barstow. Given the 

uncertainty over construction of the SNSA and uncertainty over its potential to expand air 

service from southern California, the extent of any such adverse economic effects is 

unclear. 

Conversely, construction of the related projects in combination with the construction of 

the Preferred Alternative could result in temporary positive cumulative economic effects 

in both Barstow and San Bernardino County as a whole. There are a number of proposed 

energy projects just south of Barstow and at other points along the I-15 corridor. As 

Barstow would be the closest city to many of these proposed projects, construction teams 

for these projects are likely to be drawn from labor pools in greater Barstow. This would 

be a positive secondary effect for greater Barstow and other nearby communities of San 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-21

Bernardino County. Combined with the potential construction jobs from the 

DesertXpress project, construction employment associated with the energy projects could 

cumulatively combine to a substantial beneficial economic impact to the City of Barstow 

during the construction period. 

3.16.3.6 Farmlands and Grazing Lands 

The area considered for cumulative impacts to farmlands and grazing lands includes San 

Bernardino County, since there are no farmlands or grazing lands within Clark County 

within proximity to the Preferred Alternative. Present and future projects within San 

Bernardino County would have the potential to impact farmland and grazing lands. 

Projects within San Bernardino County include, but are not limited to, capacity 

improvements on I-15 near Victorville and Barstow, the Desert Gateway Specific Plan in 

Victorville, CHSR, and the solar projects, including the ISEGS project. The continued 

urban development within San Bernardino County would also contribute to the potential 

cumulative loss of farmland s and grazing lands. 

Cumulative Farmland Effects

According to the San Bernardino County General Plan Environmental Impact Report, San 

Bernardino County ranks in the top 15 agricultural-producing counties in California. 

However, agricultural use within the County continues to decline with urban expansion. 

As urban expansion encroaches into agricultural areas, remaining agricultural lands 

become surrounded by urban uses, further exacerbating the conversion of farmland to 

non-agricultural use. The decreasing air quality, increasing water costs, and decreasing 

viability also contribute to the conversion of farmland to other uses. While the San 

Bernardino County General Plan identifies several polices relating to the preservation of 

agricultural land, the conversion of farmland in the County is identified as a significant 

and unavoidable impact.28

The Preferred Alternative would be located in the Desert Region of San Bernardino 

County, where agricultural development is limited primarily to areas bordering the 

Mojave River near Lenwood, Yermo, and Newberry Springs. The Preferred Alternative in 

combination with the future widening and capacity improvements to I-15 near Victorville 

and Barstow, the implementation of the Desert Gateway Specific Plan, the CHSR project, 

and the solar and wind energy projects, as well as other projects and development in San 

Bernardino County, would continue the regional trend of converting farmland to nonagricultural uses. Between 2006 and 2008, approximately 5,593 acres of the 30,919 acres 

of important farmland in 2006 were converted to other non-agricultural uses. 

 

28 San Bernardino County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2006. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-22

Approximately 1,200 acres of the 902,854 acres of grazing land in 2006 were converted to 

non-agricultural use by 2008.29

Transportation improvements would have the potential to sever access to active farmlands 

in the area, in combination with the severance of access established by the Preferred 

Alternative. However, the Preferred Alternative and related transportation projects would 

be located in the Desert Region, where farmland is confined to the irrigated areas near the 

Mojave River. Thus, the viability of farmland in this area is limited. Additionally, the 

urbanization of the Barstow and Lenwood areas, which could be furthered with I-15 

improvements in these areas, may further reduce the agricultural viability of this area. 

Development of the CHSR would have similar limited effects to farmland as the Preferred 

Alternative because of the linear nature and limited station sites. 

In relation to the County’s annual conversion rate, the amount of important farmland 

affected by the Preferred Alternative would be small in scale (less than one percent). 

Additionally, mitigation identified in Section 3.3.3 of this Final EIS would reduce the 

effects of the limited conversion of farmland. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not 

result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to farmland. 

Cumulative Grazing Land Effects

The ISEGS project and other solar and wind energy project north of Mountain Pass would 

combine with the Preferred Alternative to cumulatively impact grazing land allotments. 

Implementation of these related projects in combination with the Preferred Alternative 

could sever existing grazing allotments or result in the permanent conversion of grazing 

land to non-agricultural use. 

The Desert Gateway Specific Plan would also encourage development surrounding the 

Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF, which could further impact 

agricultural resources in the area. While there is no important farmland within this area, 

the cumulative development in combination with the Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station and OMSF could cumulatively affect grazing land allotments in the area and 

permanently convert grazing land to non-agricultural use. 

The Preferred Alternative would have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts 

related to grazing land. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment north of Mountain Pass 

would introduce a linear barrier through a designated grazing allotment, which would 

result in adverse effects to grazing activities. While mitigation measures identified in 

Section 3.3.3 of this Final EIS would reduce adverse effects to grazing land, the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment would still result in the permanent conversion of 

grazing land to transportation use. 

 

29 California Department of Conservation, San Bernardino County Important Farmland Data Availability. 

2008. <http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/county_info_results.asp>. Accessed November 6, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-23

3.16.3.7 Utilities/Emergency Services 

The area considered for cumulative effects related to utilities and emergency services 

includes the utility and emergency service provider service areas, which vary greatly 

depending on the provider. Table F-3.16-1 identifies the utilities and public service 

providers in the area of cumulative analysis. 

Table F-3.16-1 Utility and Public Service Providers 

Type of Service Service Providers

Electric/Gas

Southern California Edison

Southwest Gas Corporation

Nevada Power Electric Service

Nevada Power Company

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Water

Victorville Water District

Baker Community Services District

Las Vegas Valley Water District

Sewage/Storm Water

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority

Baker Community Services District

Clark County Water Reclamation District

City of Las Vegas Public Works Department

Solid Waste

San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Division

Baker Community Services District

Republic Services of Southern Nevada

Police

San Bernardino County Sheriff

Barstow Police Department

California Highway Patrol

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Nevada Highway Patrol

Fire/Emergency Response

San Bernardino County Fire Department

Barstow Fire Protection District

Baker Community Services District

Mojave National Preserve: Interagency Fire Center

Clark County Fire Department

Las Vegas Fire and Rescue

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

Present and future projects that could impact utilities and emergency services in the area 

of cumulative analysis include transportation, development, public utility, and energy 

projects. Such projects include capacity improvements to I-15, the California High Speed 

Rail, the SNSA, the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport in Sloan, the proposed Desert 

Gateway Specific Plan in Victorville, the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan Calnev Pipeline 

System, the EITP, the Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral, and the solar and wind 

energy projects. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-24

The Preferred Alternative in combination with the related transportation and

development projects would place additional demand on the existing public utilities and 

emergency service providers. For example, implementation of the I-15 capacity 

improvements in conjunction with the Preferred Alternative would increase demand for 

police and emergency service in the areas where the Preferred Alternative travel within 

close proximity to the I-15 corridor. Development of the SNSA and Southern Nevada 

Regional Heliport would require the implementation of utility lines, placing demand on 

the public service providers in the communities of Primm, Jean, and Sloan. These 

additional service requirements would combine with the service needs of the Preferred 

Alternative in the same areas, thus cumulatively affecting the capacity of the existing 

public utilities and the ability of the service providers to provide adequate services. 

Additionally, the proposed development associated with the Desert Gateway Specific Plan 

in Victorville would require the implementation of water, wastewater, stormwater, and 

solid waste services in the area, in addition to the services required by the Preferred 

Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF sites. The Preferred Alternative Victorville 

Station and OMSF would not, however, be adequately served by existing water facilities 

due to their distance from existing water mains provided by the Victorville Water District. 

In combination with development associated with the Desert Gateway Specific Plan, the 

Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF could cumulatively contribute to the 

need for additional water facilities to adequately serve the area. As stated in Section 

3.4.2.3 of this Final EIS, a Water Supply Assessment would be required to determine the 

size and extent of the new water facilities needed, which would mitigate the effects of the 

Preferred Alternative to water services and facilities. 

However, public utility projects, such as the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan Calnev 

Pipeline, the Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral, and the EITP, would increase the 

capacity of existing utilities, increasing the viability of accommodating future growth and 

demand associated with the Preferred Alternative and other related developments. 

Implementation of the related solar and wind energy projects, such as the ISEGS, would 

also introduce the potential for increased capacity for energy-related utilities. The 

expansion of the Kind-Morgan Calnev Pipeline and the EITP would also enhance energy 

systems in the area. Cumulative effects related to energy are discussed further below, 

under the heading ―Energy.‖ 

Recommended avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified in Section 

3.4.3 of this Final EIS would be incorporated into the Preferred Alternative to reduce 

adverse effects related to utilities and emergency services. Similar mitigation measures 

would be implemented with the future and planned projects to alleviate potential adverse 

effects related to public utilities and service providers. These related transportation, 

development, and utility projects would likely be required to abide by similar 

environmental review processes as the Preferred Alternative so as to evaluate project 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-25

specific impacts to public utilities and service providers. Therefore, the cumulative impact 

related to public utilities and the service providers in the San Bernardino County and 

Clark County regions would not be substantial. 

3.16.3.8 Traffic and Transportation 

A detailed analysis of the 2030 cumulative plus project conditions is included in Section 

3.5 of this Final EIS. The following is a summary of the potential cumulative effects on 

traffic and transportation. 

The area of cumulative analysis includes transportation corridors between Southern 

California and Las Vegas. The area of cumulative analysis includes the I-15 freeway 

mainline and the areas around the proposed station sites in Victorville and Las Vegas, 

specifically the local roadway intersections in these areas. 

Past, present, and future projects that could impact traffic in the area of cumulative 

analysis include transportation and development projects. Such projects include capacity 

improvements to I-15, the California High Speed Rail, the High Desert Corridor project, 

the US 395 realignment and widening, the Bonneville Transit Center, the SNSA, the 

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport in Sloan, and the Desert Gateway Specific Plan in 

Victorville. 

The Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related transportation and 

development projects, would cumulatively affect traffic in the area of cumulative analysis. 

While the Desert Gateway Specific Plan could allow for increased development, and thus 

increases in traffic, the transportation projects in the cumulative area would seek to 

improve traffic operations on the I-15 mainline or introduce new transportation corridors, 

such as the High Desert Corridor. The SNSA could also reduce future traffic volumes on 

the I-15 corridor, as it would allow for additional flights between southern California and 

Las Vegas. Operation of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the related projects 

would improve traffic conditions on I-15 in year 2030. Future I-15 mainline traffic 

volumes would be reduced since after construction of the Preferred Alternative, as 

individuals who would otherwise drive to Las Vegas would instead opt to ride the train. 

Additionally, capacity improvements to I-15 would reduce congestion on the I-15 mainline, 

thus resulting in a beneficial cumulative traffic impact to the I-15 freeway between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. 

However, the Preferred Alternative in combination with the related projects would result 

in a cumulatively adverse effect at study intersections near the Victorville and Las Vegas 

stations. Development could cumulatively combine to adversely affect intersection 

operations near the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station. Future development within 

the metropolitan Las Vegas area would also cumulatively combine with the Preferred 

Alternative to increase traffic volumes in the vicinity of the either site option ultimately 

selected for the Las Vegas Station. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-26

Recommended mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5.3 of this Final EIS would 

lessen the adverse effects related to traffic as a result of the Preferred Alternative. It is also 

anticipated that the agencies responsible for review, approval, and permitting of these 

present and future projects would require similar mitigation measures be implemented to 

alleviate potential adverse traffic effects created by these projects. For example, these 

future projects would be required to abide by similar environmental review processes as 

the Preferred Alternative so as to evaluate project specific impacts to traffic capacity and 

level of service operations. While cumulative effects would adversely affect local 

intersections near the Preferred Alternative Victorville station and the two Las Vegas 

station site options, traffic effects would be isolated to the two termini of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. The I-15 freeway mainline would have a beneficial cumulative 

effect with the development of the Preferred Alternative in combination with the related 

transportation improvement projects. Thus, the cumulative impact of the related projects 

in combination with the Preferred Alternative would not be substantial. 

3.16.3.9 Visual Resources 

The area of cumulative analysis for effects related to visual resources and aesthetics 

includes the viewshed, or the visible environment, surrounding the Preferred Alternative. 

Present and future projects that could impact visual resources include transportation, 

development, energy, and natural resource projects within the area of cumulative analysis. 

Capacity improvements to I-15, the I-15 Joint Port of Entry, the SNSA, the Southern 

Nevada Regional Heliport, and the energy projects (i.e., the ISEGS project) would be 

visible from the Preferred Alternative and would afford views of the Preferred Alternative 

from their proposed locations. Additionally, the allowable development within the Desert 

Gateway Specific Plan would affect the visual environment in the viewshed. 

The Preferred Alternative, in combination with the past, present and future projects 

within the area of cumulative analysis, would have the potential to create a cumulative 

impact to visual resources. Development of the tracks, fencing, elevated structures, 

station and maintenance facilities, and the DesertXpress trains themselves would 

introduce a linear transportation element into the landscape that could contribute to 

visual effects within the area of cumulative analysis. 

Changes in the visual character from undeveloped, open desert land to a more urbanized, 

built-up visual environment have been relatively slow over in the areas between Victorville 

and Las Vegas. Both Victorville and Las Vegas have experienced significant visual changes 

in recent decades as a result of urban and suburban development. The non-urbanized 

lands between Victorville and Las Vegas have undergone visual changes more slowly than 

urban areas. With the exception of greater Barstow, most views of this area continue to be 

of an expansive open landscape, with low lying shrubs, desert soils, and rolling dunes. 

The Preferred Alternative, in combination with these related projects, would generally 

further this visual trend, as the proposed development, transportation, and energy 

projects are primarily concentrated in the Victorville and Las Vegas areas. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-27

The visual effects of the allowable development within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan 

area could combine with the development of the Victorville Station and OMSF to result in 

a cumulative change in the visual character of this area. The Victorville Station and OMSF 

would have the potential to spread urban development, and thus man-made visual 

features, further into the undeveloped area between Victorville and Barstow. Additionally, 

development within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan area and the Preferred Alternative 

facilities would cumulatively affect the existing lighting and glare within the Victorville 

area. As much of this land is currently undeveloped, the Preferred Alternative, in 

combination with the development allowed by the Desert Gateway Specific Plan, would 

introduce new lighting features to the previously naturally dark area. 

The capacity improvements to I-15 within the Victorville and Las Vegas areas would not 

substantially alter the visual character of the area of cumulative analysis or introduce a 

substantial amount of new lighting, as the improvements would occur alongside an 

existing freeway and transportation corridor within Victorville and Las Vegas. 

The related projects located between Victorville and Las Vegas are isolated in nature and 

spread out along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. Development of these projects, 

in combination with the Preferred Alternative, would maintain the slow trend of visual 

alterations to this area. While implementation of the SNSA, Southern Nevada Regional 

Heliport, and Mixed-Use Development in Jean would introduce new visual features to the 

desert aesthetic, including mixed-use buildings and facilities, runways and landing pads, 

flight towers, aircrafts, and associated structures and cumulatively contribute to changes 

in the open desert visual environment, the isolated nature of these projects would not 

result in rapid visual changes to the area. 

The related energy projects within the Ivanpah Valley, north of Mountain Pass, could 

cumulatively alter the visual environment of this largely undeveloped area. These related 

energy and utility projects would introduce utilitarian visual features, such as solar panels, 

buildings, wind turbines, and additional overhead transmission lines into the existing 

visual environment. These related projects, in combination with the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment, could result in cumulative changes to the existing visual character. The 

cumulative change to the visual environment would be visible from the I-15 freeway near 

the California-Nevada stateline, as well as from wilderness areas in the adjacent portions 

of the Mojave National Preserve. Specifically, the ISEGS project would introduce 

substantial areas utilitarian visual features into the existing largely undeveloped 

landscape, representing a new, dominant visual feature in the viewshed. Figure F-3.6-7

shows a visual simulation of the ISEGS project in combination with and without the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment. Due to the scale of the ISEGS project, the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would be a subordinate visual feature in the viewshed and 

would not considerably contribute to the cumulative change in the visual environment 

from natural to man-made features. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-28

The related energy projects south of Barstow could also establish a more profound 

urbanized visual character in the greater Barstow area, as utilitarian visual features, such 

as solar panels and wind turbines, would be developed. 

The other intermittent energy projects located within the vicinity of the Preferred 

Alternative (and outside the Ivanpah Valley) could cumulatively introduce an industrial 

visual character to the non-urbanized visual landscape, but would not result in a rapid 

change in visual character due to their dispersed locations throughout the desert. 

Therefore, while these isolated projects along the Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

would have cumulative effects in changing the existing desert visual environment, the 

visual change for the majority of the area of cumulative analysis is anticipated to be slow, 

generally maintaining the existing trend of visual changes. The related projects, in 

combination with the Preferred Alternative, would, however, cumulatively introduce new 

sources of nighttime lighting and daytime glare to the existing, naturally dark, open land. 

The construction of the transportation, development, and energy projects would have 

potential short-term effects on visual resources, as construction equipment, staging areas, 

signage, and night lighting would be visible from the adjacent properties in urbanized 

areas, such as Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, and Sloan, during the construction period. It 

is important to note that these cumulative visual effects would be temporary in nature. 

Recommended mitigation measures identified in Section 3.6.3 of this Final EIS would 

lessen the adverse visual effects of the Preferred Alternative. It is reasonable to assume 

that similar mitigation measures would be implemented with the related projects to 

alleviate potential adverse visual effects. These projects would most likely be required to 

abide by similar environmental review processes as the Preferred Alternative to evaluate 

project specific impacts to visual resources. While cumulative effects would introduce new 

urban visual features into the open, expansive undeveloped desert, cumulative visual 

effects would be isolated to the viewshed in the related projects’ sites. Thus, the 

cumulative impact of the Preferred Alternative with the transportation, development, and 

energy projects planned in the area would not likely be substantial. 

3.16.3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The area of cumulative analysis for effects related to cultural resources include the 

identified historic and archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), as 

defined in Section 3.7.2.1 of this Final EIS. The APE is the geographic area within which 

an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alternations in the character or use of 

historic properties. Present and future projects that would cumulatively affect cultural 

and/or paleontological resources include the projects that would affect the same cultural 

or paleontological sites as the Preferred Alternative. Within the area of cumulative 

analysis, transportation projects, such as the capacity improvements to I-15 and the I-15 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-29

Joint Point of Entry project, wind and solar energy projects, and development projects, 

such as the Desert Gateway Specific Plan and the Mixed-Use Development, would have the 

potential to cumulatively affect such resources. 

Cumulative impacts to historical and archeological resources can occur when development 

of an area results in the removal of a substantial number of historic structures (whether 

considered important historical features or not) or archeological sites that when taken in 

combination could degrade the physical historical record of an area. While impacts 

associated with such cultural resources tend to be limited to individual project sites and do 

not generally result in substantial cumulative impacts, the Preferred Alternative in 

combination with the related projects could result in cumulative impacts to such 

resources. For example, the capacity improvements to I-15 would have the potential to 

cumulatively impact the same historical and archaeological resources that would be 

impacted by the Preferred Alternative where the rail alignment is located within the I-15 

freeway ROW. While the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not traverse through 

the ISEGS project site north of Mountain Pass, the rail alignment would be within close 

proximity to proposed solar and wind energy project sites and could potentially affect the 

same sensitive cultural resources within the vicinity. The Mixed-Use Development in Jean 

could also cumulatively impact the same resources as the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment in the immediate vicinity. 

Near Victorville, the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would be located 

just north of the proposed development area within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan. The 

area surrounding the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF contains older 

land uses, such as an old landing strip, landfill dump site, and off-highway vehicle 

roadways, but is not an area known to contain substantial cultural resources. As such, it is 

assumed that the cumulative development within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan area 

would not combine with the Preferred Alternative to cumulatively affect cultural resources 

within the Victorville area. 

While the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station (either site option) and MSF would 

combine with the ongoing urban development within the Las Vegas metropolitan area, 

these developments would be located within a highly urbanized context where lands have 

been developed and redeveloped on multiple occasions. Given the past development 

trends in the area, the potential for undisturbed cultural resources near either of the 

Preferred Alternative Las Vegas Station site options and the MSF would not be 

substantial. The related projects in combination with the Preferred Alternative in the 

urban Las Vegas area would not combine to cumulatively affect cultural resources. 

The Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related projects, could result in 

cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. Transportation projects, such as the 

capacity improvements to I-15 and the I-15 Joint Port of Entry and the solar and wind 

energy projects could impact the same paleontological resources as the Preferred 

Alternative, resulting in a cumulative impact. The development of these projects would 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-30

have the potential to unearth additional fossils or other paleontological resources at each 

of the respective project sites, which could contribute to a direct or indirect cumulative 

impact to paleontological resources within the APE. 

The Preferred Alternative includes site specific mitigation measures to reduce 

environmental effects related to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources, 

including monitoring and avoidance measures. Section 3.7.3 of this Final EIS outlines 

the specific mitigation measures related to historical, archaeological, and paleontological 

resources. The related projects would likely be required to incorporate similar types of 

mitigation measures prior to development. With these mitigation measures, cumulative 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resources would not likely be substantial. 

3.16.3.11 Hydrology and Water Quality 

The area considered for cumulative effects to hydrology and water quality includes the 

watersheds affected by the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would cross 

about 273 ephemeral drainages. The drainages include, but are not limited to, the Mojave 

River, Bell Mountain Wash, Kelso Wash, Duck Creek, and Tropicana Wash. 

Related projects within the area of cumulative analysis include projects that are located 

within the watersheds potentially impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Transportation, 

development, energy, natural resource, and public utility projects would have the ability to 

cumulatively affect hydrology and water quality. These projects include the capacity 

improvements on I-15, the SNSA, Kinder-Morgan Calnev Pipeline expansion, the Kern 

River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral, the Desert Gateway Specific Plan in Victorville, and the 

wind and solar energy projects between Victorville and Barstow and near Mountain Pass. 

While the 9.4 million acre West Mojave Plan would cover the majority of the watersheds 

impacted by the Preferred Alternative, no development would occur as part of this project 

and the watersheds would be maintained; thus, no discussion of this project is included in 

the cumulative analysis below. 

The Preferred Alternative in combination with the related transportation, development, 

public utility, and energy projects would cumulatively affect hydrology and water quality 

within the area of cumulative analysis. Capacity improvements along I-15 could affect 

many of the same drainages impacted by the Preferred Alternative, including the Mojave 

River, Bell Mountain Wash, and Tropicana Wash. As portions of I-15 would be widened, 

the increase in impervious surface could cumulatively contribute to stormwater runoff, 

primarily near the Preferred Alternative Victorville and Las Vegas station and 

maintenance facilities. Specifically, construction and operation of the Preferred 

Alternative Victorville Station would impact a branch of Bell Mountain Wash and could 

cumulatively combine with the related projects to adversely affect hydrologic resources 

and water quality. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-31

Construction of the Kinder-Morgan Calnev Pipeline, the Kern River Gas Mountain Pass 

Lateral, and the EITP would also likely cross several watersheds and many of the same 

surface water drainages crossed by the Preferred Alternative. These projects could 

cumulatively affect water quality due to the potential release of contaminants during 

construction or changes in the existing drainage patterns as a result of grading or other 

soil disturbing activities. 

Operation of the Molycorp Minerals Mountain Pass Mine would also be located within the 

same watershed area as the Preferred Alternative. While the Molycorp Mine site would be 

located less than one mile north of the Preferred Alternative, there are intervening 

mountains between the Preferred Alternative rail alignment and Molycorp Mine site that 

would limit cumulative hydrologic effects at this location. Given this topography, any 

runoff from the Molycorp Mine site would not combine with stormwater runoff associated 

with the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to 

water quality and hydrology resources would not be substantial in this area. 

The Preferred Alternative could combine with the related projects in the Las Vegas area 

(between Sloan and the Las Vegas metropolitan area) to cumulatively affect ephemeral 

drainages or dry washes that meet the technical criteria that could be subject to the CWA 

Section 404 jurisdiction as waters of the US. 30, 31 Related transportation projects, 

including the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, I-15 capacity improvements (i.e., 

Project NEON and the I-15 South Design-Build project), and the roadways intersecting I15 in the Las Vegas area, could affect the same of nearby ephemeral drainages that could 

be subject to the CWA Section 404 jurisdiction as waters of the US. 

The SNSA would be located within a 100-year floodplain near the Preferred Alternative 

rail alignment. While the Preferred Alternative rail alignment is not located in this 

floodplain, implementation of the SNSA could potentially increase the floodplain or 

impede drainage, which could contribute to the hydrological impacts associated with the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

The I-15 capacity improvements in the metropolitan Las Vegas area, including the Project 

NEON and I-15 South Design-Build project, would also cross areas of the 100-year 

floodplain, similar to the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative 

and these transportation projects could also cumulatively combine to affect the 100-year 

floodplain, which could redirect or impede flood flows. 

 

30 This finding is based on the presence of ordinary high water marks as required by USACE regulations. 

31 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. Investigation of the Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United 

States, DesertXpress Project, HUC8 Death Valley – Lower Amargosa Watershed Draining to Badwater Basin, 

San Bernardino County, California; HUC8 Mojave and Coyote – Cuddeback Lakes Watersheds, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Ivanpah Lake, San 

Bernardino County, California; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump Valleys Watershed, Draining to Jean Dry lake, 

Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Las Vegas Watershed, Clark County, Nevada; HUC 8 Ivanpah - Pahrump 

Valleys Watershed, Draining to Roach Dry Lake, Clark County, Nevada. July 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-32

The Preferred Alternative includes site specific mitigation measures such as compliance 

with NPDES permit requirements, the use of BMPs, proper design of station and 

maintenance facility drainage systems, reducing the encroachment into the 100-year 

floodplain, and implementing flood control measures. Implementation of these measures 

would help to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff that would be generated by 

the new impervious surfaces created the by the Preferred Alternative. The related projects 

would also be required to comply with applicable Federal, state, and local water quality 

regulations. The Applicant will also be required to comply with all conditions and 

mitigation requirements that result from the CWA Section 404 permit and Section 401 

Certification as well as Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 stipulated in 

Section 3.8.3 of this Final EIS. Refer to Section 3.8.1 of this Final EIS for a full 

discussion of the CWA Section 404 permitting process and Section 401 Certification for 

the Preferred Alternative. Even with adherence to these regulations and permitting 

processes and implementation of the mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative 

would cross about 273 ephemeral drainages, including waters of the US, between 

Victorville and Las Vegas and would be considered to have a considerable contribution to 

the overall hydrology and water quality cumulative effects. 

3.16.3.12 Geology and Soils 

The area considered for cumulative effects related to geology and soils includes the seismic 

fault zones that underlie the Preferred Alternative. The active fault zones within California 

include the Eastern California/Mojave Shear Zone, the San Andreas Fault Zone, and the 

Garlock Fault Zone. As Nevada does not have specified fault zones, the Las Vegas Valley is 

considered for cumulative effects relating to geology and soils in Nevada. 

Geotechnical impacts related to the Preferred Alternative in combination with past, 

present and future projects in the area of cumulative analysis would involve hazards 

associated with site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground shaking during 

earthquakes which could expose individuals to risk. Other projects in the area of 

cumulative analysis, including transportation improvements to I-15 and the SNSA, would 

experience similar seismic risks to the Preferred Alternative. The impacts to each related 

project would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute 

to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, 

development of each site would be subject to site development and construction standards 

(local, state and federal) that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, no adverse 

cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative in combination 

with the past, present, and future projects. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-33

3.16.3.13 Hazardous Materials 

The area of cumulative analysis considered for hazardous materials effects includes the 

properties of moderate to high environmental concern identified within a 1/8-mile radius 

around the Preferred Alternative.32 Environmental effects related to hazardous materials 

generally occur on a site specific basis, or else are linked to a specific hazardous waste site, 

such as a designated superfund site. 

Construction and operation of the Molycorp Mineral Mountain Pass Mine would likely 

involve the use of hazardous materials. While the Molycorp Mine site would be located 

less than one mile north of the Preferred Alternative, there are intervening mountains 

between the Preferred Alternative rail alignment and the Molycorp Mine site that would 

limit the potential for any cumulative hazardous materials effects. Additionally, operation 

of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would not result in the use or transport of 

substantial hazardous materials. As such, cumulative impacts relative to hazardous 

materials would not be substantial at this location. 

The planned capacity improvements on I-15 would potentially encounter hazardous 

materials and contaminated soils and groundwater, as construction activities would occur 

on and within close proximity to the existing freeway. Similarly, the proposed sites for the 

SNSA and Southern Nevada Regional Heliport would be within close proximity to I-15 and 

could potentially experience adverse effects related to contaminated soils and/or 

groundwater. However, as effects related to hazardous materials are site specific, the 

Preferred Alternative, in combination with the related projects would not result in 

cumulative hazardous materials impacts. 

Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by state and federal laws specifically to ensure 

that they do not result in a gradual toxification of the environment. Recommended 

mitigation measures identified in Section 3.10.3 of this Final EIS would lessen the 

adverse effects related to hazardous materials as a result of the Preferred Alternative. It is 

reasonable to assume that similar mitigation measures would be implemented as part of 

the related projects to alleviate potential adverse effects related to hazardous materials. 

Each individual project would be required to investigate and report any findings of 

contaminated soil or groundwater. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any 

cumulative impact related to hazards. 

 

32 Releases outside of a 1⁄8-mile radius of the Preferred Alternative would not likely pose a significant 

environmental risk to the project, as typical groundwater contaminants (i.e. diesel and gasoline) do not travel 

long distances. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-34

3.16.3.14 Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

The area of cumulative analysis considered for air quality effects includes the Mojave 

Desert Air Basin in California and Clark County in Nevada. The Preferred Alternative, in 

combination with the related transportation, development, energy, and public utility 

projects, would contribute to air quality effects within the Mojave Desert Air Basin and 

Clark County. 

Table F-3.16-2 identifies the regional criteria pollutant and GHG emissions as a result of 

the Preferred Alternative within the Mojave Desert Air Basin. All criteria pollutant 

emissions with the Preferred Alternative would remain below general conformity 

thresholds in 2030. The potential air quality effects for the related projects are included 

as part of the air quality analysis for the Mojave Desert Air Basin for year 2030 and are 

thus cumulatively accounted for in Table F-3.16-2. 

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

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissionsa

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions 1 118 21 12 4 4 75,122

Mobile-source Emissions (79) (378) (1,565) (8) (71) (65) (32,594)

Net Emissions (78) (260) (1,544) 4 (67) (61) 42,528

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 50 100 100 70 70 --

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010.

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs)

Table F-3.16-3 identifies the regional criteria pollutant and GHG emissions as a result of 

the Preferred Alternative within Clark County. All criteria pollutant emissions with the 

Preferred Alternative would remain below general conformity thresholds in 2030. The 

potential air quality effects for the related projects are included as part of the air quality 

analysis for Clark County for year 2030 and are thus cumulatively accounted for in Table 

F-3.16-3. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-35

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

Gas Emissions (tons per year) 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissionsa

ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Railway Emissions <1 29 5 3 1 1 18,197

Mobile-source Emissions (85) (74) (2,830) (3) (10) (5) (7,862)

Net Emissions (85) (45) (2,825) <1 (9) (4) 10,335

General Conformity 

Threshold 50 50 100 100 70 70 --

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No N/A

Source: ICF/Jones & Stokes, 2010.

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs)

For both the Mojave Desert Air Basin and Clark County, the Preferred Alternative, in 

combination with past, present and future projects in year 2030, is predicted to result in 

an increase in GHG emissions, representing a cumulative impact. 

While the Preferred Alternative, in combination with the present and future projects, 

would result in cumulative air quality effects, the Preferred Alternative would not 

substantially contribute to the cumulative impact, as criteria pollutants and GHG 

emissions would decrease in association with the diversion of passenger vehicles that 

would otherwise have traversed the entire distance between southern California and Las 

Vegas. In addition, operation of the Preferred Alternative would not exceed criteria 

pollutant emission standards within the Mojave Desert Air Basin or within Clark County. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily generate emissions of fugitive 

dust, construction equipment tailpipe emissions, and evaporative VOC emissions from 

paving and painting operations. In addition to the temporary nature of constructionperiod emissions, impacts would be localized to the areas adjacent to the construction 

activity. Construction of present and future transportation, development, energy, and 

public utility projects would have similar temporary construction-related air quality 

impacts. Thus, the Preferred Alternative in combination with the related projects would 

result in a substantial cumulative impacts related to construction emissions. 

The Preferred Alternative in combination with the related projects would have the 

potential to extend the timeline of construction activities in the area of cumulative 

analysis. Construction of the Preferred Alternative and the related projects would, 

however, be subject to specific control measures to reduce construction-period emission 

effects. For example, I-15 capacity improvements have been and are currently under 

construction within the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Construction of the Preferred 

Alternative in this same area could extend beyond the construction timeframe of these 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-36

current and future I-15 capacity improvements, thereby extending the time period of 

major construction activities in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Although mitigation 

measures identified in Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS would implement construction 

control measures to reduce construction period emissions, construction of the Preferred 

Alternative would introduce major construction activities between Victorville and Las 

Vegas and would be considered to have a considerable contribution to the overall 

cumulative impact related to construction emissions. 

3.16.3.15 Noise and Vibration 

The area for cumulative analysis includes a 1⁄4-mile radius from the Preferred Alternative. 

As noise attenuates with distance, significant noise impacts are not anticipated beyond the 

1⁄4-mile radius from the Preferred Alternative. Vibration effects of the Preferred 

Alternative and the related projects would not be considered to combine with one another, 

since vibration rapidly attenuates with distance and would primarily remain site-specific. 

As such, this cumulative evaluation does not consider vibration effects of the Preferred 

Alternative in combination with the related projects. 

Present and future projects that could have noise effects within the area of cumulative 

analysis include transportation, energy, and development projects. Transportation 

projects include the capacity improvements on I-15, the SNSA, and the Southern Nevada 

Regional Heliport. The ongoing urban developments within Las Vegas and the proposed 

Mixed-Use Development in Jean would also affect the cumulative noise environment. 

Energy projects, such as the BLM wind and solar projects could also result in construction 

period noise effects; however, the majority of these projects would not be located within 

1⁄4-mile of the Preferred Alternative and would therefore not result in a cumulative noise 

impact. For those energy projects within 1⁄4-mile, a cumulative noise effect would only 

occur if construction of that project and the Preferred Alternative within the vicinity of 

that project site were to occur at the same time. Regardless, this potential cumulative 

noise impact would be temporary. Overall, the Preferred Alternative in combination with 

past, present, and future projects would result in a cumulative increase in noise within the 

area of cumulative analysis. 

The Preferred Alternative in combination with related transportation, development, and 

energy projects would primarily affect noise levels in urbanized areas along the rail 

alignment, including Victorville, Lenwood, Barstow, Yermo, and southern Las Vegas, as 

these areas include single-family homes proximate to the I-15 corridor that would be 

sensitive to an increase in noise levels. 

Since the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF would be more than 1⁄4-mile 

from the Desert Gateway Plan area in Victorville, the Preferred Alternative would not 

combine with the noise associated with the future allowable urban development in the 

Victorville area. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-37

Development of related transportation projects, including capacity improvements to I-15, 

the SNSA, and the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, could also cumulatively combine 

with the Preferred Alternative to increase noise levels near the Mojave National Preserve. 

The SNSA and the Southern Nevada Heliport would introduce overhead aircraft noise, as 

these facilities would allow for additional air travel in this area. Section 3.12.2 of this 

Final EIS notes that the noise generated by the Preferred Alternative would affect the 

same area of the Mojave National Preserve as would traffic noise on I-15. The closest 

sensitive receptors in the Mojave National Preserve are approximately 10 to 20 miles away 

and the high-speed train passby would not be audible at these locations. Furthermore, 

increased noise levels associated with the Preferred Alternative would only occur during 

train passby (less than 70 train passbys per day). 

Capacity improvements to I-15 would also combine with the Preferred Alternative to 

exceed noise level standards near the residential developments in southern Las Vegas. 

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment and capacity improvements to I-15 would occur 

immediately adjacent to one another and would have similar cumulative noise impacts 

during construction and operation. 

Recommended mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative would lessen the adverse 

effects related to noise. It is reasonable to assume that similar mitigation measures would 

be applied to related projects to reduce potentially adverse noise impacts. Each related 

project would be required to evaluate the existing noise environment and document 

whether the construction and operation of such a project would exceed established noise 

level standards. Although the Preferred Alternative would implement mitigation 

measures to reduce noise effects upon sensitive receptors, the Preferred Alternative would 

introduce new noise sources to the existing environment. The Preferred Alternative would 

therefore have a substantial contribution to the cumulative noise effect. 

3.16.3.16 Energy 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects related to energy includes California and 

Nevada, specifically San Bernardino County and Clark County. Present and future 

projects that could affect energy consumption within the area of cumulative analysis 

include transportation, public utility, energy, and development projects. 

The Preferred Alternative in combination with the related transportation, development, 

public utility, and energy projects would result in cumulative impacts related to energy 

and electricity consumption. Capacity improvements on the I-15 freeway would increase 

the number of passenger trips on I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas. By the year 

2030, an increase of approximately 20,770,000 MMBTUs, or 3.8 million barrels of oil, 

would be used for automobile transportation on the I-15 freeway. While the Preferred 

Alternative would provide a mode shift from automobile travel from Victorville to Las 

Vegas, the capacity improvements on I-15 would contribute to an increase in automobile 

energy consumption on this highway. Additionally, implementation of the SNSA and 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-38

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport would also contribute to energy consumption, as 

these projects would promote air travel within the cumulative area. The California High 

Speed Rail project would have similar energy effects as the Preferred Alternative, as it is 

also a high speed rail project and would provide a mode shift from automobile and air 

travel, which would have the potential to have a net positive effect on energy consumption. 

Development projects would also cumulatively contribute to energy consumption within 

the area of cumulative analysis. The allowable development within the Desert Gateway 

Specific Plan area would require the consumption of energy for development and 

operation of the proposed urban uses within the previously open, low-density area. While 

on a smaller scale than the Desert Gateway Specific Plan, the Mixed-Use Development 

near Jean, Nevada would also require the consumption of energy for construction and 

operation of such facilities. 

Construction of the related projects in combination with the Preferred Alternative would 

also affect energy consumption, as a commitment of energy resources would be required 

for construction. Project-specific analyses would be required to determine the payback 

periods for these related projects, if applicable.33

 However, mitigation similar to that 

included as part of the Preferred Alternative, such as a construction energy conservation 

plan or the use of efficient construction equipment, would reduce the commitment of nonrenewable energy resources for these related projects. 

Conversely, the proposed wind and solar energy projects, such as the ISEGS project, could 

result in beneficial energy effects in California. These projects would use renewable 

energy resources to create power and electricity to serve California, reducing the need for 

new or expanded power plants that utilize non-renewable sources (oil, gas, nuclear, etc.). 

Energy produced by these wind and solar energy projects could potentially contribute to 

the electricity required by the Preferred Alternative, thus promoting the use of renewable 

resources and the reduction of petroleum dependence. 

While the Preferred Alternative in combination with the related projects would constitute 

cumulative energy effects, the Preferred Alternative would not substantially contribute to 

a cumulative impact. As discussed in Section 3.13.2.3 of this Final EIS, the electricity 

required for the Preferred Alternative would constitute only 0.02 and 0.08 percent of the 

projected statewide electricity demand in California and Nevada, respectively. 

The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to reduce energy consumption overall because of 

the mode shift (from auto to train) that would occur with the project. Additionally, the 

energy consumed for construction of the Preferred Alternative would be recovered within 

three years (the energy payback period). Mitigation strategies to address construction 

energy use, including implementation of a construction energy conservation plan, would 

 

33 Energy ―payback‖ means the number of years required to ―pay back‖ the energy used in construction via 

operational energy consumption savings. The payback period is calculated by dividing the estimate of 

construction energy by the amount of energy that would later be saved by the action. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-39

conserve energy resources. Since the Preferred Alternative would have a beneficial overall 

effect of reducing energy use over time, the Preferred Alternative would not have a 

considerable contribution to the cumulative energy effect. 

3.16.3.17 Biological Resources 

The area of cumulative analysis includes the areas designated for the Preferred Alternative 

and immediately adjacent lands and waterways containing sensitive biological resources. 

Present and future projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts to the identified 

biological resources within the area of cumulative analysis include transportation, 

development, energy projects, and public utility projects. Capacity improvements to I-15, 

the SNSA, and the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport would all be located within close 

proximity to identified plant and wildlife resources. The anticipated development 

associated with the Mixed-Use Development project would affect biological resources near 

Jean. The Desert Gateway Specific Plan would also allow development in the same area as 

the Preferred Alternative Victorville Station and OMSF, which contains special-status 

plant and wildlife species and associated habitat, including desert tortoise and Mohave 

ground squirrel habitat. The solar and wind energy projects on BLM lands, in addition to 

the Ivanpah Energy Center, would also have the potential to disrupt biological resources, 

particularly near Barstow and Primm. 

Conversely, the West Mojave Plan would have a beneficial effect on biological resources in 

the area of cumulative analysis, as it seeks to preserve and restore such resources. 

The Preferred Alternative in combination with the related projects would result in the 

conversion of open space lands to developed land, contributing to the loss of ruderal 

habitats, wetland habitats, and other biological resources in the area of cumulative 

analysis. There would be an associated loss of common plant and animal species, and a 

cumulative loss of habitat for common special-status species. Transportation, 

development, energy, public utility, and natural resource projects would cumulatively 

affect plant and animal species, including the desert tortoise, Mojave ground squirrel, and 

numerous special-status plant species. Overall, the Preferred Alternative, in combination 

with past, present, and future projects, would result in a cumulative impact to special 

status plants and animals and their associated habitats. 

Biological resources impacts related to the I-15 capacity improvements in combination 

with the Preferred Alternative would primarily affect the same biological resources as the 

Preferred Alternative, with the exception of areas north of Mountain Pass, where the 

Preferred Alternative rail alignment diverges from the I-15 freeway corridor. Capacity 

improvements on I-15 could directly impact additional special-status plant and animal 

species, particularly the Mojave ground squirrel and various special-status plants. 

Present and future public utility projects, including the EITP, expansion of the KinderMorgan Calnev Pipeline, and the Kern River Gas Mountain Pass Lateral, would also have a 

cumulative adverse effect on biological resources, including special-status plant and 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-40

animal species. The expansion of the Kinder-Morgan Calnev Pipeline would, however, 

have similar cumulative biological impacts, as it would primarily follow the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment, except just north of Mountain Pass. However, cumulative 

impacts would be focused on construction-related impacts, as the expansion would only 

construct a 16-inch pipeline adjacent to existing pipelines. 

The related development and energy projects would cumulatively affect biological 

resources near Barstow and the California-Nevada state line. The Mixed-Use 

Development project near Jean would cumulatively affect the large-scale translocation site 

for Desert Tortoise on the west side of I-15, as the Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

would traverse the eastern boundary of the translocation site. 

Wind energy projects between Victorville and Barstow and near the California-Nevada 

state line would also cumulatively impact biological resources. The ISEGS project 

incorporated desert tortoise relocation and translocation mitigation to reduce the adverse 

effects of the specific development. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would cross 

through a designated desert tortoise relocation area and would cross between two 

translocation areas identified for the ISEGS project. Thus, the Preferred Alternative in 

combination with the ISEGS project would represent substantial cumulative effects to 

desert tortoise habitat and other sensitive species in the area north of Mountain Pass. 

Construction and operation of the related projects in conjunction with the Preferred 

Alternative would also have the potential to cumulatively affect designated Special 

Management Lands. The Preferred Alternative would adversely affect the SuperiorCronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. This Special Management Land has already 

sustained substantial losses of acreage due to past large projects, including the Fort Irwin 

expansion project. Therefore, development of the Preferred Alternative and the related 

projects would further degrade the quality of these Special Management Lands. 

Conversely, the West Mojave Plan would provide a regional strategy for conserving plant 

and animal species in the area of cumulative analysis. Implementation of the West 

Mojave Plan could reduce cumulative impacts to plant and animal species, as plans and 

policies would be set in place for preserving and conserving biological resources that could 

potentially be affected by future development. 

Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS includes recommended mitigation measures to reduce 

the adverse biological effects of the Preferred Alternative. Similar mitigation measures 

would be applied to each individual related project to reduce potentially adverse impacts 

to biological resources. Each individual project would be required to evaluate the 

biological conditions of the site and document the suitability of special-status plant and 

animal species on the site. While mitigation would reduce impacts to biological resources, 

when taken collectively, the Preferred Alternative would have a considerable contribution 

to the cumulative effects to biological resources. 
Segment 2C

Barstow

Adelanto

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Victorville

Segment 1

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Desert Gateway

Specific Plan

CACA 051772

High Desert Corridor

C

C

CACA 049204

CACA 044975

C

CACA 049202

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (1)

FIG

F-3.16-1

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
#0

#0

#0

Segment 2C

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Segment 2A

Segment 2C

CACA 049053

CAC 046803 /

CAC 046881

CACA 051772

CACA 049052

CACA 046803

CACA 043088

CACA 049204

CACA 050896

CACA 049204

CACA 046881

CACA 050612

CACA 051605

CACA 049575

CACA 046803

CACA 051605

CACA 046881

CACA 050612

CACA 049204

CACA 049052

CACA 049204

CACA 049204

CACA 049204

CACA 049053

CACA 051605

CACA 049202

CACA 049204

CACA 049052

CACA 049053

0 1.5 3

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

[

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (2)

FIG

F-3.16-2

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.27.11

§ ̈¦40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CAL IFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

#0
#0

#0

#0

2A

Segment 3B

CACA 049053

CACA 048472

CACA 049584

CACA 049053

0 1.53

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

[NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (3)

FIG

F-3.16-3

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.27.11 § ̈¦40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CAL IFORNIA NEVADA 4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

#0
Baker

Halloran

Springs

Baker MOW

CACA 047455

CACA 048741

CACA 049584

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (4)

FIG

F-3.16-4

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Primm

Segment 3B

Segment 4C

I-15 Joint Port

of Entry

(Approximate

Location)

Ivanpah Substation

(Approximate

Location)

Segment 4C

Nextlight Silver State

South Solar Project

Ivanpah

Dry Lake

Recreation

Area

Molycorps Minerals, LLC

Mountain Pass Mine

Fast Food

Restaurant

CACA 048669

CACA 044988

ISEGS Project Site

(CACA 048668)

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (5)

FIG

F-3.16-5

Source: Geografika Consulting 02.15.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

Kern River Gas

Mountain Pass Later

(Approximate Corridor)

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
#0

#0

#0

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate

Corridor)

Primm

Jean

Segment 5B

!(

Proposed Southern Nevada

Regional Heliport

(Approximate Location)

Mixed Use 

Development

Ivanpah Energy Center

Segment 4C

Segment 6B

Nextlight Silver State

South Solar Project

Ivanpah

Dry Lake

Recreation

Area

McCullough Pass Southern

Nevada Solar Project

Fast Food

Restaurant

Southern Nevada

Supplemental

Airport Site

CACA 048669

0 1.5 3

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 6 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

[

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (6)

FIG

F-3.16-6

Source: Geografika Consulting 01.26.11

§ ̈¦40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CAL IFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations

#0
Bonneville

Transit Center

Wigwam Avenue MSF

Frias Substation

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

Las Vegas

Southern Station

Proposed Southern Nevada

Regional Heliport

(Approximate Location)

Segment 6B

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 7 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

NO

R

T

H

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008-2011, Clark County

Department of Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (7)

FIG

F-3.16-7

Source: Geografika Consulting 02.27.11

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA NEVADA 4

5

6

7

Potential Cumulative Projects

Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Eldorado to Ivanpah

Transmission Project

(Approximate Corridor)

Completed Project Site

Kern River Gas

Mountain Pass Later

(Approximate Corridor)

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facility Sites

Stations
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.16-48

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.17 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.17-1 

3.17 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS OF 

PUBLIC RESOURCES 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would involve a commitment of a range of 

natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. The public and private lands that would be 

used for the rail line, stations, maintenance and other ancillary facilities would be 

considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for a 

project. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the rail line and facilities 

are no longer needed, the land could be converted to another use. At present, there is no 

reason to believe such a conversion would ever be necessary or desirable. 

Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as cement, 

aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended to construct the project. 

Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the making of 

construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are 

not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued 

availability of these resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time 

expenditure of funds, which are not retrievable. 

The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents and businesses 

within the region would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation system. 

These benefits would consist of improved accessibility, increased capacity and energy 

savings, which are expected to outweigh the commitment of these resources. 
DesertXpress 3.17 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.17-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.18 Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.18-1 

3.18 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Project implementation would potentially result in attainment of short-term and longterm transportation and economic objectives at the expense of some long-term social, 

aesthetic, biological, noise, and other land use impacts. 

3.18.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Potential short-term losses include: Economic losses experienced by businesses 

(and affiliated governments) whose revenues are highly dependent upon visitor/passby 

traffic on I-15. Further economic losses for businesses affected by temporary 

construction impacts such as noise, traffic delays, or detours. Construction-period air 

quality impacts and energy consumption. 

Potential short-term benefits include: Increased jobs and revenue generated during 

construction.

Potential long-term losses include: Permanent loss of plant and wildlife resources, 

visual impacts, conversion of farmlands, noise increases, cultural resource site values, and 

use of construction materials. Indirect negative economics effect to Barstow area due to 

expected reduction in auto travel on I-15 and decreased business activity for visitorserving uses. 

Potential long-term gains include: Improvement of the transportation network of 

the region and the project vicinity, increased capacity and reduction of congestion on the 

I-15 freeway, construction and operation of the project by a private entity, increased jobs, 

increased revenue through creation of new passenger train operation, and associated 

beneficial growth and development near project nodes. Reduction of energy consumption 

associated with mode shift from automobile to train. 

3.18.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Potential short-term losses include: those similar to the construction of the 

Preferred Alternative in areas where freeway capacity improvements would be developed. 

Potential short-term benefits include: Some increased jobs and revenue generated 

during construction of freeway improvements, but the benefits would be realized over a 

longer period of time and thus more diffuse in nature than those associated with the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Potential long-term losses include: those similar to portions of the Preferred 

Alternative constructed in the freeway right of way, including permanent loss of plant and 

wildlife resources, visual impacts, conversion of farmlands, noise increases, cultural 
DesertXpress 3.18 Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.18-2 

resource site values lost, and use of construction materials. Increased dependence on the 

automobile in the corridor between Southern California and Las Vegas; associated adverse 

effects to regional air quality and relative increase in energy consumption. 

Potential long-term gains include: Some increased capacity and reduction of 

congestion on the I-15 freeway where future expansions are currently planned. 
DesertXpress 3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.19-1 

3.19 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

This section describes all potentially significant adverse effects resulting from the 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative. These effects cannot be fully avoided, 

reduced, or minimized with the mitigation measures presented in this Final EIS. 

The development of a high-speed passenger rail service from Victorville, California, to Las 

Vegas, Nevada, would result in unavoidable adverse effects to the physical and human 

environment. As described below, the Preferred Alternative would cause unavoidable 

adverse effects in the following resource categories: 

Farmlands and Grazing Lands: permanent conversion of about 442 acres of 

designated grazing lands. Refer to Section 3.3.2.3 of this Final EIS for a complete 

discussion regarding the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on grazing lands. 

Visual Resources: Permanent visual change to visually sensitive areas along rail 

alignment. Refer to Section 3.6.2.3 of this Final EIS for a complete discussion regarding 

the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on visual resources. 

Hydrology and Water Quality: Permanent effects to existing channels, overall 

increase in impervious area coverage. Refer to Section 3.8.2.3 of this Final EIS for a 

complete discussion regarding the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on hydrology and water 

quality. 

Biological Resources: Permanent conversion of sensitive habitat areas, including 

those associated with the Desert Tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel; loss of BLM 

special management lands. Refer to Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS for a complete 

discussion regarding the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on biological resources. 
DesertXpress 3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

March 2011 Final EIS 

3.19-2 

This page intentionally left blank.