c

FINAL

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section: General 

Conformity

Determination

June 2014 

Project Environmental Impact Report /

Environmental Impact Statement

Sacramento

Stockton

Modesto

Merced

Transbay Transit Center

Fresno

Kings/Tulare

(Potential Station)

Gilroy

San Jose Redwood City or Palo Alto 

(Potential Station)

Millbrae-SFO

Bakersfield

Palmdale 

San Fernando/Burbank

Ontario Airport

Norwalk Riverside/Corona

Murrieta

Escondido

San Diego

East

San Gabriel

Valley

Los Angeles

Anaheim


CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page i 

Executive Summary

The California High-Speed Train (HST) System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 800

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

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

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

Conformity Determination, is a critical link connecting the Bay Area and Merced to Fresno HST sections to 

the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program. The Project may also receive FRA safety approvals. 

Because of the federal funding and potential safety approvals, and because construction-phase emissions 

(without mitigation) would exceed General Conformity emission thresholds, the Project is subject to the 

General Conformity Rule.

 

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

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

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

Determination was issued for public review and comment on April 18, 2014 concurrent with the 

publication of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California HST System. Copies of the draft General Conformity 

Determination were provided in hardcopy in the respository locations listed in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 9.0. 

The draft General Conformity Determination was also made available for publicreview onFRA’s website. 

This final General Conformity Determination was made based on the Project design feature and 

mitigation measures that were described in Section 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Authority and FRA 2012a) and that 

will be implemented for the Project. This compliance is demonstrated herein as follows:

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

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

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

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

Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 

The Authority has committed to fully offset all construction emissions (to net zero) for every year of 

construction. 

 

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

to Los Angeles and Anaheim in the south. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page ii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

2.0 Description of the Federal Action Requiring Conformity Evaluation............... 2-1

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

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

3.2California High Speed Train System – Fresno to Bakersfield Section ....................... 3-1

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

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

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

4.3Study Area Emissions .......................................................................................... 4-3

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

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

6.0 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Emissions to Be 

Incorporated in the Project......................................................................................... 6-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.2Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements .............................................. 8-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.4HST Alignment Construction ................................................................................ 9-2

9.4.1 Rail Type and Alignment Alternatives ................................................ 9-2

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

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

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

9.6Maintenance of Way Facility Construction ............................................................. 9-4

9.7Heavy Maintenance Facility Construction .............................................................. 9-4

9.8Power Distribution Station Construction ................................................................ 9-4

9.9Roadway Construction......................................................................................... 9-4

9.10 Demobilization ............................................................................................. 9-5

10.0 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds -

Fresno-Bakersfield ....................................................................................................10-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.3.2 Applicable Requirements from CARB ..............................................12-3

12.3.3 Applicable Requirements from SJVAPCD .........................................12-3
Page iii

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

13.0 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds – 

Cumulative Analysis ..................................................................................................13-1

14.0 Reporting and Public Comments ...................................................................14-1

14.1 Reevaluation of General Conformity ...........................................................14-1

15.0 Findings and Conclusions ..............................................................................15-1

16.0 References .....................................................................................................16-1

Appendices

A Emissions Offset Commitment

B Draft General Conformity Determination Comments and Reponses 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

List of Tables

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to Project’s Study Area

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

to the Project

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

Table 4 Federal Attainment Status

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

Federal Actions

Table 6 Fresno to Bakersfield Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Table 7 Merced to Fresno Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Table 8 Merced to Bakersfield Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Table 9 Bakersfield to Palmdale in SJVAB – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Table 10 San Jose to Merced in SJVAB – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Table 11 Merced to Sacramento in SJVAB – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-1 

1.0 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the CAA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that may be subject to the General Conformity Rule. 

The draft General Conformity Determination was issued concurrently with the Fresno to Bakersfield Final

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) which complies with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and this 

final General Conformity Determination is being published concurrent with the FRA ROD for the Federal 

Action. Because the analysis used for the Final EIR/EIS also generated the information necessary for the 

General Conformity Determination, specific analysis may be incorporated herein by reference. 

1.1 Regulatory Status of Study Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality and planning status of the study area. 

The study area for this final General Conformity Determination is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

(SJVAB). Planning documents for pollutants for which the study area is classified as a federal

nonattainment or maintenance area are developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

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

Project alignment as it is situated in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Table 1 lists the planning 

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-2 

Figure 1

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-3 

Table 1

Planning Documents Relevant to Project’s Study Area

Type of Plan Status

1-Hour Ozone (O3) 

Attainment Plan

On September 19, 2013, EPA approved San Joaquin Valley's 2013 Plan for the 

Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. Effective June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the federal 

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

8-Hour O3 Attainment

Plan

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

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

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

implementing reasonably available control technologies at more sources.b

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plan were not adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The next plan will 

address EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This 8-hour 

ozone plan is expected to be due to EPA in 2015/2016a

Particulate Matter, 10 

microns or less in 

diameter (PM10) 

Maintenance Plan

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

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

Particulate Matter, 2.5 

microns or less in 

diameter (PM2.5) 

Attainment Plan

The SJVAPCD adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. This plan addresses 

EPA’s annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3, which was established by EPA in 1997.d 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan at a 

public hearing on January 24, 2013. The plan, approved by the District Governing 

Board on December 20, 2012, will bring the Valley into attainment of EPA’s 2006 

PM2.5 standard by the 2019 deadline, with most areas seeing attainment well before 

then.

e

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Maintenance Plan

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

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

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

areas for air quality purposes.f

a SJVAPCD (2013).

b SJVAPCD (2007a).

c SJVAPCD (2007b).

d SJVAPCD (2008).

e SJVAPCD (2012).

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

1.2 General Conformity Requirements 

On November 30, 1993, EPA promulgated final General Conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart 

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

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

approval by FRA, and because the Project will not be funded or require approval(s) under Title 23 U.S.C. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 1-4 

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

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

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

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

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

precursor pollutants that are equal to or exceed certain de minimis rates. 

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

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

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

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

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, whether a determination of General Conformity is required. During the 

applicability analysis, the federal agency determines the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EPA 2010a). 

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

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

applicability analysis for this Project is described in Section 8.0. 

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

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

required. If, however, the General Conformity regulations do apply to the Federal Action, the responsible 

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

the implementing regulations; publish a draft determination of General Conformity for public review; and 

then publish the final determination of General Conformity. 

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

several prescribed methods. These methods include: 

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

implementation plan, 

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

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

the total implementation plan emission budget, or 

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

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 2-1 

2.0 Description of the Federal Action 

Requiring Conformity Evaluation

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

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

action associated with the preferred alternative for a project or program (EPA 1994), and FRA must issue 

a positive conformity determination before the federal action is approved. Each federal agency is 

responsible for determining conformity of those proposed actions over which it has jurisdiction. This final

General Conformity Determination is related only to those activities included in the FRA’s Federal Action

pertaining to the HST Project, which is the Project’s potential approval through a NEPA Record of 

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

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

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

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

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

attainment will be maintained). 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 3-1 

3.0 California High Speed Train Project 

3.1 California High Speed Train System 

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

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

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

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

transit lines, highways, and airports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agency on the EIR/EIS for the HST System including the EIR/EIS for the Project. In addition to its 

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

the final design and construction of the initial construction section of the HST System, which includes 

activities analyzed in this final Conformity Determination. 

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

HST System. The Authority certified the EIR and adopted the project in May, while the FRA issued its 

Record of Decision (ROD) in September 2012. The Merced to Fresno Section is also within the SJVAB and 

a General Conformity Determination was prepared as part of the environmental process to comply with 

the CAA. It is worth noting that the Merced to Fresno General Conformity Determination includes the 

Authority’s commitment to offset all emissions to net zero through a Voluntary Emissions Reduction 

Agreement (VERA) between the Authority and the SJVAPCD. 

While FRA and the Authority consider the Fresno to Bakersfield section of the HST System independent of 

the other HST System sections for purposes of NEPA and CEQA analysis, certain construction activities 

within the Merced to Fresno Section, as well as within the future Bakersfield to Palmdale and San Jose to 

Merced Sections, may occur concurrently with Fresno to Bakersfield Section construction activities. 

Therefore, estimates of these cumulative emissions within the SJVAB have been presented in Section 

13.0 of this document. Although the Sacramento to Merced Section is not expected to be constructed 

concurrently with the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, estimates of the cumulative emissions of this section 

have also been included in Section 13.0. These future emissions estimates have been included in this 

document in the interest of the full disclosure of future construction emissions that may occur in the 

SJVAB from other sections of the HST Project; each of these sections will undergo separate conformity 

determinations at a later date.

3.2 California High Speed Train System – Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section

The purpose of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HST System is to implement the California HST 

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

service that provides predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and 

connectivity to airports, mass transit systems, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 3-2 

and to connect the northern and southern portions of the HST System. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

would be approximately 114 miles long, varying in length by only a few miles depending on the route 

alternatives selected. To comply with the Authority’s guidance to use existing transportation corridors 

when feasible, the Fresno to Bakersfield HST Section would primarily be located adjacent to the existing 

BNSF Railway right-of-way. Alternative alignments are being considered where engineering constraints 

require deviation from the existing railroad corridor, and where necessary to avoid environmental and 

community impacts. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section would cross both urban and rural lands and include a station in both 

Fresno and Bakersfield, a potential Kings/Tulare Regional Station in the vicinity of Hanford, a potential 

heavy maintenance facility (HMF), and power substations along the alignment. The HST alignment would 

be entirely grade-separated, meaning that crossings with roads, railroads, and other transportation

facilities would be located at different heights (overpasses or underpasses) so that the HST would not 

interrupt nor interface with other modes of transportation. The HST right-of-way would also be fenced to 

prohibit public or vehicle access. The Project footprint would primarily consist of the train right-of-way, 

which would include both a northbound and southbound track in an area typically 120 feet wide. 

Additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate stations, multiple track at stations, 

maintenance facilities, and power substations. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section would include at-grade, below-grade, and elevated track segments. 

The at-grade track would be laid on an earthen rail bed topped with rock ballast approximately 6 feet off 

the ground; fill and ballast for the rail bed would be obtained from permitted borrow sites and quarries. 

Below-grade track would be laid in an open or covered trench at a depth that would allow roadway and 

other grade-level uses above the track. Elevated track segments would span long sections of urban 

development or aerial roadway structures and consist of steel truss aerial structures with cast-in-place 

reinforced-concrete columns supporting the box girders and platforms. The height of elevated track 

sections would depend on the height of existing structures below, and would range from 40 to 80 feet. 

Columns would be spaced 60 to 120 feet apart.

The Project EIR/EIS for the Fresno to Bakersfield HST Section examines alternative alignments, stations, 

and HMF sites within the general BNSF Railway corridor. The BNSF Alternative most closely aligns with 

the preferred alignment identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. 

The alternative alignments that deviate from the BNSF Alternative were selected to avoid environmental, 

land use, or community issues identified for portions of the BNSF Alternative. 

The following alignment alternatives were considered: The BNSF Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 1

Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative, the Corcoran Elevated Alternative, the Corcoran 

Bypass Alternative, the Allensworth Bypass Alternative, the Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative, the 

Bakersfield South Alternative, and the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative. The following station alternatives 

were considered: the Fresno Station Alternatives (Mariposa and Kern), the Kings/Tulare Regional Station 

Alternatives (East and West), the Bakersfield Station Alternatives (North, South, and Hybrid).

It is estimated that construction of the Fresno Bakersfield Section of the HST System would take 

approximately ten years, with initiation of construction in 2014 and completion in 2023. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-1 

4.0 Air Quality Conditions in the Study Area

4.1 Meteorology and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and retention of air pollutants (SJVAPCD 2009).

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Study Area

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

monitor stations in the vicinity of the HST alignment alternatives were selected for representative 

ambient monitored data; these are 4706 E. Drummond Street in Fresno, 310 North Church Street in 

Visalia, and 5558 California Avenue in Bakersfield. These stations monitor CO, O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. 

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

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

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

monitoring at the three stations from 2010 through 2012. A brief summary of the monitoring data 

includes the following: 

• Monitored data from 2010 through 2012 do not exceed either the state or federal standards for CO or 

NO2. 

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

years 2010 through 2012. O3 values for the region also exceed the state 1-hour O3 standard for all 

stations for every year in the past 3 years. 

• The PM10 values for the region exceed the state 24-hour PM10 standard for all stations for years 2010

through 2012. 

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

stations where PM2.5 was measured (Visalia and Bakersfield) over the last 3 years. The national 

annual standard was exceeded at both of these monitoring stations in 2011.

• SO2 values were not monitored at any of these monitoring stations. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-2 

Table 2 

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

Air

Pollutant Standard/Exceedance

4706 E. Drummond Street, 

Fresno

310 N. Church Street,

Visalia

5558 California Avenue, 

Bakersfield

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

Carbon 

Monoxide

(CO)

Year Coverage

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)

Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)

# Days>Federal 1-hour Std. of >35 ppm

# Days>Federal 8-hour Std. of >9 ppm

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

72% 

2.0

1.45

0 

0 

0 

97% 

2.8

1.73

0 

0 

0 

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM 

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM 

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM 

Ozone

(O3) 

Year Coveragea

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)

Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)

# Days>Federal 8-hour Std. of >0.075 ppm

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

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

75%

0.108

0.091* 

13

5 

24

97%

0.129

0.104* 

52

27

73

98%

0.127

0.108* 

46

19

75

100%

0.122

0.104* 

34

15

57

95%

0.119

0.083* 

17

4 

33

99%

0.111

0.094*

37

9 

60

99%

0.109

0.097*

28

8 

48

98%

0.107

0.094*

25

5 

51

97%

0.102

0.095*

56

9 

83

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

(NO2) 

Year Coverage

Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)

Annual Average (ppm)

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

55% 

0.062

N/A

0 

79% 

0.069

N/A

0 

87%

0.070

0.013

0 

98% 

0.077

0.013

0 

91% 

0.058

0.012

0 

99%

0.061

0.012

0 

99% 

0.079

0.014

0 

97%

0.064

0.015

0 

95%

0.064

0.015

0 

Sulfur 

Dioxide

(SO2) 

Year Coverage

Max. 24-hour Concentration (ppm)

Annual Average (ppm)

# Days>California 24-hour Std. of >0.04 ppm

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM

Respirable 

Particulate 

Matter

(PM10) 

Year Coverage

Max. 24-hour Concentration (μg/m3) 

#Days>Fed. 24-hour Std. of >150 μg/m3

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

Annual Average (μg/m3) 

63% 

68.1

0 

8 

26.9

100% 

86.1

0 

12

31.4

25%

114.0

0 

8 

42.9

100%

90.8

0 

10

33.8

96%

78.1

0 

11

33.4

98%

75.7

0 

15

37.3

99% 

86.0

0 

67

32.3

89%

97.4

0 

113 

36.6

97%

99.6

0 

55

40.4

Fine 

Particulate 

Matter

(PM2.5) 

Year Coverage

Max. 24-hour Concentration (μg/m3) 

State Annual Average (μg/m3) 

#Days>Fed. 24-hour Std. of >35 μg/m3

Annual Average (μg/m3)

NM

NM

NM

NM 

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM 

NM

NM

NM

NM

NM 

NM

100%

59.8* 

13.6

3 

13.5

96%

73.2*

16.1

9 

16.0*

93%

76.2*

14.8

7 

14.7

88%

92.2*

17.2

26

14.1

82%

80.3*

18.1

30

16.2*

94%

86.5*

17.9

22

13.0 a Coverage is for 8-hour standard

* Exceeds annual NAAQS 

NM not monitored

N/A not available

> greater than

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

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

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

ppm part(s) per million 

Sources: CARB 2013a; USEPA 2013b. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-3 

4.3 Study Area Emissions

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

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

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

summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3 

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

Source Category VOCs CO NOx SOx PM PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 10.7 36.1 56.9 13 7.5 7 6.7

Waste Disposal 2.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 16.1 0 0 - 0.1 0.1 0.1

Petroleum Production and Marketing 35.5 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Industrial Processes 19.0 4 21.8 7.2 29.4 17.9 10.6

Total Stationary Sources 84.1 41.7 79.5 20.6 37.7 25.4 17.7

Stationary Sources Percentage of Total 14.1 2.6 14.9 76.6 6.5 7.5 13.2

Area-wide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 59.2 - - - - - - 

Miscellaneous Processes 92.4 267.9 17.7 1.1 478.7 254.2 67.8

Total Area-wide Sources 151.6 267.9 17.7 1.1 478.7 254.2 67.8

Area-wide Sources Percentage of Total 25.4 16.5 3.3 4.1 83.2 75.4 50.6

Mobile Sources

On-road Motor Vehicles 71.5 628.5 297.6 0.7 13.7 13.7 10.9

Other Mobile Sources 53.6 334.2 128.9 1.2 8.8 8.7 7.9

Total Mobile Sources 125.1 962.7 426.5 1.9 22.6 22.3 18.8

Mobile Sources Percentage of Total 21.0 59.4 79.8 7.1 3.9 6.6 14.0

Natural (Nonanthropogenic) Sources 

Natural Sources 235.2 347.5 10.6 3.3 36.6 35.2 29.8

Total Natural (Nonanthropogenic 

Sources) 235.2 347.5 10.6 3.3 36.6 35.2 29.8

Natural Sources Percentage of Total 39.5 21.5 2.0 12.3 6.4 10.4 22.2

Grand Total 596.1 1,619.9 534.3 26.9 575.6 337.1 134.1

Source: CARB 2013b. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 4-4 

In the SJVAPCD, mobile source emissions account for approximately 60% and 80% of the basin's CO and 

NOx emissions, respectively. Area sources account for over 80% and over 25% of the basin’s particulate

matter and total VOC emissions, respectively, and stationary sources account for over 70% of the basin’s 

sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions.

4.4 Project Study Area Designations 

The study area (or portions of counties within the study area) defined in the EIR/EIS for the HST Project 

and for this final General Conformity Determination is currently designated as extreme nonattainment for 

8-hour ozone, nonattainment for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and maintenance 

for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and carbon monoxide (i.e., the Fresno and 

Bakersfield urbanized areas). The SJVAB is in attainment for all other pollutants. Therefore, conformity 

regulations would apply to these four pollutants if the annual emissions of these pollutants generated by 

the proposed Project were to exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds. As such, annual 

emissions of these pollutants generated by the proposed Project in the entire SJVAB were compared to 

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 5-1 

5.0 Relationship to NEPA

The Authority and FRA circulated the Draft EIR/EIS in August 2011 providing an analysis of nine Build 

alternatives and a No-Build alternative. Because of substantive comments received during the public and 

agency review of the Draft EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA decided to reintroduce two alternative 

alignments west of Hanford (the Hanford West Bypass 1 and 2 Alternatives) that would be consistent 

with the preferred alternative identified in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, and another alternative in 

Bakersfield (Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative) that would minimize impacts to residential and community 

facilities in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. As a result, the Authority and the FRA circulated a Revised 

Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in March 2012 providing an evaluation of these additional alternative 

alignments. The Final Fresno to Bakersfield EIR/EIS identifies potential environmental impacts of the 

Project, both adverse and beneficial, identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, and 

identifies the agencies’ preferred alternative. The EIR/EIS was prepared to comply with both NEPA and 

CEQA. 

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be followed 

when preparing a General Conformity evaluation and are similar but not identical to those for conducting 

an air quality impact analysis under NEPA regulations. NEPA requires that the air quality impacts of the 

proposed Project’s implementation be analyzed and disclosed. For purposes of NEPA, the air quality 

impacts of the Project were determined by identifying the Project’s associated incremental emissions and 

air pollutant concentrations and comparing them, respectively, to emissions thresholds and state and 

national ambient air quality standards. The air quality impacts of the Project under future Build conditions 

were also compared in the Final EIR/EIS to the future No-Build conditions for NEPA purposes (they were 

also compared to existing conditions). The General Conformity Determination process and general 

findings are discussed in sections 3.3.2.1, 3.3.6.1, and 3.3.7.1 of the Final EIR/EIS. 

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

Bakersfield section of the HST system, FRA is issuing this final General Conformity Determination. The 

Authority has entered into discussions with the SJVAPCD to offset any emissions, as necessary, resulting 

from the Fresno to Bakersfield Section through the same Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement 

(VERA) agreement as described in Section 12.2. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 6-1 

6.0 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to 

Reduce Emissions to Be Incorporated in 

the Project 

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

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

EIR/EIS) that will be implemented as part of the Project to minimize, avoid, and mitigate air quality 

impacts. These Project design features and mitigation measures will be required components of the

Project They will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program which will be issued 

concurrently with FRA’s ROD and would be enforceable commitments undertaken by the Authority. 

Construction of the Project is anticipated to occur through a design/build contract. The Authority will 

include all of the Project design features and mitigation measures into the construction contract, which 

will create binding and enforcement commitment to implement these design features and mitigation 

measures. 

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

ensure that the contractor meets all air quality design features and mitigation measures. 

Project design features as part of the Project include the following:

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

similar material. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

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

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

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

building will be wetted during demolition.

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

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

maintained.

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

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

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

blower devices is expressly forbidden.

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

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

chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 6-2 

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

site and at the end of each workday.

• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will implement appropriate measures to prevent 

carryout and trackout. 

• Use of low- or super-compliant VOC (Clean Air) paints, coatings and industrial coatings that meet the 

regulatory limits in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (Rule 1113). 

• Stringent emission standards for mobile non-road diesel engines of almost all types using a tiered 

phase in of standards. (EPA Rule 40 C.F.R. Part 89, Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines) 

• Significant reductions in emissions of NOx, particulate matter, and non-methane organic compounds 

using exhaust treatment on heavy-duty diesel engines manufactured in model year 2007 and later 

years. (CARB Rule 13 C.C.R. § 1956.8, California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 

1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles) 

The following two additional mitigation measures were not assumed for the estimation of the base 

emission rates, as they will apply to the contractor’s required reduction in emissions from those of CARB’s 

Off-Road fleet inventory. Prior to the initiation of construction (i.e., after a contractor has been selected), 

the use of these measures will be revisited, and if feasible, implemented. The implementation of these 

measures may result in the need for fewer emission offsets (see Section 12) to comply with General 

Conformity requirements.

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

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

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

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

average fleet mix as set forth in CARB’s Off-Road 2011 Inventory model or 2007 OFFROAD model. 

The contractor will document efforts it undertook to locate newer equipment (such as, in order of 

priority, Tier 4, Tier 3 or Tier 2 equipment) and/or tailpipe retrofit equivalents. Contractor shall 

provide documentation of such efforts, including correspondence with at least two construction 

equipment rental companies. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification and any required CARB

or SJVAPCD operating permit will be made available at the time of mobilization of each piece of 

equipment. Contractor shall keep a written record (supported by equipment hours meters where 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-1 

7.0 Regulatory Procedures 

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be followed 

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

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

procedures required for the General Conformity evaluation are similar but not identical to those for 

conducting an air quality impact analysis pursuant to NEPA regulations. The draft General Conformity 

Determination was released for public and agency review pursuant to 40 CFR § 93.156, and this final 

General Conformity Determination is being published concurrent with the FRA ROD for the Federal Action.

The Authority identified the appropriate emission estimation techniques and planning assumptions in 

close consultation with the state entities charged with regulating air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. 

7.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions 

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

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

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

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

applicable SIP emissions budgets, have been approved by the SJVAPCD (see Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.2). 

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

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

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT). The MPO developed these estimates from 

their traffic assignment models based on current and future population, employment, and travel and 

congestion information. These assumptions are consistent with those in the current conformity 

determinations for the region’s Transportation Plan and TIP. 

7.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques 

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

techniques available, unless such techniques are inappropriate (40 CFR § 93.159(b)). Operational phase 

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

2011 (EMFAC2011), which is the emission model currently used in the preparation of the SIP (CARB 

2013c). Parameters were set in EMFAC2011for each individual county to reflect conditions within each 

county, and statewide parameters were used to reflect statewide conditions. 

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

segments, retained-fill rail segments, traction power substations, and industrial buildings at the 

HMF/MOWF and HST stations, including parking garages and platform facilities, were calculated using 

emission factors from CARB’s OFFROAD 2011 and 2007 models (CARB 2011d). The OFFROAD 2011 

model provides the latest emission factors for construction off-road equipment, and accounts for lower 

fleet population and growth factors as a result of the economic recession and updated load factors based 

on feedback from engine manufacturers. For emission rates not available in OFFROAD 2011, rates from 

OFFROAD 2007 were conservatively applied. The use of emission rates from the OFFROAD models 

reflects the recommendation of CARB to capture the latest off-road construction assumptions. OFFROAD 

2011 default load factors (the ratio of average equipment horsepower utilized to maximum equipment 

horsepower) and useful life parameters were used for emission estimates. Mobile source emission 

burdens from worker trips and truck trips were calculated using VMT estimates and appropriate emission 

factors from EMFAC2011. Fugitive dust emissions from dirt and aggregate handling were calculated using 

emission factors derived from equations from USEPA’s AP-42 (USEPA 2006b). 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-2 

Construction exhaust emissions from equipment, fugitive dust emissions from earthmoving activities, and 

emissions from worker trips, deliveries, and material hauling were calculated and compiled in a 

spreadsheet tool specific to the HST Project for each year of construction. Mobile source emission 

burdens from worker trips and truck trips were calculated using VMT estimates and appropriate emission 

factors from EMFAC.

7.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities 

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

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

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

between Fresno and Bakersfield. 

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

report): 

• Mobilization 

• Site preparation including demolition, land clearing, and grubbing

• Earth-moving

• Roadway crossings

• Elevated structures

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

• Traction power supply station

• Switching station

• Paralleling station

• HMF – including demolition, building, and track construction

• Fresno Station

• Bakersfield Station

• Hauling emissions – including truck and rail 

7.4 Emission Scenarios 

The General Conformity regulations require that the evaluation reflect certain emission scenarios (40 CFR

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

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

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

possible under the CAA, and for maintenance areas, the farthest year for which emissions are projected 

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

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

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

have to be analyzed, and the following applies to the proposed Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amount of total direct and indirect emissions (the year 2015, as identified in Item 2), may be subject 

to General Conformity regulations because they will increase regional emission rates and, as such, 

have the potential to cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an NAAQS. Therefore, analyses were 

conducted to estimate the amounts of emissions that would be generated during the construction 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 7-3 

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

these emissions on local air quality levels. Emissions generated at the construction sites (e.g., tailpipe 

emissions from the on-site heavy-duty diesel equipment and fugitive dust emissions generated by 

vehicles traveling within the construction sites) and on the area’s roadways by vehicles traveling to 

and from these sites (by vehicles transporting materials and the workers traveling to and from work) 

were considered.

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

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

generated during construction were to exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds.

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

emissions, which are the maximum values for the Project, are described in more detail in Section 10.0

of this report. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-1 

8.0 Applicability Analysis 

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

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

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

Determination for each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by the federal 

action would equal or exceed an annual de minimis emission rate. 

8.1 Attainment Status of Project Area 

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

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

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

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

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

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

designation status of the SJVAB for each criteria pollutant. 

Table 4 

Federal Attainment Status

Pollutant Federal Classification

O3 Nonattainment (Extreme)

PM10 Maintenance

PM2.5 Nonattainment

CO Urban portions of Fresno and Kern Counties: Maintenance

Remaining Basin: Attainment

NO2 Attainment

SO2 Attainment

Source: EPA (2013c). 

Under federal designations, the SJVAB is currently classified as nonattainment for 8-hour O3,2

 

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

atmosphere from the photochemical reactions of VOC and NOx in the presence of sunlight), its de minimis threshold is based on 

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

applicability thresholds(EPA 1994), the Federal Action is subject to a general conformity evaluation for O3. 

the 1997 

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

]) and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard (35 μg/m3

). The SJVAB is a maintenance area for PM10, and the Fresno and Kern County 

Urbanized Areas are maintenance for CO. The SJVAB is in attainment for the NO2 and SO2 standards and 

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

Conformity Rule for NOx and VOCs , PM2.5, PM10, and CO if project-related emissions of these pollutants 

would exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-2 

8.2 Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements 

As noted previously, the General Conformity requirements apply to a federal action if the net project 

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

criterion are if the activity is on the federal agency’s presumed-to-conform list (40 CFR § 93.153(f)), 

meets the narrow exemption for federal actions in response to an emergency or disaster (40 CFR § 

93.153(e)), or is one of the following topical exemptions: 

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

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

maintenance and repair. 

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

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

(c)(4)). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements (40 CFR § 93.153(d)(5)).

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

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

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.153(e). 

8.3 Applicability for Federal Action 

After determining that the Project is not otherwise exempt, the applicability of the General Conformity

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

for the calendar year of greatest emissions to the General Conformity de minimis thresholds. Where the 

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

minimis emission rates for a pollutant, that pollutant is excluded from General Conformity requirements 

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

above a de minimis threshold, that pollutant must undergo a General Conformity evaluation. 

8.4 De minimis Emission Rates 

The General Conformity requirements will apply to the Federal Action for each pollutant for which the 

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

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

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

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

pollutants for which General Conformity is required in the Project area are shown in Table 5. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 8-3 

Table 5 

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

Pollutant Applicability Threshold Attainment Status

Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx) 10 tons per year Nonattainment (Extreme)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 10 tons per year

Particulate Matter Smaller than 2.5 

Microns (PM2.5) 100 tons per year Nonattainment

Particulate Matter Smaller than 10

Microns (PM10) 100 tons per year Maintenance

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 tons per year

Urban portions of Fresno and Kern 

Counties: Maintenance

Remaining Basin: Attainment

Source: 40 CFR 93.153

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-1 

9.0 Construction Activities Considered

As shown in Section 3.3.6 of the Final EIR/EIS, the results of the regional analyses conducted for the 

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

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

demonstrate that the Project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS for these 

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

Conformity determination. This Section 9.0 will focus on the emissions generated from the construction 

period emissions for the Fresno to Bakersfield Project. 

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

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

motor vehicle traffic effects due to truck trips) construction-phase activities included the following:

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

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

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

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

construction activity emissions and off-site traffic emissions;

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

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

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

and

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

pollutants. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

supply materials to each site. 

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

procedures used to estimate emission rates.

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

Bakersfield Section Air Quality Technical Report for this Project (Authority and FRA 2014).3

 

3 Available online at http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/index.html. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-2 

9.1 Mobilization

Mobilization would take approximately 4 months, beginning in April 2014 and ending in July 2014. 

Emissions associated with mobilization were calculated using OFFROAD 2011 emission factors. Fugitive 

dust from mobilization includes worker trips and construction equipment exhaust. Four main site areas 

were assumed for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HST alignment.

9.2 Site Preparation

9.2.1 Demolition

Demolition of existing structures along the HST alignment and HST stations would occur in 2014. 

Demolition emissions were calculated using OFFROAD 2011 emissions factors. In addition to the fugitive 

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

trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust. 

9.2.2 Land Grubbing

Land grubbing refers to the site preparation activities for the HST alignment construction. Emissions from 

land grubbing were estimated using the OFFROAD 2011 emission factors as well as a site-specific 

equipment list. Land grubbing was assumed to take place at four staging areas in 2014. Fugitive dust 

from land-grubbing activities includes that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truckhauling exhaust. 

9.3 Earth Moving

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

construction. Earthmoving would occur at four locations from November 2014 to November 2016. The 

emissions associated with the earthmoving activities were estimated using OFFROAD 2011 emission 

factors as well as a site-specific equipment list. Fugitive dust from land-grubbing activities includes that 

from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust. 

9.4 HST Alignment Construction

The HST alignment construction is expected to occur from 2014 to 2017, and includes the following 

construction phases and operation of a concrete batch plant: 

• Constructing structures for the elevated rail. 

• Laying elevated rail and at-grade rail. 

• Constructing the retaining wall for the retained-fill rail.

• Laying retained-fill rail. 

9.4.1 Rail Type and Alignment Alternatives

Three rail types (elevated, at-grade, and retained fill) for the worst case alternative were considered in 

this analysis. The worst case alternative is considered the “BNSF Alternative” because it is estimated to 

have the longest length of track. The length of the alignment for alternatives that deviate from the 

BNSF Alternative is comparable to the length of the equivalent section of the BNSF Alternative. Therefore, 

construction emissions from construction of the BNSF Alternative are expected to be similar to the 

construction emissions for the other alternatives. The BNSF Alternative is the only alignment analyzed for 

construction emissions and all alternatives are assumed to have the same construction emissions as the 

BNSF Alternative. Emissions were taken as the sum of the at-grade, elevated, and retained-fill emissions.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-3 

9.4.2 Concrete Batch Plants

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

alignment, for construction of the station platform, and for construction of the retaining wall used to 

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

that three batch plants would operate in the Project area during construction of the alignment sections. 

Fugitive dust emissions associated with the plants were estimated based on the total amount of concrete 

required and on emission factors from Chapter 11.12 of AP-42 (USEPA 2006a). Emissions from on-road 

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

the analysis and are discussed below.

9.4.3 Material Hauling

Emissions from the exhaust of trucks used to haul material (including concrete slabs) to the construction 

site were calculated using heavy-duty truck emission factors from EMFAC2011 and anticipated travel 

distances of haul trucks within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). 

As part of the NEPA and CEQA analysis, the Final EIR/EIS calculates the potential construction period 

emissions resulting from hauling ballast (i.e., generally, the rocks that lie under railroad ties and rails) 

materials from quarries outside of the San Joaquin Air Basin. In order to take a conservative approach to 

calculating potential construction emissions, the analysts ran five different scenarios using reasonable 

assumptions for delivery of the ballast materials (i.e. different configurations of delivery by train and 

diesel truck from different quarry sources in different air basins). Emissions from the exhaust of trucks 

used to deliver the ballast was calculated using the heavy-duty truck emission factors from EMFAC2011, 

rail emission factors from the USEPA document, Emission Factors for Locomotives (USEPA 2009c), and 

the travel distance by rail to the Project site were used to estimate rail emissions. This analysis resulted 

in at least one scenario that would not result in exceedance of any of the NAAQS thresholds in any of the 

surrounding air basins containing ballast-source quarries. This scenario relies on the delivery of ballast 

from sources closest to the Project and when those sources are exhausted then they are supplemented 

by the importation of ballast from outside the air basin by trucks (Fresno to Bakersfield Section Air 

Quality Technical Report, Appendix G, “Quarry and Ballast Hauling Memorandum” March 2012). It is not 

possible to conclude that the future construction contractor would select this scenario, because the 

difference in cost between the scenarios is not substantially different. However, because no one scenario 

is clearly superior from a cost perspective, it is reasonable to assume that the contractor might select this 

scenario especially because it relies on the delivery of ballast from sources closest to the Project. 

While the information developed for the EIR/EIS helps agency decisionmakers understand a range of 

potential scenarios and resulting emissions, it is impossible to know the exact source or method of 

transportation for the ballast material and therefore FRA cannot determine, with certainty, whether those 

emissions would result in exceedance of the General Conformity thresholds. However, as a condition of 

project approval the Authority will ensure that the delivery of the ballast material will not result in 

exeedance of any of the conformity thresholds in surrounding air basins that are nonattainment or 

maintenance status. If this is not reasonably possible or is materially more costly, prior to engaging in 

any activity that would result in emissions that exceed conformity thresholds in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area in the surrounding air basins, the Authority will secure the production or generation of 

offsets necessary to achieve conformity. Because at this time it is not possible to determine whether the 

hauling activities will exceed the de minimis thresholds in neighboring air basins, this General Conformity 

Determination is not intended to address the general conformity requirements in those air basins. If 

necessary, FRA will take the appropriate steps to demonstrate conformity in neighboring air basin 

including the preparation of separate general conformity determinations, if required, to comply with the 

General Conformity Rule. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-4 

9.5 Train Station Construction

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

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

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

parking lots are not expected to be part of the construction; only parking structures with emissions 

captured during the building construction phase were included. 

Construction of the Fresno HST station would begin in June 2017 and be completed by April 2020. 

Construction of the Bakersfield HST station would begin in June 2018 and be completed by April 2021. 

Construction of the Kings/Tulare Station would begin in June 2020 and be completed by April 2023. 

OFFROAD 2011 was used to estimate emissions from construction phases of the HST stations. 

9.6 Maintenance of Way Facility Construction

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

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

construction of the at-grade MOWF Access Guideway rail. 

Construction of the MOWF would begin in May 2017 and be completed by the end of 2018. OFFROAD 

2011 was used to estimate emissions from construction of the MOWF. Fugitive dust from construction of 

the MOWF includes that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust. 

Emissions from track construction were estimated using the same approach described for the HST 

alignment construction. 

9.7 Heavy Maintenance Facility Construction

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

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

the HMF Access Guideway rail. OFFROAD 2011 was used to estimate emissions from constructing the 

HMF. Construction of the HMF facility would occur from approximately May 2017 to October 2018. 

Construction of the HMF track would occur from June 2018 to October 2018. Fugitive dust from 

construction of the HMF includes that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truckhauling exhaust. 

9.8 Power Distribution Station Construction 

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

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

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

roads would be covered with gravel. 

A total of 17 power distribution station sites were analyzed for construction emissions using OFFROAD 

2011 emission factors. The analysis assumed that station sites 1 through 15 would be constructed from 

October 2017 to May 2018, and the remaining two sites (16 and 17) would be constructed between 

October 2018 and May 2019. Fugitive dust from construction of the power distribution stations includes 

that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust. 

9.9 Roadway Construction

The HST alternatives would include construction easement, easement for columns within a state facility, 

or modification of overcrossings or interchanges. Based on Project-specific data, four staging areas for 

roadway construction were analyzed. Construction of roadway crossings would occur simultaneously at all 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 9-5 

staging areas from November 2014 to November 2016. Fugitive dust from construction of the roadway 

crossings includes that from worker trips, construction equipment exhaust, and truck-hauling exhaust.

9.10 Demobilization

Demobilization (of the alignment construction) would occur at four different locations from October 2016 

to January 2017 (Sites 1 and 2) and January 2017 to April 2017 (Sites 3 and 4). Emissions associated 

with demobilization were calculated using OFFROAD 2011. Fugitive dust from demobilization includes that 

from worker trips and construction equipment exhaust. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 10-1 

10.0 Estimated Emission Rates and 

Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds -

Fresno-Bakersfield

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

period, as presented in the HST Final EIR/EIS, are provided in Table 6. These values are the peak onsite emissions during each analysis year plus maximum annual off-site emissions. As shown in the table, 

the annual construction emissions of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section would exceed the thresholds for 

NOx in the years 2014 through 2018, as well as in 2021, and for VOCs in the years 2014 through 2017. 

The maximum estimated annual values of each pollutant, by non-attainment or maintenance area, and 

the percent of the 2010 estimated emission rates in the SJVAB (see Table 3) for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

construction are as follows:

• NOx: 818 tpy (0.42%)

• VOCs: 43 tpy (0.02%)

• PM2.5: 35 tpy (0.07%)

• PM10: 75 tpy (0.06%)

• CO: 75 tpy – Fresno Maintenance Area (0.01%)

• CO: 65 tpy –Bakersfield (Kern County) Maintenance Area (0.01%)

For the Fresno to Bakersfield portion of the HST system, the lengths of the alignments for the 

alternatives that deviate from the BNSF Alternative are comparable to the lengths of the equivalent 

sections of the BNSF Alternative. Therefore, construction emissions from the construction of the BNSF 

Alternative are expected to be similar to the construction emissions of the other alternatives. The lengths 

of the Corcoran Elevated Alternative, the Corcoran Bypass Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 1 

Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative, the Bakersfield Hybrid, and the Bakersfield South 

Alternative have the same lengths as the corresponding section of the at-grade and elevated alignments 

for the BNSF Alternative. The total alignment for the Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative is approximately 

5% shorter than the total at-grade and elevated length of the corresponding section of the BNSF 

Alternative. All alternatives would have the same construction emissions for all Project components.

Table 6 

Fresno to Bakersfield Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NOx 622.40 818.30 548.64 161.43 70.89 4.17 1.95 79.74 0.53 0.19 10

VOCs 24.01 42.78 33.82 8.51 3.89 0.42 0.25 3.87 0.09 0.03 10

PM2.5* 20.20 36.47 28.66 12.03 9.67 6.94 0.14 2.49 0.05 0.02 100

PM10 51.44 75.12 62.43 15.79 14.90 8.63 2.95 4.33 0.13 0.08 100

CO**

Fresno 30.51 74.79 66.14 12.17 3.92 1.31 0.43 8.85 0.00 0.00 100

Bakersfield 29.79 64.59 57.88 15.31 3.74 1.70 1.21 9.26 0.00 0.00 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

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

** Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized maintenance areas only

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 11-1 

11.0 Regional Effects 

As shown in Section 3.3-6 of the FEIS, the total regional emissions for all of the applicable pollutants are 

lower during the operations phase of the HST Project than under No-Build conditions (and will therefore 

not exceed the de minimis emission thresholds). As such, only emissions generated during the 

construction phase were compared to the conformity threshold levels to determine conformity 

compliance. As shown in Table 6, construction-phase emissions, compared to the General Conformity 

applicability rates, are as follows:

• Annual estimated NOx emissions are greater

• Annual estimated VOC emissions are 

than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year in years 

2014 through 2018, as well as in 2021; 

greater

• Annual estimated PM2.5, PM10, and CO emissions are 

than the applicability rate of 10 tons per year in years 

2014 through 2016; and

less

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

during construction where the emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds and do not meet any of 

the exceptions cited in 40 CFR § 93.154(c). This final Conformity Determination identified the Authority’s

commitment to reduce all NOx and VOC emissions through emissions offsets using a VERA with the 

SJVAPCD, explained in Section 12.2 below. 

than the applicability rate of 100 tons per 

year in all years.

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-1 

12.0 General Conformity Evaluation

For federal actions subject to a General Conformity evaluation, the regulations delineate several ways an 

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

used to make the determination for the HST Project.

12.1 Conformity Requirements of Proposed Project

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

emissions for: 

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

for years 2014 through 2018, as well as in 2021; and

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

year for years 2014 through 2016. 

12.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements

To support this final General Conformity Determination, the FRA demonstrates herein that the emissions 

of NOx and VOCs (a precursor to O3) caused by the construction of the proposed Project will not result in 

an increase in regional NOx and VOC emissions. This will be achieved by off-setting the NOx and VOC 

emissions generated by the construction of the HST in a manner consistent with the General Conformity

regulations. 

The offsets are anticipated to be accomplished through a VERA between the Authority and the SJVAPCD. 

The requirement for the VERA would be implemented as part of the Project as described in the mitigation 

measure from the Final EIR/EIS: 

AQ-MM#4: Offset Project Construction Emissions Through an SJVAPCD VERA. This mitigation 

measure would address AQ Impact #1 (Common Regional Air Quality Impacts During Construction) that 

would exceed the GC applicability and CEQA emissions thresholds for VOC and NOx, and the CEQA 

emission thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. The Authority and SJVAPCD will enter into a contractual 

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

equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The agreement will provide 

funds for the district’s Emission Reduction Incentive Program19 (SJVAPCD 2011) to fund grants for 

projects that achieve emission reductions, with preference given to highly impacted communities, thus 

offsetting project-related impacts on air quality. Projects funded in the past include electrification of 

stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty 

trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors. The 

mitigation is the offsets, but the VERA is one mechanism to accomplish the offsets. To lower overall cost, 

funding for the VERA program to cover estimated construction emissions for any funded construction 

phase will be provided at the beginning of the construction phase if feasible. At a minimum, funding shall 

be provided so that mitigation/offsets will occur in the year of impact, or as otherwise permitted by 40 

C.F.R. Part 93 Section 93.163.

A VERA is an enforceable mitigation measure by which the Project proponent will provide pound-forpound offsets of emissions that exceed General Conformity thresholds through a process that develops, 

funds, and implements emissions reduction Projects, with the SJVAPCD serving role of administrator of 

the emissions reduction Projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort.

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

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

the SJVAPCD's Emission Reduction Incentive Program to fund grants for Projects that achieve emission 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enforceability of achieved reductions. The initial agreement is generally based on the projected maximum 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Authority and FRA with an enforceable mitigation measure that will result in emissions exceedances 

being fully offset. 

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

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

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

reductions, mitigating the project to a net-zero air quality impact. Furthermore, the SJVAPCD has stated 

that it is certain that there are enough emissions reductions projects within its air basin to fully offset the 

project’s NOx and VOC exceedances.4

12.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in 

Applicable SIP

 The Authority will be required as a condition of project 

implementation to fully offset construction emissions (to net zero) for every year of construction. 

The general conformity regulations state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rule, a 

Federal action may not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect emissions from 

the Federal action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones in the 

applicable SIP (40 C.F.R. § 93.158(c)). This includes but is not limited to such issues as reasonable 

further progress schedules, assumptions specified in the attainment or maintenance demonstration, 

prohibitions, numerical emission limits, and work practice standards. This section briefly addresses how 

the construction emissions for the project were assessed for SIP consistency for this evaluation.

12.3.1 Applicable Requirements from EPA

The EPA has already promulgated, and will continue to promulgate, numerous requirements to support 

the goals of the Clean Air Act with respect to the NAAQS. Typically, these requirements take the form of 

rules regulating emissions from significant new sources, including emission standards for major stationary 

point sources and classes of mobile sources as well as permitting requirements for new major stationary 

point sources. Since states have the primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of 

requirements under the Clean Air Act and can impose stricter limitations than the EPA, the EPA 

requirements often serve as guidance to the states in formulating their air quality management 

strategies. 

 

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

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

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-3 

12.3.2 Applicable Requirements from CARB

In California, to support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, CARB is primarily responsible for 

regulating emissions from mobile sources. In fact, the EPA has delegated authority to the CARB to 

establish emission standards for on-road and some non-road vehicles separate from the EPA vehicle 

emission standards, although the CARB is preempted by the Clean Air Act from regulating emissions from 

many non-road mobile sources, including marine craft. Emission standards for preempted equipment can 

only be set by the EPA.

12.3.3 Applicable Requirements from SJVAPCD

To support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the SJVAB, the SJVAPCD is primarily 

responsible for regulating emissions from stationary sources. As noted above, SJVAPCD develops and 

updates its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) regularly to support the California SIP. While the AQMP 

contains rules and regulations geared to attain and maintain the NAAQS, these rules and regulations also 

have the much more difficult goal of attaining and maintaining the California ambient air quality 

standards. 

12.3.4 Consistency with Applicable Requirements for the Authority 

The Authority already complies with, and will continue to comply with, a myriad of rules and regulations 

implemented and enforced by Federal, state, regional, and local agencies to protect and enhance 

ambient air quality in the SJVAB. 

In particular, due to the long persistence of challenges to attain the ambient air quality standards in the 

SJVAB, the rules and regulations promulgated by CARB and SJVAPCD are among the most stringent in 

the U.S. 

The Authority will continue to comply with all existing applicable air quality regulatory requirements for 

activities over which it has direct control and will meet in a timely manner all regulatory requirements 

that become applicable in the future.

These are appropriate EPA, CARB, and SJVAPCD rules which are standard practice and BMPs for 

construction in the SJVAPCD and include control of emissions, exhaust---such as:

• SJVAPCD Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source Review; applies to new or modified 

stationary sources and requires that sources not increase emissions above the specified 

thresholds. If the post-project stationary source potential to emit equals or exceeds the offset 

threshold levels, offsets will be required (SJVAPCD 2008). Stationary sources at the station (such 

as natural gas heaters) would need to be permitted by the SJVAPCD and would have to comply 

with best available control technology (BACT) requirements. Many stationary sources would be 

associated with heavy maintenance facility (HMF) activities, such as exterior washing, welding, 

material storage, cleaning solvents, abrasive blasting, painting, oil/water separation, and 

wastewater treatment and combustion. Permits would need to be obtained for equipment 

associated with these activities from the SJVAPCD and would need to comply with BACT 

requirements.

• SJVAPCD Rule 2280, Portable Equipment Registration; requires portable equipment used at 

project sites for less than 6 consecutive months must be registered with SJVAPCD. The district 

will issue the registrations 30 days after the receipt of the application (SJVAPCD 1996). 

• SJVAPCD Rule 2303, Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits; The project may qualify for 

SJVAPCD vehicle emission reduction credits if it meets the specific requirements of Rule 2303 for 

any of the following categories (SJVAPCD 1994):

• Low-Emission Transit Buses.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-4 

• Zero-Emission Vehicles.

• Retrofit Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles.

• Retrofit Heavy-Duty Vehicles

• SJVAPCD Rule 4201 and Rule 4202, Particulate Matter Concentration and Emission Rates; applies 

to operations that emit or may emit dust, fumes, or total suspended particulate matter. 

Particulate emissions from the project must be less than the specified emissions limit (SJVAPCD 

1992a, 1992b).

• SJVAPCD Rule 4301, Fuel Burning Equipment; limits the emissions from fuel-burning equipment 

whose primary purpose is to produce heat or power by indirect heat transfer. The project will 

comply with the emission limits (SJVAPCD 1992c). 

• SJVAPCD Rule 8011, General Requirements–Fugitive Dust Emission Sources; applicable to 

outdoor fugitive dust sources. Operations, including construction operations, must control fugitive 

dust emissions in accordance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (SJVAPCD 2004a). According to Rule 

8011, the SJVAPCD requires the implementation of control measures for fugitive dust emission 

sources. The project would also implement the mandatory control measures listed in Table 6-2 in 

the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2002) to reduce 

fugitive dust emissions. These measures are not considered mitigation measures because they 

are required by law.

Many of the control measures required by the SJVAPCD are the same or similar to the control 

measures listed in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. The SJVAPCD Rule 8011 requirements are 

listed below:

• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively used for construction 

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

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

cover.

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

dust emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

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

demolition activities will be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions by utilizing an 

application of water or by presoaking.

• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the 

building will be wetted during demolition.

• All materials are transported offsite will be covered or effectively wetted to limit visible dust 

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

maintained.

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

adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is 

expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the 

visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

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

outdoor storage piles, piles will be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing 

sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

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

from the site and at the end of each workday.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 12-5 

• Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will prevent carryout and trackout.

• SJVAPCD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review; applies to any transportation project in which 

construction emissions equal or exceed 2 tons of NOx or PM10 per year. Construction of the HST 

alignment (specifically, onsite off-road construction exhaust emissions) would be subject to ISR. 

Accordingly, the Authority would have to submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the 

SJVAPCD with commitments to reduce construction exhaust NOx and PM10 emissions by 20% and 

45%, respectively. According to SJVAPCD, if successful, AQ-MM#1 (use of cleaner-burning 

construction equipment) might, as a practical matter, satisfy these numerical reduction requirements; 

if not, AQ-MM#4 (offset project construction emissions through an SJVAPCD VERA) would satisfy the 

ISR requirements. Operation of the HST would be exempt under sections 4.1 and 4.2 of Rule 9510.

• SJVAPCD CEQA Guidelines; The SJVAPCD prepared the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality 

Impacts (GAMAQI) to assist lead agencies and project applicants in evaluating the potential air 

quality impacts of projects in the SJVAB (SJVAPCD 2002). The GAMAQI provides SJVAPCDrecommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the CEQA environmental 

review process. The GAMAQI provides guidance on evaluating short-term (construction) and longterm (operational) air emissions. The GAMAQI is currently being updated, but the most recent 

version (2002) was used in this evaluation and contains guidance on the following:

• Criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse air 

quality impact.

• Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing air quality impacts.

• Methods to mitigate air quality impacts.

• Information for use in air quality assessments and environmental documents that will be updated 

more frequently, such as air quality data, regulatory setting, climate, and topography.

• EPA Rule 40 C.F.R. Part 89, Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Non-road CompressionIgnition Engines: requires stringent emission standards for mobile non-road diesel engines of 

almost all types using a tiered phase in of standards.

• CARB Rule 13 C.C.R. § 1956.8, California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 

1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles: requires significant 

reductions in emissions of NOx, particulate matter, and non-methane organic compounds using 

exhaust treatment on heavy-duty diesel engines manufactured in model year 2007 and later 

years.

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 13-1 

13.0 Estimated Emission Rates and 

Comparison to De Minimis Thresholds – 

Cumulative Analysis

The study area for cumulative air quality impacts is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). While 

separate projects for purposes of planning the HST System, construction of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section would overlap with the construction period for the Merced to Fresno Section, thereby adding to 

the cumulative air quality impacts within the SJVAB. For purposes of full disclosure of the potential 

impacts, the cumulative emissions that could result from potential concurrent construction activities are 

presented here. As the analysis demonstrates, even where concurrent construction will occur there 

would be no new pollutants exceeding the de minimis thresholds. In addition, the Authority will be 

required as a condition of project implementation to fully offset to net zeroall construction period 

emissions for each year of construction.. 

The total annual estimated emissions generated within the SJVAB during construction of the Merced to 

Fresno Section are provided in Table 7. The total annual estimated emissions generated within the 

SJVAB during the construction of the combined Merced to Bakersfield sections (Merced to Fresno plus 

Fresno to Bakersfield) are provided in Table 8. As shown in this table, the combined annual construction 

emissions of the two sections would exceed the thresholds for NOx in the years 2014 through 2021 and 

VOCs in the years 2014 through 2017 and 2019. 

These values are the peak on-site emissions during each analysis year plus maximum annual off-site 

emissions. The maximum estimated annual values of each pollutant, by non-attainment or maintenance 

area, and the percent of the 2010 estimated emission rates in the SJVAB (see Table 3) for the combined 

(Merced to Bakersfield) construction are as follows:

• NOx: 928 tpy (0.48%)

• VOCs: 54 tpy (0.02%)

• PM2.5: 42 tpy (0.09%)

• PM10: 84 tpy (0.07%)

• CO: 97 tpy – Fresno Maintenance Area (0.02%)

• CO: 65 tpy – Bakersfield (Kern County) Maintenance Area (0.01%)

For the Merced to Fresno segment of the HST system, construction emission rates were estimated in the 

EIR/EIS for each of the six alternatives/options previously under consideration for the Merced to Fresno 

Section. However, only those values associated with the Preferred Alternative are included in this 

Conformity Determination. These values represent the Preferred Alternative with the Avenue 21 wye 

option, because that option has the highest estimated emissions. If the Avenue 24 wye option is selected, 

the estimated emission rates will be lower than those presented in this determination. 

Portions of the San Jose to Merced, Bakersfield to Palmdale and Sacramento to Merced sections of the 

HST would also be constructed within the SJVAB. It is possible that the schedule for construction of 

these sections could overlap with construction of the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield 

sections, contributing to the cumulative annual emissions totals of HST construction in the SJVAB. 

Construction emissions estimates of other sections in the SJVAB are provided in Tables 9 to 11. These 

estimates were developed based upon the comparison of track miles for those sections with the track 

miles for the Fresno to Bakersfield portion of the HST system. 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 13-2 

Table 7

Merced to Fresno Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) 2014** 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NOx 168.60 109.5 114.52 32.02 13.34 49.35 15.14 7.36 3.96 0.00 10

VOCs 15.11 11.07 8.33 2.42 1.73 10.83 1.81 1.01 4.90 0.00 10

PM2.5* 8.04 5.84 4.29 1.72 0.57 2.94 0.97 0.46 1.98 0.00 100

PM10 13.15 8.79 5.51 3.86 0.83 6.13 1.89 0.61 8.89 0.00 100

CO (entire study 

area) 66.56 49.24 31.51 11.40 7.65 32.42 18.41 11.58 2.51 0.00 - 

CO (maintenance 

area only)*** 28.62 22.31 11.49 4.42 2.27 5.01 3.75 1.26 0.54 0.00 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

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

** 2014 emissions include the emissions estimated for 2013in the Merced to Fresno Final EIR/EIS since no construction activities occurred in 2013.

*** Only the Fresno Urbanized Area is a CO maintenance area, therefore only emissions in this area are subject to the conformity applicability thresholds

Table 8

Merced to Bakersfield (Merced to Fresno plus Fresno to Bakersfield) Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) 2014** 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NOx 791.01 927.81 663.16 193.45 84.23 53.52 17.09 87.10 4.49 0.19 10

VOCs 39.12 53.86 42.14 10.92 5.62 11.25 2.06 4.88 4.99 0.03 10

PM2.5* 28.35 42.39 33.00 13.79 10.24 9.91 1.16 2.99 2.03 0.02 100

PM10 64.58 83.92 67.94 19.65 15.73 14.76 4.84 4.93 9.02 0.08 100

CO***

Fresno 59.13 97.09 77.62 16.59 6.19 6.33 4.18 10.11 0.54 0.00 100

Bakersfield 29.79 64.59 57.88 15.31 3.74 1.70 1.21 9.26 0.00 0.00 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

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

** 2014 emissions include the 2013 estimates from the Merced to Fresno Final EIR/EIS

*** Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized maintenance areas only
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 13-3 

Table 9

Bakersfield to Palmdale in SJVAPCD – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

NOx 89.09 89.09 89.09 89.09 89.09 10

VOCs 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 10

PM2.5* 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 100

PM10 9.10 9.10 9.10 9.10 9.10 100

CO 32.80 32.80 32.80 32.80 32.80 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

* Includes sulfur dioxide emission rates as a partial precursor to PM2.5 (i.e., it was conservatively 

assumed that 100% of SO2 emissions becomes PM2.5) 

Table 10

San Jose to Merced in SJVAPCD – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 

NOx 89.67 89.67 89.67 89.67 89.67 89.67 89.67 10

VOCs 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 10

PM2.5* 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 100

PM10 9.16 9.16 9.16 9.16 9.16 9.16 9.16 100

CO 33.01 33.01 33.01 33.01 33.01 33.01 33.01 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

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

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

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 13-4 

Table 11

Merced to Sacramento in SJVAPCD – Estimates of Annual Construction-phase Emissions

Pollutant

Emissions (Tons/Year) Conformity

Applicability

Thresholds

(tons/year) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

NOx 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 190.33 10

VOCs 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 10

PM2.5* 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 100

PM10 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 19.44 100

CO 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 70.07 100

 Note: Bold values exceed applicability thresholds

* Includes sulfur dioxide emission rates as a partial precursor to PM2.5 (i.e., it was conservatively assumed that 100% of SO2 emissions becomes PM2.5) 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 14-1 

14.0 Reporting and Public Comments 

In developing the analysis underlying this final General Conformity Determination, FRA and the Authority 

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

has also consulted with EPA and CARB on the overall approach to demonstrating general conformity. To 

support a decision concerning the Federal Action, FRA issued a draft General Conformity Determination 

for public and agency review for a 30-day period as required by 40 CFR §§93.155 and 93.156. FRA 

provided copies of the draft General Conformity Determination to the appropriate regional offices of EPA, 

CARB, and SJVAPCD for a 30-day review. In addition, electronic copies were made available on FRA’s 

website and notices were placed in a daily newspaper of general circulation announcing the availability of 

the draft General Conformity Determination and requesting written public comments during a 30-day 

period. 

As a result of that 30-day public review and comment period, FRA received 14 comments on the draft 

General Conformity Determination. Two of the comments, from EPA, requested that wording be added to 

this final General Conformity Document regarding the Authority’s plans to fully offset all construction 

emissions for every year of construction and the issue of conformity determinations for neighboring air 

basins. All comments and responses received on the draft General Conformity Determination are 

included in Appendix B. 

14.1 Reevaluation of General Conformity 

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

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

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

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

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

Determination will remain active as a “continuous program.” 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 15-1 

15.0 Findings and Conclusions 

As part of the environmental review of the proposed Project, FRA conducted a General Conformity

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

to this Federal Action because the Project is located in an area that is designated as an extreme 

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

area for PM10 and CO. The FRA conducted the General Conformity evaluation following all regulatory 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Authority and the SJVAPCD will enter into a contractual agreement to mitigate the Project's 

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

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

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

Authority funds; and 

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

verifier of the successful mitigation effort. 

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

the approved SIP and is consistent with all applicable requirements. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 16-1 

16.0 References 

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

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

Transit Laws. 

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

Implementation Plans. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration. 2014. Fresno to Bakersfield

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

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), Fresno to Bakersfield Section Air Quality 

Technical Report, California High-Speed Train Project EIR/EIS and Final Section 4(f) Statement 

and Draft General Conformity Determination. Volume I: Report. Sacramento, CA, and 

Washington, DC. April 2014. 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/index.html

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

Merced to Fresno Section: Federal General Conformity Document. Sacramento, CA, and 

Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresnoeir/final_EIR_MerFres_AirQuality_Determin.pdf. September 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010b. Off-Road Diesel equipment: In-Use Off-Road Equipment 

(Construction, Industrial, Ground Support and Oil Drilling), Appendix D: OSM and Summary of 

Off-Road Emissions Inventory Update. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/offroadlsi10/offroadappd.pdf. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013a. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed November 12, 2013. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013b. Emission Inventories - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, 2010. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Accessed November 20, 2013.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013c. EMFAC2011, updated 2013. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007a. 2007 Ozone Plan. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm. Accessed 

November 15, 2013. Fresno, CA. April 30, 2007.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007b. Particulate Matter Plans, 2007 PM10 

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf. Accessed 

November 15, 2013. Fresno, CA. September 20, 2007.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2008. Particulate Matter Plans, 2008 PM2.5 

Plan. Adopted April 30, 2008. Available at 
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS FEDERAL GENERAL

FRESNO TO BAKERSFIELD SECTION CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

Page 16-2 

http://www.valleyair.org/air_quality_plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_PM25_2008.htm. Accessed 

November 15, 2013. Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Frequently Asked Questions. 

http://www.valleyair.org/General_info/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm#About%20The%20Air%

20Pollution%20Problem. Accessed November 17, 2009. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2012. Particulate Matter Plans, 2012 PM2.5 

Plan. Adopted December 20, 2012. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM25Plans2012.htm. Accessed November 15, 2013. 

Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2013. Ozone Plans. Available at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm. Accessed November 15, 2013. 

Fresno, CA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2011. Emission Reduction Incentive Program. 

Available at www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/GrantPrograms.htm. Fresno, CA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. General Conformity Guidance: Questions and 

Answers. July 13, 1994. Accessible at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/conform/gcgqa_71394.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California - South Coast and Coachella. Available at 

. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/November/Day-14/a22463.htm. Accessed August 

20, 2010. Washington, DC. July 28, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Emission Factors & AP42, Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors, Chapter 11.12 Concrete Batching. Washington, DC. June 2006. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated 

December 2012. Accessed November 11, 2013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA-420-F-09-

025. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Prepared by the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. April 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Revision to the General Conformity Guidance, 

75 Federal Register 17254, 17255. April 5, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013b. AirData. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. 

Washington, DC. Accessed November 12, 2013. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013c. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria 

Pollutants. Available at http://epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html. Accessed November 15, 

2013. Washington, DC.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Historical Climate Information, Fresno, California, Normals, 

Means, and Extremes. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca93193. Accessed October 27, 

2009.
Appendix A 

Emissions Offset Commitment









































































Appendix B 

Draft General Conformity Determination Comments and 

Reponses







































































































For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
 

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
 

Get Adobe Reader Now! 
Aaron Fukuda

7450 Mountain View Street, Hanford, California 93230

May 5, 2014

California High Speed Rail Authority

Board Members

Attn: Final EIR/EIS Comment

770 L Street, Suite 800

Sacramento, California 95814

Ms. Stephanie Perez

Enviro. Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., MS-20

Washington D.C. 20590

Subject: Comments on Final EIR/EIS Fresno to Bakersfield

Dear Board Members and Ms. Perez,

On April 18, 2014 the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) released the Final 

EIR/EIS for public review. At the same time the Authority announced that a public meeting 

would be held on May 6, 2014 for public comments and another meeting on May 7, 2014 for 

potential adoption of the Final EIR/EIS. Based upon my review of the Final EIR/EIS I strongly 

encourage the Authority to postpone the adoption of the document and work with local agencies, 

groups and concerned citizens to ensure that comments filed by others and the included 

comments are properly address, as the Final EIR/EIS does not comport with CEQA and NEPA in 

its current form. 

Given the limited time to review the Final EIR/EIS, I request that the California High Speed Rail 

Authority postpone any final approval of the document until a later date (if necessary the June 

2014 Authority Board Meeting). If the Authority wishes to call a vote for the approval of the 

document, I urge the Board to weigh the comments and questions below as they are only a very 

limited set given the inability to review all of the information (that which has changed from the 

Draft Revised EIR/EIS to the Final EIR/EIS) and deny the approval of the Final EIR/EIS.

I also reserve the right to provide further comments in the future regarding the Final EIR/EIS as 

the time allotted to the public for review is inadequate. 

Time Constraints

The Authority should note the immense amount of data, changes and responses that were 

provided in the Final EIR/EIS, and the short 18 calendar days to review this information. The 

responses in the Final EIR/EIS provided to questions on the Draft and Revised Draft EIR/EIS 

constituted 4,800+ pages of information. By providing a public comment period of only 18 

days, any meaningful and complete review by the public is unrealistic and the Authority is on 

notice that this violates the rights of the public to a fair and equitable participation in the 

environmental process.

This short comment period is contrasted against the numerous years the Authority took to draft 

the first Draft EIR/EIS, the approximately 12 months the Authority took to draft the Revised 
CHSRA & FRA

Page 2

Draft EIR/EIS and the 18 months the Authority took to modify and provided responses to the 

Revised Draft EIR/EIS and produce the Final EIR/EIS. In total, the Authority was given over 5 

years of document preparation, while the public was only afforded a few months to review the 

entire 30,000+ page document. 

For these reasons and many others, the process implemented by the Authority has limited the 

ability of the public to a fair and equitable review of the propose project. 

Comments on Final EIR/EIS

Introduction

Page 1-7

The Final EIR/EIS makes the following statement:

"Because a minimum of 100 miles of track is needed to demonstrate train speeds

of up to 220 miles per hour (mph), the Fresno to Bakersfield Section would provide a sufficient

length of track for testing the trains. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is critical for

demonstrating system performance, commissioning trains, and obtaining the safety certification

needed before service can be permitted."

This statement was added to the document and provides a new project objective, which changes 

the project description. During the review and commenting of the Draft and Revised Draft 

EIR/EIS, the inclusion of the system being used as a "test track" was not a project component. 

With the use of the system as a "test track" new and unanalyzed impacts are introduce such as:

 New safety concerns introduced by utilizing the system as a "test track"

 New sound impacts as the system may not have the ability to meet the documented 

levels.

 Inability to meet air quality reductions if test systems are not able to achieve established 

benchmarks.

Because the use of this system was previously not explained as a "test track" the Final EIR/EIS 

introduces a new component to the Project Description. Therefore the new component should be 

analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS and recirculated for public review.

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Page 3.3-17

The Final EIR/EIS makes the following determination on the amount of water use for the 

individual stations:

The water consumption rates of 15.33, 16.79, and 18.07 million gallons per year were used at the 

Fresno, Bakersfield, and Kings/Tulare stations, respectively. Wastewater was estimated as 8.43, 9.23, 

and 9.86 million gallons per year for the Fresno, Bakersfield, and Kings/Tulare stations, respectively.

The values determined to not seem to meet the common belief the higher ridership stations such 

as Fresno and Bakersfield would use higher rates of water compared to a Kings/Tulare station. I 
CHSRA & FRA

Page 3

recommend that the Authority ensure that the calculations provided properly reflect the true 

water consumption. 

Page 3.3-31

The Final EIR/EIS introduces for the first time a section called Local Impacts from Construction 

Activities. This sections acknowledges the significant impacts associated with construction and 

provides new and qualitative analysis of the impacts. This information as it is newly presented 

to the public is critical to ensuring that impacts are identified, analyzed and mitigated. Due to 

the lack of time to review the newly provided information, under CEQA and NEPA, newly 

introduced impacts and analysis must be recirculated for public review. 

Cumulative Impacts Page 3.19-1

The Final EIR/EIS established a cumulative review that addresses adjacent sections of the 

project, namely the Fresno to Merced and Bakersfield to Palmdale sections. The information 

added to the Final EIR/EIS and not included in the Draft of Revised Draft EIR/EIS indicates:

"including adjacent sections of the HST System"

With the inclusion of two new sections of environmental impacts and analysis, the public was 

restricted from a review based upon this new information. Had the initial Draft and Revised 

Draft EIR/EIS provided this statement the previous public review would have included this 

information. Given the addition of a SIGNIFICANT amount of new analysis and potential 

impacts, the Final EIR/EIS is required under CEQA and NEPA to be recirculated for public 

review.

Comment I032-86

As stated in comments provided the noise measurements shown in Figure 3.4-4 through 3.4-8 are 

along an alignment west of the current proposal. The response provided by the Authority 

indicates that these are characteristic of the general area and can be applied to the BNSF 

alignment which is to the east.

This statement is incorrect and lacks the detail of support information to establish grounds for a 

response. The samples taken are located just east of a major highway and closer to the city of 

Hanford. Also located along the path are several industrial facilities located to the west of the 

readings (from north to south). As one travels further to the east (which is approximately 1/2 

away) the area becomes much more rural and agricultural. There is no highway system and there 

are no industrial facilities that would raise the ambient noise levels. 

Comment I032-89

In the Revised Draft EIR/EIS the Authority indicated that in the No Project alternative the BNSF 

trains would still use the freight lines and therefore would introduce noise to the area. The 

distinction is that proposed alignment through Kings County is several miles away from the 

BNSF rail lines, therefore the ambient comparison between the No Project and the HSR 

alternative. The document misleads the reader to believe that the ambient noise level without the 

project would be the sound levels of the BNSF, however this is completely wrong given the 
CHSRA & FRA

Page 4

BNSF line is several miles away. As stated, the ambient noise level around the alignment near 

my home is approximately 45 dBA, whereas a BNSF train can be as loud as 85 dBA.

The Response the question does not address this concern and misleads the reader again towards a 

faulty explanation. 

Comment I032-90

The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that construction noise impacts are moderate under CEQA, however 

fails to give a timeframe for the sound impacts. The response indicated that the schedule for 

construction and timeframe could not be obtained at this time, therefore at this time the Authority 

cannot seemingly define if the impact is low, moderate or severe. Construction noise that last 

several months can be seen as moderate as it has potential to impact quality of life (sleep 

patterns, relaxation, stress levels and attention), however if a project were to last for 5+ years, 

which is a half of a decade, that would seem to be a severe impact. 

Without the ability to define the length of the impact, the Authority cannot make a judgment on 

the severity of the impact. The Authority should provide an estimate of construction before 

making an assumption of the severity of the impact.

Comment I032-102

When asked to provide date that indicates that there are no impacts from stray voltage the 

responses provided by the Authority indicated:

In regard to dairy production, McGill University conducted a study with cows in pens

exposed to controlled EMF levels of 330 mG and 10 kV/m, the projected magnetic and

electric fields that occur at ground level under a 735-kV line at full load. The researchers

measured the following: melatonin levels, prolactin levels, milk production, milk fat

content, dry-matter intake by cows, and reproductive outcomes. While a few statistically

significant changes in these factors were found, none of the changes were outside the

normal range for cows (McGill University 2008). The study concluded that the EMF

exposure did not harm the cows or reduce milk productivity. Various studies cited by

other researchers regarding EMF and wildlife suggest a range of effects similar for

livestock, from non-existent to relatively small to positive. One study suggests a

beneficial application for ELF-EMF in broiler chickens to fight a common parasitic

infection called Coccidiosis (Golder Associates 2009).

Because 735-kV utility power transmission lines run up and down the state, cattle and

people near those lines are exposed to these levels on a continuing basis. Consistent

with the McGill study, epidemiological evidence does not indicate that cattle or people

near existing 735-kV utility power transmission lines are generally or broadly affected by

the fields.

California HST traction power 60-Hz current will flow in the overhead contact system

(OCS) and running rails to provide power to trains. The traction power system is called a

2x25 kV system because it uses 25 kV voltage for the trains and uses two nearby cables

with opposite phase of the 25 kV to distribute the power down the tracks. Currents in this

California HST 2x25 kV system create EMFs and static electric fields near the HST

tracks. However, the HST levels will be lower than the fields typical of a 735-kV utility

power transmission line. This is because the separation between California HST OCS

cables is less, cable-to-cable voltage levels and cable current levels are less, and the

HST cables are closer to the ground so that they are closer to the reducing effect of the

fields in the ground, all compared to the 735-kV utility power cables.

California HST TM 300.07, EIR/EIS Assessment of CHST Alignment EMF Footprint,

shows that at the closest fence line to the HST tracks, the expected magnetic field is 60

mG, less than one-fifth the level from a transmission line. Since cattle cannot be inside

the fence line and people can only be inside the fence line at passenger stations, the

possible HST EMF exposure is:

* Low compared to the 735 kV utility power transmission line.
CHSRA & FRA

Page 5

* Therefore, below the level at which the McGill study showed no effect on cows and

milk production.

Similarly, the electric field from the California HST 25 kV 60 Hz OCS will be low

compared to the exposure from a 735-kV utility power transmission line.

For these reasons, EMF effects on livestock and poultry are expected to have negligible

intensity under NEPA, and the impact would be less than significant under CEQA. See

Standard Response FB-Response-AG-06: Confined Animal Facilities regarding the

impact of EMF emissions on dairies.

This is information and analysis that is supportive of the findings in the Draft Revised EIR/EIS, 

however was not provided. As this is new and vital information provided to the public, the Draft 

Revised EIR/EIS should include this information and be recirculated for review and comment. 

Conclusion

Based upon my cursory review of the Final EIR/EIS the California High Speed Rail Authority 

and the Federal Railroad Administration has tried to placate their responsibilities to CEQA and 

NEPA by loosely identifying impacts to our communities and trying to reassure the public that 

"everything is going to be okay." Unfortunately, all of the impacts have not been identified, 

mitigation measures are either missing or lack any detail that would indicate their feasibility, and 

the project as a whole is misconstrued as a high-speed rail system between San Francisco and 

Los Angeles. The public, including myself has participated at every juncture of this process to 

provide comments, concerns, information and even tours when needed. Unfortunately all of that 

work is not reflected in the Final EIR/EIS. As the word "Final" is utilized in this document, it 

seals the fate of our community and our agricultural heritage, therefore I cannot say with any 

sense of confidence that this document does anything to protect our community from 

environmental impacts. I strongly urge the California High Speed Rail Authority to refrain 

from adopting the Final EIR/EIS.

Sincerely,

Aaron Fukuda
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
 

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
 

Get Adobe Reader Now! 
Aaron Fukuda

7450 Mountain View Street, Hanford, California 93230

May 5, 2014

Ms. Stephanie Perez

Environment and Systems Planning Division

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS–20

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Comments on Final EIS Fresno to Bakersfield & Draft Conformity 

Determination

Dear Ms. Perez,

On April 18, 2014 the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) released the Final 

EIR/EIS for public review. At the same time the Authority announced that a public meeting 

would be held on May 6, 2014 for public comments and another meeting on May 7, 2014 for 

potential adoption of the Final EIR/EIS. Based upon my review of the Final EIR/EIS I strongly 

encouraged the Authority to postpone the adoption of the document and work with local 

agencies, groups and concerned citizens to ensure that comments filed by others and the included 

comments were properly addressed, as the Final EIR/EIS does not comport with CEQA and 

NEPA in its current form. 

Given the limited time to review the Final EIR/EIS, I strongly urge the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) to defer any approval of the Final EIR/EIS and conduct a further 

discussions landowner, agencies and organization located within the subject alignment. The 

FRA to date has relied heavily upon the Authority and their cadre of consultants to ensure that 

the proposed project comports with NEPA. Unfortunately, the Authority and its consultants 

have filed to fulfill some of the basic requirements of NEPA as they have focused on forcefully 

pushing the project forward without meaningful dialogue and public participation. 

I also reserve the right to provide further comments in the future regarding the Final EIR/EIS as 

the time allotted to the public for review is inadequate. 

Time Constraints

The FRA should note the immense amount of data, changes and responses that were provided in 

the Final EIR/EIS, and the short amount of time allowed to review this information. The 

responses in the Final EIR/EIS provided to questions on the Draft and Revised Draft EIR/EIS 

constituted 4,800+ pages of information. By providing a the public a limited comment period of 

approximately 30 days, any meaningful and complete review by the public is unrealistic and the 
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 2

FRA is on notice that this violates the rights of the public to a fair and equitable participation in 

the environmental process.

This short comment period is contrasted against the numerous years the Authority and the FRA 

has taken to draft the first Draft EIR/EIS, the approximately 12 months the Authority took to 

draft the Revised Draft EIR/EIS and the 18 months the Authority took to modify and provided 

responses to the Revised Draft EIR/EIS and produce the Final EIR/EIS. In total, the Authority 

was given over 5 years of document preparation, while the public was only afforded a few 

months to review the entire 30,000+ page document. This hardly equates to an equitable review 

time for the public, and verges on intimidation by the Authority and the FRA. 

For these reasons and many others, the process implemented by the Authority has limited the 

ability of the public to a fair and equitable review of the propose project. 

Comments on Final EIR/EIS

Introduction

Page 1-7

The Final EIR/EIS makes the following statement:

"Because a minimum of 100 miles of track is needed to demonstrate train speeds

of up to 220 miles per hour (mph), the Fresno to Bakersfield Section would provide a sufficient

length of track for testing the trains. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is critical for

demonstrating system performance, commissioning trains, and obtaining the safety certification

needed before service can be permitted."

This statement was added to the document and provides a new project objective, which changes 

the project description. During the review and commenting of the Draft and Revised Draft 

EIR/EIS, the inclusion of the system being used as a "test track" was not a project component. 

With the use of the system as a "test track" new and unanalyzed impacts are introduce such as:

 New safety concerns introduced by utilizing the system as a "test track"

 New sound impacts as the system may not have the ability to meet the documented 

levels.

 Inability to meet air quality reductions if test systems are not able to achieve established 

benchmarks.

Because the use of this system was previously not explained as a "test track" the Final EIR/EIS 

introduces a new component to the Project Description. Therefore the new component should be 

analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS and recirculated for public review.

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Page 3.3-17

The Final EIR/EIS makes the following determination on the amount of water use for the 

individual stations:
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 3

The water consumption rates of 15.33, 16.79, and 18.07 million gallons per year were used at the 

Fresno, Bakersfield, and Kings/Tulare stations, respectively. Wastewater was estimated as 8.43, 9.23, 

and 9.86 million gallons per year for the Fresno, Bakersfield, and Kings/Tulare stations, respectively.

The values determined to not seem to meet the common belief the higher ridership stations such 

as Fresno and Bakersfield would use higher rates of water compared to a Kings/Tulare station. I 

recommend that the Authority ensure that the calculations provided properly reflect the true 

water consumption. 

Page 3.3-31

The Final EIR/EIS introduces for the first time a section called Local Impacts from Construction 

Activities. This sections acknowledges the significant impacts associated with construction and 

provides new and qualitative analysis of the impacts. This information as it is newly presented 

to the public is critical to ensuring that impacts are identified, analyzed and mitigated. Due to 

the lack of time to review the newly provided information, under CEQA and NEPA, newly 

introduced impacts and analysis must be recirculated for public review. 

Cumulative Impacts Page 3.19-1

The Final EIR/EIS established a cumulative review that addresses adjacent sections of the 

project, namely the Fresno to Merced and Bakersfield to Palmdale sections. The information 

added to the Final EIR/EIS and not included in the Draft of Revised Draft EIR/EIS indicates:

"including adjacent sections of the HST System"

With the inclusion of two new sections of environmental impacts and analysis, the public was 

restricted from a review based upon this new information. Had the initial Draft and Revised 

Draft EIR/EIS provided this statement the previous public review would have included this 

information. Given the addition of a SIGNIFICANT amount of new analysis and potential 

impacts, the Final EIR/EIS is required under CEQA and NEPA to be recirculated for public 

review.

Comment I032-86

As stated in comments provided the noise measurements shown in Figure 3.4-4 through 3.4-8 are 

along an alignment west of the current proposal. The response provided by the Authority 

indicates that these are characteristic of the general area and can be applied to the BNSF 

alignment which is to the east.

This statement is incorrect and lacks the detail of support information to establish grounds for a 

response. The samples taken are located just east of a major highway and closer to the city of 

Hanford. Also located along the path are several industrial facilities located to the west of the 

readings (from north to south). As one travels further to the east (which is approximately 1/2 

away) the area becomes much more rural and agricultural. There is no highway system and there 

are no industrial facilities that would raise the ambient noise levels. 

Comment I032-89
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 4

In the Revised Draft EIR/EIS the Authority indicated that in the No Project alternative the BNSF 

trains would still use the freight lines and therefore would introduce noise to the area. The 

distinction is that proposed alignment through Kings County is several miles away from the 

BNSF rail lines, therefore the ambient comparison between the No Project and the HSR 

alternative. The document misleads the reader to believe that the ambient noise level without the 

project would be the sound levels of the BNSF, however this is completely wrong given the 

BNSF line is several miles away. As stated, the ambient noise level around the alignment near 

my home is approximately 45 dBA, whereas a BNSF train can be as loud as 85 dBA.

The Response the question does not address this concern and misleads the reader again towards a 

faulty explanation. 

Comment I032-90

The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that construction noise impacts are moderate under CEQA, however 

fails to give a timeframe for the sound impacts. The response indicated that the schedule for 

construction and timeframe could not be obtained at this time, therefore at this time the Authority 

cannot seemingly define if the impact is low, moderate or severe. Construction noise that last 

several months can be seen as moderate as it has potential to impact quality of life (sleep 

patterns, relaxation, stress levels and attention), however if a project were to last for 5+ years, 

which is a half of a decade, that would seem to be a severe impact. 

Without the ability to define the length of the impact, the Authority cannot make a judgment on 

the severity of the impact. The Authority should provide an estimate of construction before 

making an assumption of the severity of the impact.

Comment I032-102

When asked to provide date that indicates that there are no impacts from stray voltage the 

responses provided by the Authority indicated:

In regard to dairy production, McGill University conducted a study with cows in pens

exposed to controlled EMF levels of 330 mG and 10 kV/m, the projected magnetic and

electric fields that occur at ground level under a 735-kV line at full load. The researchers

measured the following: melatonin levels, prolactin levels, milk production, milk fat

content, dry-matter intake by cows, and reproductive outcomes. While a few statistically

significant changes in these factors were found, none of the changes were outside the

normal range for cows (McGill University 2008). The study concluded that the EMF

exposure did not harm the cows or reduce milk productivity. Various studies cited by

other researchers regarding EMF and wildlife suggest a range of effects similar for

livestock, from non-existent to relatively small to positive. One study suggests a

beneficial application for ELF-EMF in broiler chickens to fight a common parasitic

infection called Coccidiosis (Golder Associates 2009).

Because 735-kV utility power transmission lines run up and down the state, cattle and

people near those lines are exposed to these levels on a continuing basis. Consistent

with the McGill study, epidemiological evidence does not indicate that cattle or people

near existing 735-kV utility power transmission lines are generally or broadly affected by

the fields.

California HST traction power 60-Hz current will flow in the overhead contact system

(OCS) and running rails to provide power to trains. The traction power system is called a

2x25 kV system because it uses 25 kV voltage for the trains and uses two nearby cables

with opposite phase of the 25 kV to distribute the power down the tracks. Currents in this

California HST 2x25 kV system create EMFs and static electric fields near the HST

tracks. However, the HST levels will be lower than the fields typical of a 735-kV utility

power transmission line. This is because the separation between California HST OCS

cables is less, cable-to-cable voltage levels and cable current levels are less, and the
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 5

HST cables are closer to the ground so that they are closer to the reducing effect of the

fields in the ground, all compared to the 735-kV utility power cables.

California HST TM 300.07, EIR/EIS Assessment of CHST Alignment EMF Footprint,

shows that at the closest fence line to the HST tracks, the expected magnetic field is 60

mG, less than one-fifth the level from a transmission line. Since cattle cannot be inside

the fence line and people can only be inside the fence line at passenger stations, the

possible HST EMF exposure is:

* Low compared to the 735 kV utility power transmission line.

* Therefore, below the level at which the McGill study showed no effect on cows and

milk production.

Similarly, the electric field from the California HST 25 kV 60 Hz OCS will be low

compared to the exposure from a 735-kV utility power transmission line.

For these reasons, EMF effects on livestock and poultry are expected to have negligible

intensity under NEPA, and the impact would be less than significant under CEQA. See

Standard Response FB-Response-AG-06: Confined Animal Facilities regarding the

impact of EMF emissions on dairies.

This is information and analysis that is supportive of the findings in the Draft Revised EIR/EIS, 

however was not provided. As this is new and vital information provided to the public, the Draft 

Revised EIR/EIS should include this information and be recirculated for review and comment. 

Comments on the Draft Conformity Determination

This document is provided as a newly created resource in the environmental review process and 

therefore provides new and revealing information.

Page 6-1

The Draft Conformity Determination outlines the project design features that will be 

implemented during construction. Many of these activities include the application of water to 

abate air quality concerns. As the Central Valley is currently experiencing a drought, many of 

the surface water channels will not see water this year and many of the groundwater deepwells 

are experiencing increasing depth to groundwater readings. As this occurs it seems reasonable 

that the Draft Conformity Determination provide evidence of the quantity of water that would be

required, where the water would come from and address any air quality impacts that may be 

incurred in acquiring or applying dust control water. 

Page 7-1

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that the EMFAC2011 model was used to estimate 

air quality impacts. The EMFAC2011 does not incorporate new more-stringent fuel economy 

standards that were adopted in 2012. The new fuel efficiency standards significant increase the 

fuel economy of cars and therefore the carbon dioxide savings being utilized in the model is not 

accurate. 

Page 9-1

The Draft Conformity Determination addressed air quality concerns as they relate to the 

construction of the project. One particular item that is missing is the impact to local roadways 

from the immense hauling and import requirements for this project. It has been estimated that 24 

million cubic yards of dirt will need to be imported to create the railbed. This amount of traffic 

on local roads will require local agencies to repave and/or reconstruct many of the heavily used 

roadways once construction is done. As this will be an impact of the project, the air quality 
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 6

impacts associated with the repaving and/or reconstruction of roads must be included in the 

analysis, which it is not.

Page 9-2

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that the mobilization of this project will occur in 

April 2014. The Authority has yet to gain full environmental clearances, including permits and 

contract. The Draft Conformity Determination should be updated to include a more realistic 

mobilization date and other construction related dates should be updated. 

Page 9-3

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that anticipated travel distances for hauling trucks 

were used to determine air quality impacts. The public should be given information to determine 

what hauling distances were used. In other documents provided by the Authority, 24 million 

cubic yards of dirt will be moved to the project for construction. As this is a monumental 

amount of dirt, I find it hard to believe that this material will be made readily available adjacent

or within close proximity of the alignment. I recommend that the information be provided in the 

document and recirculated for public review. 

Page 9-3

The Draft Conformity Determination indicated that parking lots at HSR stations were left out of 

the analysis. This removal of this item is not allowed as it is a part of the project and will have 

air quality impacts during construction and into the future. The FRA should include those 

structural features and recirculate the Draft Conformity Determination.

Page 9-4

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that power stations were analyzed, however I was 

unable to find any mention of the power distribution and connection facilities. As this is an 

electrically powered train, power must be brought to the system and therefore infrastructure must 

be installed. This will be a signficant source of air quality impacts as they may required clearing 

and grubbing of land, installation of power poles (metal and wood) and extensive installation of 

overhead powerlines. 

Conclusion

Based upon my cursory review of the Final EIR/EIS the California High Speed Rail Authority 

and the Federal Railroad Administration has tried to placate their responsibilities to CEQA and 

NEPA by loosely identifying impacts to our communities and trying to reassure the public that 

"everything is going to be okay." Unfortunately, all of the impacts have not been identified, 

mitigation measures are either missing or lack any detail that would indicate their feasibility, and 

the project as a whole is misconstrued as a high-speed rail system between San Francisco and 

Los Angeles. The public, including myself have participated at every juncture of this process to 

provide comments, concerns, information and even tours when needed. Unfortunately all of that 

work is not reflected in the Final EIR/EIS. As the word "Final" is utilized in this document, it 

seals the fate of our community and our agricultural heritage, therefore I cannot say with any 

sense of confidence that this document does anything to protect our community from 
Federal Railroad Administration

Page 7

environmental impacts. I strongly urge the Federal Railroad Administration to refrain from 

adopting the Final EIR/EIS. Beyond not approving the Final EIS, I encourage the FRA to 

become engage in an on-the-ground review of the impacts associated with this project. 

Relying upon the Authority to be the administrator of this project will yield failure. 

Sincerely,

Aaron Fukuda
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund

P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 

May 27, 2014

By E-Mail

Stephanie Perez

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-20

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Fresno-Bakersfield HST FEIS Comments

Dear Ms. Perez:

The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund is an environmental nonprofit advocating the regional planning of transportation, land use and air quality. Our 

focus in recent years has been on reducing the impacts of transportation on climate 

change. Our comments pertain to the inadequate analysis of construction impacts on 

global climate change under NEPA. 

The analysis of Impact AQ#4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Construction, fails to 

include the GHG emissions from the production of materials used in construction. 

Concrete production, especially, creates very high GHG emissions. A recent paper, 

attached, estimates these emissions to be so high as to offset twenty to thirty years of

GHG emissions reductions from the reduction in VMT due to the operation of the HST.

When properly analyzed, the impact should be considered of substantial intensity under

NEPA.

While Impact AQ#8 covers the Localized Air Quality Impacts of Concrete Batch Plants, 

no analysis is offered for the global climate change impacts of concrete batch plants.

CHSRA provided the Legislature with its Contribution of the High-Speed Rail Program 

to Reducing California's Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels (June 2013). TRANSDEF 

has produced an analysis (attached) of this report, finding it scientifically worthless. The 

comments on the GHG report pertain equally to the flawed FEIS analysis.

Sincerely, 

/s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN 

David Schonbrunn,

President
+LJKVSHHGUDLOZLWKHPHUJLQJDXWRPRELOHVDQGDLUFUDIWFDQUHGXFHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVLQ

&DOLIRUQLDಬVIXWXUH

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034012

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034012)

Download details:

IP Address: 198.135.224.110

The article was downloaded on 26/07/2012 at 23:19

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience
IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 (11pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034012

High-speed rail with emerging

automobiles and aircraft can reduce

environmental impacts in California’s

future

Mikhail Chester1,3 and Arpad Horvath2

1 Civil, Environmental, and Sustainability Engineering, Affiliate Faculty, School of Sustainability,

Arizona State University, USA

2 Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA

E-mail: mchester@asu.edu and horvath@ce.berkeley.edu

Received 16 March 2012

Accepted for publication 2 July 2012

Published 26 July 2012

Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034012

Abstract

Sustainable mobility policy for long-distance transportation services should consider emerging

automobiles and aircraft as well as infrastructure and supply chain life-cycle effects in the

assessment of new high-speed rail systems. Using the California corridor, future automobiles,

high-speed rail and aircraft long-distance travel are evaluated, considering emerging

fuel-efficient vehicles, new train designs and the possibility that the region will meet renewable

electricity goals. An attributional per passenger-kilometer-traveled life-cycle inventory is first

developed including vehicle, infrastructure and energy production components. A

consequential life-cycle impact assessment is then established to evaluate existing

infrastructure expansion against the construction of a new high-speed rail system. The results

show that when using the life-cycle assessment framework, greenhouse gas footprints increase

significantly and human health and environmental damage potentials may be dominated by

indirect and supply chain components. The environmental payback is most sensitive to the

number of automobile trips shifted to high-speed rail, and for greenhouse gases is likely to

occur in 20–30 years. A high-speed rail system that is deployed with state-of-the-art trains,

electricity that has met renewable goals, and in a configuration that endorses high ridership

will provide significant environmental benefits over existing modes. Opportunities exist for

reducing the long-distance transportation footprint by incentivizing large automobile trip

shifts, meeting clean electricity goals and reducing material production effects.

Keywords: life-cycle assessment, high-speed rail, transportation, greenhouse gas

S Online supplementary data available from stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034012/mmedia

1. Background

Deployment of new and more fuel-efficient transportation

modes is expected in the coming decades. Next generation

automobiles and aircraft are already entering the market.

3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

Despite major political and economic roadblocks in the

United States, federal, state, and regional transportation

and land-use planners are discussing high-speed rail (HSR)

as a potentially better investment for future mobility.

The discussion of new transportation options is often

coupled with the identification of strategies to help reduce

congestion and travel times. With increasing populations

+11$33.00 11748-9326/12/034012 !c 2012 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

and long-distance transportation demand forecasts, HSR

was made a centerpiece of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act as a modal diversification strategy. While

several corridors are under study, California in 2008

authorized $9.95 billion in bonds for their 1200 km

system and the state legislature recently approved funding

to start construction. Engineering and planning work are

already underway, with possible groundbreaking in 2013

(CAHSRA 2012). While many technical, legal, economic,

community and political battles loom, the California HSR

(CAHSR) Authority has made significant progress towards

deploying the system, which will connect Sacramento,

San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. In addition

to direct mobility benefits, CAHSR has the potential to

reduce long-distance transportation energy consumption and

air emissions, provided measures are taken to encourage high

ridership, minimize construction effects, and establish clean

electricity contracts (Chester and Horvath 2010).

To understand the comprehensive energy and air

emissions effects of deployment and adoption of CAHSR,

a life-cycle assessment (LCA) framework should be used to

assess future modes in the California corridor. The energy

and environmental tradeoffs of CAHSR have been examined

with then-planned vehicles and fuels (Chester and Horvath

2010) by constructing a life-cycle inventory using information

from CAHSRA (2005), the then-current design data and

with groundbreaking expected around 2010. However, many

new corridor plans and design considerations have been

made warranting new outlooks for the system. Forecasts

for a future long-distance transportation system should

include emerging and expected automobile, aircraft and HSR

improvements. In this study, an environmental assessment of

future long-distance travel is developed using the California

corridor as a case study. We start by developing a per

passenger-kilometer-traveled (PKT) attributional assessment

of future transportation systems that expands the results

of Chester and Horvath (2010) by evaluating (i) emerging

automobiles and aircraft, (ii) new train designs, and (iii) lowcarbon electricity scenarios. We then develop a consequential

assessment for the corridor to determine the net effects of

the decision to build a new HSR system. Following our past

work, we identify the critical system design parameters that

lead to transportation systems having larger or smaller human

and environmental footprints than their competitors. Our goal

is to identify the potential design, construction and operation

pitfalls early so that transportation planners and operators can

reduce future impacts at potentially lower cost.

The goal of this research is to develop a framework

for assessing the environmental effects of long-distance

transportation in the California corridor to provide more

comprehensive measures of the greenhouse gas, human

health and other environmental damage potentials of future

systems. We anticipate that this framework will (i) aid

policy and decision makers in the assessment of longdistance transportation options, (ii) provide HSR designers,

engineers and operators with information on how to best

reduce environmental damage potentials, and (iii) provide a

standard methodology by which other US and international

transportation systems can be evaluated.

2. Methodology

An environmental assessment is developed for automobiles,

aircraft and HSR operating in the California corridor between

2030 and 2050. When performing an LCA a year of analysis

is generally defined. We choose to evaluate modes in a

two-decade range to acknowledge the uncertainty in adoption

of HSR and the challenges of estimating future life-cycle

process improvements in a single year.

LCA is the preeminent framework for evaluating the

energy and environmental effects of complex systems and

can be used to understand the tradeoffs of transportation

decisions. Life-cycle inventorying (LCI) is one stage of

LCA, the quantification of environmental flows. Impact

assessment must be performed to connect physical flows

to the human health, ecosystem quality, climate change

and resource effects of ultimate interest (ISO 2006, Jolliet

et al 2003). End-use energy and air emissions are first

inventoried. Air emissions include greenhouse gases (GHG)

and conventional air pollutants (SOx, CO, NOx, VOCs, PM10

and PM2.5). GHGs are reported as CO2 equivalence (CO2eq)

using radiative forcing multipliers of 25 for CH4 and 298 for

N2O for a 100 yr horizon. The US Clean Air Act established

a regulatory framework for criteria air pollutants to reduce

direct human and environmental impacts. SO2, CO, NOx,

PM and ozone are regulated through National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. We evaluate NOx and VOCs because they

are ozone precursors.

The LCI results are joined with human and environmental impact characterization factors from the Tool for

the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other

Environmental Impacts (TRACI, v2.03) in the development

of a life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) (Bare et al 2002).

Impact characterization factors are used to show the maximum

potential effects of pollutant releases. In addition to global

warming (CO2eq), human health respiratory, acidification,

tropospheric ozone (smog) and eutrophication impact potentials are determined. We stress that impact potentials are the

maximum effects that can occur and actual effects may be

lower, or potentials may never turn into damages. However,

given the challenge of combining air transport and chemistry

modeling with concentration-response functions, endpoint

damages have not been determined for this study. Bare et al

(2002) provide background for TRACI and how air emissions

are used to determine impact potentials.

2.1. Efficient and electric automobiles

Improved gasoline efficiency and plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles (PHEV) are expected to have significant market

penetration by 2030 (EPRI 2011). The 2007 US Energy

Independence and Security Act established fleet-wide fuel

economy standards at 35 mpg (15 km l−1) by 2020.

Furthermore, the US EPA and the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration have proposed a 102 g km−1 CO2

standard for 2025, which is equivalent to a fuel economy

of 54.5 mpg (23 km l−1) (EPA 2011). Given these policies

and trends, it is reasonable to expect future long-distance

2
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

automobile travel to occur in a vehicle that has improved

fuel economy from the 21 mpg (9.6 km l−1) average

today (ORNL 2011). While a fuel economy standard does

not translate to actual onroad performance, the range of

economies modeled is intended to illustrate future potential

performance of improved vehicles. Congestion effects are not

modeled and it is acknowledged that this would increase the

automobile footprint. Second-generation biofuels are likely

to be a widespread transportation fuel in the future (Scown

et al 2012), but we focus on reformulated-gasoline and electric

vehicles.

Vehicle manufacturing, battery manufacturing (including

replacement) and operation are evaluated with the GREET

1 (fuel-cycle) and 2.7 (vehicle-cycle) models (ANL 2011).

A 35 mpg, 1500 kg sedan and a 55 mpg, 900 kg (before

batteries) PHEV (ANL 2011) are modeled to meet future fuel

economy standards. Large battery pack plug-in and battery

electric vehicles are expected to have market penetration

gains in the next decades, and we evaluate a PHEV60

(60 mi, 97 km all electric range) assuming that the first

97 km of a 480 km California long-distance trip are in

charge-depleting mode and the vehicle is configured as a

parallel hybrid drivetrain. GREET models vehicle emissions

with a drive cycle that is 43% city and 57% highway.

Using drive cycle characterizations from Karabasoglu and

Michalek (2012), vehicle emissions are adjusted assuming

that the beginning and ending 24 km of the trip occur

in cities with the remainder occurring on highways. We

believe that our PHEV60 assessment is conservative as

future vehicles may have improved battery energy densities

and intelligent operational controls that more effectively

utilize a blended mode. The PHEV60 is modeled with

one lithium-ion battery replacement and specifications are

consistent with those modeled by Michalek et al (2011).

All automobiles are evaluated with a 260 000 km lifetime.

Brake wear, tire wear and evaporative losses are included.

General maintenance and tire replacement are evaluated using

EIO-LCA (GDI 2011). Lead-acid and lithium-ion battery

replacement are evaluated with GREET. The energy and

environmental effects associated with insurance industry

operation (e.g., electricity consumption, waste management)

are captured using EIO-LCA (GDI 2011).

The energy inputs and air emission outputs generated

by the construction and maintenance of the California

highway (interstate and major arterial) system serve as

the infrastructure basis for future long-distance statewide

travel. There are currently 12 100 km of California highways

facilitating 250 billion annual vehicle-kilometers-traveled

(VKT) (FHWA 2009). Across all California roadways there

are 380 billion annual VKT and this is forecast to increase to

480 billion VKT by 2040 absent a HSR system (CAHSRA

2012). The 74% of asphalt surfaces are specified with a 15 yr

life and concrete surfaces at 25 yr (both surface sub-bases

are assumed to last 100 yr). Material production, transport,

equipment process, and direct emissions from construction

and maintenance activities are modeled with PaLATE (2004).

Roadway construction effects are allocated to vehicles based

on VKT splits and maintenance to heavy duty vehicles since

damage follows a fourth-power relationship to axle load

(Huang 2004). Roadway design specifications, herbicide use

and overhead lighting are included (Chester 2008).

Gasoline vehicle and PHEV60 energy production are

evaluated with GREET and are specified with parameters

commensurate with Michalek et al (2011). California

reformulated gasoline is used, and GREET estimates that

18% of crude oil feedstock will be extracted from oil sands

by 2020. For the PHEV60 and CAHSR, future regional

electricity is used (this is detailed in later sections). Gasoline

and electricity production include raw fuel feedstock inputs,

transportation, processing (or generation) and distribution.

2.2. High-speed rail

HSR effects are determined following the approach of Chester

and Horvath (2010) but updated to acknowledge that a future

CAHSR system will likely see improved train performance

and an opportunity for increased renewable electricity usage.

The assessment by Chester and Horvath (2010) was designed

to evaluate the high-speed rail system specified by CAHSRA

(2005) under a life-cycle lens. CAHSRA (2005) performs

an energy assessment based on large 1200 seat trains

consuming an exaggerated 170 kWh of electricity per

VKT. Despite acknowledging this over-estimate, Chester and

Horvath (2010) chose not to redesign the CAHSRA (2005)

system or challenge the publicized parameters. Given the

uncertainty in the CAHSRA (2005) propulsion electricity

estimate, primary data collection exercises were undertaken

to develop improved electricity consumption estimates for a

future CAHSR train. In this study, we evaluate three train

sizes (400, 670 and 1200 seats) and use actual electricity

consumption outcomes from Deutsche Bahn, instead of

relying on literature. A range of HSR propulsion electricity

exists in the literature and a survey and comparison are

performed in the supplementary information (SI, available

at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034012/mmedia). Actual electricity

consumption factors for ICE trains (preliminarily chosen by

CAHSRA 2005) were gathered from Deutsche Bahn (2011)

and correspond to those reported by IFEU (2011) resulting

in 13, 20 and 36 kWh/VKT for the respective train sizes.

Regenerative braking effects are included. It is possible that

the trains deployed in California will be several generations

newer and will consume less electricity, but without data

on future technologies we choose not to make projections,

and instead assume current state-of-the-art technology for

CAHSR.

A study has been performed for the CAHSR Authority to

evaluate the feasibility of deploying wind and solar electricity

to meet system-wide electricity demands (Navigant 2008) and

strategies have been developed to power the stations and trains

with 100% renewable energy (NREL 2011). While funding

for a renewable electricity infrastructure remains uncertain,

this future configuration is considered using existing PV and

solar study LCIs (Pehnt 2006) with an 80% wind and 20%

solar mix.

Vehicle (manufacturing, maintenance and insurance),

infrastructure (construction, operation, maintenance and

3
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

parking), and non-renewable electricity generation scenarios

follow the methodology used in Chester and Horvath

(2010, 2011) and are adjusted for future electricity inputs.

The infrastructure assessment matches the results of Chang

and Kendall (2011) when a commensurate system boundary

is used. Whenever possible, we apply the Western Electricity

Coordinating Council (WECC) electricity mix generation

emission factors to scenario life-cycle components. Without

a contract to purchase electricity from a particular supplier,

electricity consumption by CAHSR should be evaluated in

the WECC reliability network (Marriott and Matthews 2005),

capturing flows across nearby states, including imports to

California. Vehicle and infrastructure effects from WECC

electricity use are based on a mix that has reached 2020

Renewable Portfolio Standards (WECC-RPS) (WECC 2011).

Furthermore, a projected 2040 mix that has reduced coal

inputs resulting in 60% carbon emissions intensity of today

is also included (WECC-2040).

2.3. Next generation aircraft

Midsize aircraft (130–160 seats) were responsible for 79%

of domestic US air travel PKT in 2009 (BTS 2011) and

current and future planes are evaluated to capture significant

improvements in engine fuel use and emissions. A Boeing

737–800 is used to evaluate currently operating state-of-theart aircraft. The 737–800 seats 160 and uses CFM56-7B26/2

engines. The Bombardier CS300-ER is an emerging aircraft

that offers 20% fuel savings (and commensurate GHG

savings) and additional emissions reductions over in-service

planes. The CS300-ER will use Pratt and Whitney (PW)

1524G PurePower engines offering propulsive efficiency

gains while carrying up to 130 passengers. For both aircraft,

maintenance and insurance costs are based on 737–800

airframe materials, engine materials, insurance and hourly

costs of employee benefits, reported by BTS (2011). To

provide perspective on energy and environmental gains in air

travel, the 737–800 and CS300-ER are compared against the

legacy Boeing 737 series (<800) which has been a workhorse

of the mid-haul market (Chester and Horvath 2010).

Fuel and emission indices are used to determine

landing–takeoff (LTO) and cruise phase effects for a

San Francisco to Los Angeles flight. In previous studies,

LTO effects were determined with FAA (2010) and cruise

phase with EEA (2006) data. These software and data do

not offer the flexibility or transparency to evaluate future

engine improvements. FAA (2010) reports fuel and emission

indices which are combined with time-in-mode and rated

thrust estimates to determine total flight effects for the 737s.

The CFM56-7526/2 engines on the 737–800 achieve 25%

reductions in CO, 27% in HC, 31% in NOx, and 97% in smoke

emissions relative to CAEP6 engine emission standards

(ICAO 2010). ICAO (2010) does not yet report PW1524G

engine testing results, however, Hoke (2011) reports 64%

reductions in CO, 96% in HC, 58% in NOx, and 50% in

smoke emissions relative to CAEP6 standards, which were

used to determine the CS300-ER flight emissions. Flight LTO

and cruise fuel consumption and emissions were validated

by PW engineers (Pratt and Whitney 2011). Aircraft energy

and environmental effects are determined with fuel and

emission indices and rated thrust estimates by flight phase

(see the SI for details, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/

034012/mmedia). The potential for respiratory, acidification

and eutrophication impacts from non-LTO emissions are

included (Barrett et al 2010, Tarrason ́ et al 2002).

3. Modal attributional footprinting

The assessment and allocation of direct and ancillary

processes to each transportation mode reveal the life-cycle activities that should be targeted for the greatest environmental

improvements. Consistent with existing transportation LCA

studies, results are normalized to a per-PKT functional unit

to evaluate the effectiveness of providing passenger mobility.

For automobiles and CAHSR, a dearth of data exists to

provide a rigorous assessment of expected occupancy rates.

For aircraft, detailed reporting provides strong indicators

for future utilization (BTS 2011). To avoid universally

characterizing modal performance by normalizing to an

average occupancy, reasonable and expected high and low

occupancies are assessed to capture the potential of modes.

For all modes, the high occupancy is the number of seats.

Low occupancies are designed to consider off-peak ridership.

While it is possible for CAHSR and aircraft to operate with

a single passenger, this outlying case is not informative

and therefore not shown. Low occupancy for CAHSR is

approximately one-quarter of seats, and for aircraft is the

lower occupancy quartile in 2009, determined from BTS

(2011). Figure 1 shows global warming and human health

respiratory life-cycle results for each mode for high and low

occupancy.

GHG emissions are dominated by vehicle propulsion

(energy production for CAHSR and vehicle operation for

automobiles and aircraft) but show increases of 38–54% for

automobiles, 77–116% for future CAHSR and 13–34% for

aircraft when all life-cycle components are included. Results

for future long-distance modes are consistent with those

identified in past transportation LCA studies (Chester and

Horvath 2010, 2009) even when new data and modeling

are included (ANL 2011). Automobile vehicle manufacturing

is dominated by steel and plastic use (ANL 2011), and

maintenance effects are largely the result of supply chain

electricity (GDI 2011). CAHSR infrastructure construction

effects are dominated by concrete use. Approximately

67% of CAHSR infrastructure emissions are the result of

cement production for concrete use and 9% are related

to steel production. Automobile infrastructure effects are

small compared to past studies because only highways

are included to isolate long-distance infrastructure. The

inclusion of trip-specific infrastructure provides a clearer

comparison of corridor travel by focusing only on roads,

tracks and airports needed for each trip. Non-propulsion

fuel-cycle effects are primarily the result of refineries, oil

and gas extraction activities, and supply chain electricity use

(ANL 2011, GDI 2011). With distributed hard infrastructure

and its long-distance nature, the life-cycle effects of air

4
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

Figure 1. Global warming and human health respiratory impact potential results per PKT. For each mode, results at long-run average high

and low occupancy (shown in parenthesis) are displayed as juxtaposing bars. Previous research by the authors reported electricity

generation effects for electric vehicle propulsion in the Vehicle Operation life-cycle groupings. In an effort to improve the spatial

characterization of effects, electricity generation for CAHSR propulsion is reported in Energy Production and differentiated from upstream

effects (e.g., emissions from fuel extraction and transport) by a red line. The CAHSRA (2005) train is shaded gray to emphasize that it is an

unlikely outcome, but reported for comparative purposes.

travel are diminished when results are normalized per

PKT. WECC-2040 electricity reduces HSR GHG propulsion

emissions by 26% but infrastructure construction effects

continue to add heavy burdens to life-cycle results showing

the need for low-CO2 materials.

Across modes and life-cycle groupings, PM10 emissions

are often generated by mining activities for raw materials,

and PM2.5 emissions by supply chain combustion processes

including electricity generation, the latter contributing to

human health respiratory impact potentials. While PHEV60s

produce fewer PM2.5 emissions during propulsion, battery

manufacturing and associated electricity requirements have

the potential to contribute significant PM2.5 and SOx

emissions and increase respiratory impacts beyond the

35 mpg sedan. This implies that strategies should be

developed that minimize human and environmental exposure

as the battery industry expands, and that meeting or

exceeding RPS standards will reduce impacts across

automobiles and CAHSR. For CAHSR, concrete and

steel production including upstream mining activities are

larger than propulsion effects. The dominating share of

environmental impact potentials are often in non-propulsion

components and are shown in figure 2.

Several common processes dominate the environmental

impact potentials. Vehicle manufacturing and maintenance

are affected by assembly activities, but are dominated by

the use of metals (i.e., steel, aluminum and copper) and its

associated electricity demands for processing. Supply chain

truck transport for these processes also contributes heavily

to CO, NOx and VOC emissions. Asphalt and concrete use

dominate infrastructure construction and the use of these

materials is affected primarily by direct emissions at hot-mix

asphalt and cement kilns, and their associated electricity

demands. Airport ground support equipment use contributes

heavily to aircraft life-cycle results. For automobiles and

aircraft, fuel production effects are largely the result of

refinery electricity demands and extraction activities, and for

HSR are dominated by primary fuel extraction, processing

and transport. Air pollutant emission reductions may achieve

the largest benefit-to-cost ratio by targeting infrastructure and

supply chain effects.

Assuming that options exist, the decision by a traveler

to take a mode produces marginal effects in the shortrun, a subset of those reported in figures 1 and 2.

For example, the decision to walk instead of driving

immediately avoids fuel consumption and emissions from

vehicle operation. Including mid-run life-cycle components

avoids vehicle manufacturing, vehicle maintenance, vehicle

insurance, infrastructure maintenance, and associated supply

chain effects including fuel refining. Ultimately, a critical

mass of travelers choosing to walk instead of drive would have

long-run effects including reductions in roadway capacity

needs avoiding future infrastructure construction. Marginal

effects are critical for understanding the change in energy or

environmental outcomes from a policy or decision. Long-run

average effects are reported to provide a comprehensive set

of indicators for analysts, however, future analyses with

these results should consider marginal effects at specified

timescales. Long-, mid- and short-run average and marginal

comparisons are presented in the SI (available at stacks.iop.

org/ERL/7/034012/mmedia).

Considering the potential of a mode to environmentally

outperform another is critical to developing strategies that

acknowledge different long-term operating characteristics.

Modal potential considers the occupancy range in which

transportation systems operate instead of averages which

can mask peak and off-peak, position along lines and

day-of-week characteristics, to name a few. Future CAHSR

ridership forecasts have been developed and scrutinized

(Brownstone et al 2010). Designs that do not access airports

5
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

Figure 2. Environmental impact potentials per PKT.

and city centers, hub existing transit at HSR stations and

encourage urban infill are inimical to high ridership, and risk

disincentivizing trip takers switching from autos. Technical,

political, community and economic roadblocks exist for many

high ridership configuration options that could ultimately lead

to lower than optimal adoption outcomes. Furthermore, even

with high ridership configurations, the system will at times

(whether during off-peak or end-of-lines) exhibit fluctuations

and these instances should be considered in policies that target

marginal operation. Given the large uncertainty in a future

HSR system’s ridership, figure 3 shows the CAHSR life-cycle

and vehicle propulsion effects at varying occupancy levels

against a current mean occupancy automobile and midsize

aircraft (represented as a 2.2 passenger 35 mpg sedan and 116

passenger 737–800).

The sensitivity to vehicle occupancy is used to illustrate

breakeven points, or the ridership levels where one mode

is equivalent to another in the long-run. Occupancy levels

of between 80 and 280 passengers produce HSR GHGequivalency to future automobiles or aircraft (depending

on train size). However, for acidification potential, this

equivalency increases to between 160 and 420 passengers,

or roughly 35–40% average occupancy for trains. This

assumes that the WECC has met the RPS. The acidification

breakeven points capture the dynamic of mode switching

from low-sulfur liquid fuels to high-sulfur electricity and

reaffirm the findings of Chester and Horvath (2010) that

deployment of HSR should occur with mandates for cleaner

propulsion electricity sources to avoid increased human

and environmental impact potentials. The breakeven point

assessment highlights the importance of future ridership

scenario considerations in the determination of potential

corridor effects.

4. Regional consequential effects

To evaluate the net effects of the decision to implement

a new system in the corridor, a consequential assessment

is developed. A consequential assessment should compare

a without HSR future where additional automobile and

aircraft capacities are needed to meet growing demands

to a with HSR future where the new rail system reduces

the need to fully build this capacity. Estimates of this

capacity expansion have been produced by the Authority

(PB 2011) and the LCA methods can be used to evaluate

the change in effects in the corridor. The per-PKT results

reported in figures 1 and 2 are valuable for understanding

the footprint of each transportation system in the long-run

but do not allow for direct assessment of the changes in

corridor impacts when a new system is implemented. For

example, an infrastructure will be constructed to facilitate an

6
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

Figure 3. CAHSR global warming and acidification potential sensitivity to vehicle occupancy. Life-cycle results are shown as solid colored

lines and vehicle propulsion as dotted. Breakeven points are shown as red and green shapes on the figure and corresponding ridership levels

are shown on the right side. While average occupancies are shown for the 35 mpg sedan and 737–800, their potential ranges are shown as

vertical lines on the right side.

expected level of service for CAHSR. This infrastructure may

be flexible to accommodate more passengers if demand is

greater than anticipated. Yet if the per-PKT GHG results in

figure 1 are applied to the different PKT demand forecasts,

different net infrastructure construction effects would be

falsely determined (i.e., the infrastructure construction effects

remain the same with different ridership outcomes). While

the attributional assessment can inform questions like: what

are the major energy and environmental processes in the

life-cycle of a transportation system, and how can they most

effectively be reduced? A consequential assessment is needed

to answer questions such as: how can California deploy

a future multi-modal transportation system with the lowest

human and environment impacts?

The energy and environmental costs of a new HSR

system should be compared against the avoided costs of

automobile and air infrastructure expansion, assuming there

is long-distance travel demand growth. PB (2011) estimated

that 3600 freeway lane km and 13 000 m of runways, and 115

additional airport gates are needed to meet growing corridor

demand in the coming decades. This is the only assessment of

future infrastructure expansion needs to date and it is possible

that this is an aggressive estimate. PB (2011) estimates are

based on full corridor future capacity (117 million auto and

air trips) and the most recent forecasts estimate 33 million

HSR trips at high ridership. Therefore, 28% of infrastructure

expansion effects are considered (i.e., 1000 lane km, 3600 m

of runways and 32 additional airport gates) to account for only

the avoided effects of HSR travelers and may be an aggressive

allocation because of induced demand. Using roadway design

guidelines (AASHTO 2001), construction and maintenance

energy and emissions were calculated with PaLATE (2004)

following Chester and Horvath (2009). The runway expansion

would come with an estimated 670 000 m2 of taxiways and

tarmacs. Construction and maintenance of concrete runways

and asphalt taxiways and tarmacs are also evaluated with

PaLATE (2004) using dimensions reported by Chester (2008).

For all surfaces, it is assumed that the wearing courses will last

20 yr and subbases 50 yr. It is also assumed that infrastructure

expansion will start 10 yr after it has been decided not to

build HSR, and will occur over 30 yr. Airport gate and

corresponding concourse expansion construction follow the

methodology of Chester (2008). Detailed construction and

maintenance schedules for the infrastructure expansion are

provided in the SI (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034012/

mmedia).

Consequential effects are highly sensitive to modal shifts

and forecasting of HSR energy and environmental effects

should occur with uncertainty assessment. Forecasts for

CAHSR adoption have only been reported by the Authority

making rigorous uncertainty assessment challenging. Adoption discussions by the Authority have been presented through

7
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

Figure 4. Decadal (D) consequential global warming and acidification potentials including payback for phase 1. O/P = operation and

propulsion components (impacts from energy consumed to move vehicles). LC = life-cycle (excludes operation and propulsion

components). Life-cycle effects are separated by infrastructure expansion (yellow background) and non-infrastructure (e.g., vehicle

manufacturing and maintenance). After each ridership forecast (shown in millions (m) of annual trips in 2040), the 50 yr savings are shown

in parentheses. These savings are the GHG or acidification benefit (negatives are costs) after 50 yr from groundbreaking.

Figure 5. Energy and emission control strategies for reducing environmental impacts per VKT.

without HSR and with HSR forecasts. The consequential

assessment considers the difference between these two,

essentially, what environmental changes have occurred in

California as a result of implementing HSR. The current forecasts report that by 2040 CAHSR Phase 1 (San Francisco to

Los Angeles) will perform between 27 and 41 million annual

VKT (PB 2012a). The Authority’s medium with HSR forecast

(34 million HSR VKT) displaces 5.8 billion auto VKT and

5.1 million air trips annually, generating between 20 and 33

million trips on the new mode (PB 2012a, 2012b). Using

these forecasts, the Authority’s medium (middle) projection

is first evaluated to determine the consequential effects at

full adoption in 2040. The WECC-RPS 670 seat HSR train

is compared against displaced travel in a 35 mpg sedan and

737–800 aircraft (assumed to be reasonable representative

vehicles for 2040). In the without HSR scenario, it is estimated

that auto travel will increase from 380 billion VKT today to

480 billion VKT, and air travel will increase to 33 million trips

(PB 2012b).

The deployment of CAHSR will create induced demand

as a subset of trip takers who would not travel by auto

or air now find the generalized cost for the journey lower

than existing options (Outwater et al 2010). Additionally,

access to and from HSR stations by autos and other modes

may induce new system-wide demand. The CAHSRA (2012)

with HSR forecast includes estimates of new trips and these

are bundled in the aforementioned VKT. We model induced

demand implicitly through the change in travel reported by

CAHSRA (2012). A summary of the with HSR and without

8
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

HSR consequential analysis critical parameters is provided in

the SI (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034012/mmedia).

The consequential assessment evaluates the difference

between a future where CAHSR has or has not been constructed. Figure 4 shows the GHG and acidification potential

for operation/propulsion and other life-cycle (including the

avoided expansion of auto and air infrastructure) effects

aggregated per decade for Phase 1 of the system (San

Francisco to Los Angeles). The cumulative effect curve shows

the time until payback. Given the uncertainty in the forecasts

(Brownstone et al 2010), a payback sensitivity analysis is

performed on the high adoption scenario as reported by

the Authority (41 million VKT). The sensitivity analysis

evaluates how long it takes CAHSR to achieve payback given

certain adoption levels (for perspective, the Authority’s low

adoption scenario is 66% of ridership in the high adoption

scenario) and considers the high (H), medium (M) and low

(L) scenarios followed by decreases of 5 million (m) annual

riders.

The payback sensitivity reveals several important

considerations for transportation planners and air quality

policy makers. The cumulative plum-colored lines for the

high, medium and low forecast figures show that the GHG

payback will likely occur between 20 and 30 yr (D3) after

groundbreaking and acidification potential after 20–40 yr.

However, payback is highly sensitive to reduced automobile

travel. The 5.8 billion auto VKT displaced dominate

emissions changes in the corridor and the effects from

reduced air travel and CAHSR are small. The reduced auto

impacts are significantly affected or dominated by life-cycle

components, in particular, avoided vehicle manufacturing,

vehicle maintenance and gasoline production. For GHGs

the sooner the system is implemented the more opportunity

it will have to help meet GHG reduction policies aiming

for 80% of 1990 statewide emissions by 2050. Larger

trains or more carbon-intensive electricity generation will

delay the payback further. Acidification, the release of SOx

and NOx emissions which are of concern for respiratory

and cardiovascular (through secondary particle formation)

effects, agricultural impacts and increased built environment

maintenance costs, are dominated by life-cycle processes. For

infrastructure life-cycle processes acidification is dominated

by the combustion of sulfur-bearing compounds in clinker

manufacturing for cement used in concrete freeways, and for

non-infrastructure life-cycle processes supply chain electricity

use. Ultimately, impacts should account for the time-based

radiative forcing of GHGs, high-altitude CO2 emissions

effects, and the shifting of human and environmental effects

from vehicle tailpipes to powerplants, to name a few

additional factors. We reserve these analyses for future

studies. The results of the consequential assessment are highly

sensitive to automobile trips avoided and efforts should be

made to validate the travel demand model used by the

Authority.

5. Strategies for reducing environmental impacts

Given the dominating HSR life-cycle effects from electricity

generation and infrastructure construction, strategies can

be identified to reduce the system’s footprint, prior to

its construction and use. First, by meeting the RPS,

GHG and NOx emissions will be reduced by 12% and

22%. Next, emission control strategies are identified for

reducing the infrastructure footprint. For GHGs, the use

of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as

fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace slag can reduce

concrete’s footprint by 14–22% depending on the mixture

(Flower and Sanjayan 2007). It is expected that the portion

of the infrastructure that impacts roadways will be required to

use fly ash to meet California Department of Transportation

requirements. Furthermore, if the Authority requires concrete

producers to utilize cement kilns with selective catalytic and

non-catalytic reduction (SR) advanced NOx controls, material

production emissions can be decreased between 35 and 95%,

reducing the potential for acidification, respiratory, smog and

eutrophication potential impacts (EPA 2007). Lastly, the use

of 100% renewables lowers electricity generation impacts

(to only power generation facility construction effects) and

combined with the infrastructure control strategies produces

the greatest reductions. The effects of these strategies are

shown in figure 5.

The impact reduction strategies can decrease GHGs

between 12 and 69% and NOx emissions between 22 and

61%. The costs of implementing these strategies should

be compared against other opportunities, particularly those

identified by GHG and air quality policies. The 80/20

Wind/Solar train, outside of the infrastructure material

footprint, has a payback within the first few years of operation

and is equivalent to the GHG assessment developed by

the Authority, based on NREL (2011), following California

Environmental Quality Act requirements.

The transportation emissions reduction from CAHSR, if

operating within a cap-and-trade system, should be evaluated.

Cap-and-trade programs have been successfully implemented

in the US for NOx and SOx, and California continues to

discuss a GHG initiative. Cap-and-trade programs remove the

potential of any single initiative to reduce aggregate emissions

as offsets will be met by increases elsewhere in the economy

(Millard-Ball 2009). This is because the cap is designed to

equalize the marginal abatement cost and does not encourage

each economic sector to undertake reductions. Furthermore,

if road and rail emissions are part of the cap but aircraft

emissions are not, then the only major GHG change resulting

from HSR implementation will be the displaced airplane

operational emissions. To meet GHG reduction goals, policy

makers should consider where CAHSR potential reductions

will be counted, whether that is in a cap-and-trade program or

direct transportation mandates.

6. Planning for a sustainable mobility future

HSR has the potential to reduce passenger transportation

impacts to people and the environment, but must be deployed

with process and material environmental reduction measures

and in a configuration that will ensure high adoption. We

have highlighted the life-cycle hotspots that dominate modal

success: (i) train size (affecting electricity consumption,

9
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

frequency of service and ridership); (ii) infrastructure

construction; and (iii) the fossil fuel intensity of the electricity

mix. By identifying low and high adoption outcomes, the

potential benefits can be discussed, instead of speculating

on a normative long-distance transportation future, especially

in light of large uncertainty that surrounds many critical

factors of the system. Ultimately, this research aims to inform

planners and decision makers about providing sustainable

mobility options. Planners and policy makers should be asking

how a future sustainable transportation infrastructure can

be deployed to meet increasing travel demands with the

lowest total cost, including externalities. The environmental

benefits of HSR should be joined with other considerations

when making decisions about the system. Ultimately,

decision assessment should include changes in travel time,

productivity, congestion, safety, transportation infrastructure

resilience, freight synergies, urban development opportunities

and employment, in addition to GHG, human health and

environmental damages.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank several organizations and

individuals for their intellectual support of this research.

Elizabeth Mitchell and Domingo Sepulveda of Pratt and

Whitney, and Professor Alan Epstein of MIT and Pratt and

Whitney were instrumental in helping us determine future

aircraft fuel consumption and emissions. Constantin Vogt

of Deutsche Bahn provided valuable information and data

on the operations of an established HSR system. Jeremy

Michalek, Orkun Karabasoglu (Carnegie Mellon University)

and Constantine Samaras (RAND) provided invaluable

guidance for the PHEV assessment. Finally, the authors

would like to express profound gratitude to Lee Schipper,

who passed away during the development of this study, and

provided continuous support and encouragement.

References

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials) 2001 A Policy on Geometric Design

of Highways and Streets (Washington, DC: AASHTO)

ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) 2011 Greenhouse Gases,

Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation

(GREET) Models, GREET 1 2011 Evaluates Fuel Cycles and

GREET 2.7 Evaluates Vehicle Cycles (Argonne, IL: ANL)

Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D and McKone T 2002 TRACI: the

tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other

environmental impacts J. Indust. Ecol. 6 49–78

Barrett S, Britter R and Waitz I 2010 Global mortality attributable to

aircraft cruise emissions Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 7736–42

Brownstone D, Hansen M and Madanat S 2010 Review of Bay

Area/California high-speed rail ridership and revenue

forecasting study Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies

Research Report #UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1 (Berkeley, CA:

University of California) (available online at www.its.berkeley.

edu/publications/UCB/2010/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1.pdf)

BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) 2011 Air Carrier

Statistics (Form 41 Traffic) Tables T100 and P52 (Washington,

DC: US Department of Transportation) (available online at

www.transtats.bts.gov/)

CAHSRA (California High-Speed Rail Authority) 2005 Final

Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed California High-Speed Train

System (Sacramento, CA: CAHSRA)

CAHSRA (California High-Speed Rail Authority) 2012 California

High-Speed Rail Program Draft Revised Business Plan

(Sacramento, CA: CAHSRA)

Chang B and Kendall A 2011 Life cycle greenhouse gas assessment

of infrastructure construction for California’s high-speed rail

system Transp. Res. D 16 429–34

Chester M V 2008 Life-cycle environmental inventory of passenger

transportation modes in the United States PhD thesis

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of California, Berkeley (available online at http://

escholarship.org/uc/item/7n29n303)

Chester M V and Horvath A 2009 Environmental assessment of

passenger transportation should include infrastructure and

supply chains Environ. Res. Lett. 4 024008

Chester M V and Horvath A 2010 Life-cycle assessment of

high-speed rail: the case of California Environ. Res. Lett.

5 014003

Chester M V and Horvath A 2011 Vehicle manufacturing futures in

transportation life-cycle assessment Berkeley Institute of

Transportation Studies Research Report #UCB-ITS-RR-2011-3

(Berkeley, CA: University of California) (available online at

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1qp3f0vc)

Deutsche Bahn 2011 Personal communications with Constantin

Vogt (DB Environment Center) between June 2010 and

October 2011

EEA (European Environment Agency) 2006 EMEP/CORINAIR

Emission Inventory Guidebook (Copenhagen: EEA) (available

at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4)

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2007 Alternative Control

Techniques Document Update—NOx Emissions from New

Cement Kilns (Washington, DC: EPA)

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2011 EPA and NHTSA

Propose to Extend the National Program to Reduce

Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and

Trucks (Washington, DC: EPA)

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) 2011 Transportation

Electrification: A Technology Overview (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI)

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) 2010 EDMS 5.1.3:

Emission and Dispersion Modeling System Software

(Washington, DC: FAA)

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 2009 Highway Statistics

Publications (Washingtion, DC: US Department of

Transportaion) (available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/

ohpi/hss/hsspubs.cfm)

Flower D and Sanjayan J 2007 Green house gas emissions due to

concrete manufacture Concr. Manuf. 12 282–8

Green Design Institute 2011 Economic Input–Output

Analysis-Based Life-Cycle Assessment Software (Pittsburgh,

PA: Carnegie Mellon University) (available online at http://

www.eiolca.net/)

Hoke J 2011 Recent combustor technology development progress

Presentation to the Society of Automotive Engineers 2011

AeroTech Workshop (Toulouse)

Huang Y 2004 Pavement Analysis and Design 2nd edn (Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall)

ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) 2010 Engine

Emissions Databank (West Sussex: Civil Aviation Authority)

(available online at www.caa.co.uk/)

IFEU (Institut fur Energie und Umweltforschung) 2011  ̈

UmweltMobilCheck: Wissenschaftlicher Grundlagenbericht

(Heidelberg: IFEU)

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 2006 14040

Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment (Geneva:

ISO)

10
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034012 M Chester and A Horvath

Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G and

Rosenbaum R 2003 IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact

assessment methodology Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 324–30

Karabasoglu O and Michalek J 2012 Influence of driving patterns

on life cycle benefits of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles

(in preparation)

Marriott J and Matthews H S 2005 Environmental effects of

interstate power trading on electricity consumption mixes

Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 8584–90

Michalek J, Chester M, Jaramillo P, Samaras C, Shiau C and

Lave L 2011 Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air

emissions and oil displacement benefits Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.

108 16554–8

Millard-Ball A 2009 Cap-and-trade: five implications for

transportation planners Transp. Res. 2119 20–6

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011 California High Speed

Rail Authority Strategic Energy Plan (Golden, CO: NREL)

Navigant Consulting 2008 The Use of Renewable Energy Sources to

Provide Power to California’s High Speed Rail (Rancho

Cordova, CA: Navigant)

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 2011 Transportation

Energy Data Book 30th edn (Oak Ridge, TN: ORNL)

Outwater M, Tierney K, Bradley M, Sall E, Kuppam A and

Modugula V 2010 California statewide model for high-speed

rail J. Choice Modell. 3 58–83

PaLATE (Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental

and Economic Effects) 2004 (Berkeley, CA: University of

California) (available online at www.ce.berkeley.edu/∼

horvath/palate.html)

PB (Parsons Brinckerhoff) 2011 Costs of Providing the Equivalent

Capacity to High-Speed Rail through Other Modes, Draft

(Sacramento, CA: PB)

PB (Parsons Brinckerhoff) 2012a California High-Speed Rail

Project: Estimating High-Speed Train Operating &

Maintenance Costs for the CHSRA 2012 Business Plan

(Sacramento, CA: PB)

PB (Parsons Brinckerhoff) 2012b California High-Speed Rail

Project: California High-Speed Rail Benefit-Cost Analysis

(BCA) (Sacramento, CA: PB)

Pehnt M 2006 Dynamic life cycle assessment of renewable energy

technologies Renew. Energy 31 55–71

Pratt and Whitney 2011 Personal communications with Elizabeth

Mitchell (Manager, Technology & Environment Special

Initiatives) and Domingo Sepulveda (Manager, Environmental

Regulatory Affairs-Emissions) between September 2010 and

November 2011

Scown C, Nazaroff W, Mishra U, Strogen B, Lobscheid A,

Masanet E, Santero N, Horvath A and McKone T 2012

Lifecycle greenhouse gas implications of US National

scenarios for cellulosic ethanol production Environ. Res. Lett.

7 014011

Tarrason L, Jonson J, Berntsen T and Rypdal K 2002  ́ Study on Air

Quality Impacts of Non-LTO Emissions from Aviation (Oslo:

Norwegian Meteorological Institute)

WECC (Western Electricity Coordination Council) 2011 10-Year

Regional Transmission Plan (Salt Lake City, UT: WECC)

11
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund

P.O. Box 151439 San Rafael, CA 94915 415-331-1982 

Analysis of the CHSRA's GHG Report

On July 1, 2013, the California High-Speed Rail Authority released its Contribution of 

the High-Speed Rail Program to Reducing California's Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Levels (June 2013).

1 It is meant to fulfill the mandate contained in SB 1029 (the 

Legislature's authorization of HSR bonds for the Central Valley project) to provide "a 

report on the 'net impact of the high-speed rail program on the state's greenhouse gas 

emissions.'"

2 However, the report fails to quantify the project's emissions and emissions 

reductions, thereby making an evaluation of the program's net impact impossible.

The report is obviously intended to counter the Legislative Analyst's budget report3 of 

April 2012, which concluded that the HSR project would result in a net increase in GHG 

emissions for the first 30 years of operations. Knocking down that report would open the 

door to funding HSR with cap and trade revenues. Interestingly, the CHSRA report 

never mentioned the LAO report and pretended it didn't exist. Someone must have

concluded they couldn't win an argument on the merits.

Rather than dispute the LAO report, the CHSRA report claims to "detail[] the projected 

net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of 

the high-speed rail system."4 However, the report offers no details of those emissions. If 

numbers were developed during the preparation of the report, they weren't included in 

the publication. This is a politicized promotional piece and not a science-based 

document. It is simply not credible and not responsive to the legislative mandate.

Update: The Governor's Budget Proposal

The Governor proposed that $250 million in 2014-15 cap and trade revenues go to 

HSRA. He further requested that 33% of all cap and trade revenues starting with 

2015-16 be continuously appropriated to HSRA.

5 These many billions of dollars, if not 

well-spent by the HSR project, could threaten the effectiveness of the entire cap and 

trade program. Careful scrutiny of the HSR project's net GHG benefits is warranted.

Methodology

A disclosure on p. 17 invalidates the entire report: "The timeframe and activities analyzed and discussed in this report were for CP1 [the first phase of the current MercedBakersfield project]. As the project moves forward, direct GHG emissions calculations 

will be carried out for each subsequent construction package." The construction impacts 

of CP1 cannot be meaningfully analyzed in relation to the operational emissions 
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 2

reductions calculations, because the latter pertains to the Initial Operating Section

(IOS), which is ten times its length. No HSR operations are planned for CP1.

This is critical, because the report is actually comparing the emissions benefits of the 

IOS to the emissions costs of the one-tenth-as-long CP1. Completing the IOS would 

require funding the $26 billion extension to the LA Basin, as well as building CP2, CP3, 

CP4 and CP5 [the remainder of the Merced-Bakersfield project]. Obviously, the net 

project emissions are going to be very different when the emissions arising from $26+ 

billion of construction are added in.

Evaluating the HSR program's net impacts requires either the operational emissions 

reductions of CP1 or the construction emissions of the IOS. This report offers neither.

Summary of Findings

The following six so-called Findings are mere restatements of vague intentions, with no 

identified funding to implement them:

• Commitment to 100% renewable energy during operations

• Zero net greenhouse gas emissions during construction

• Supportive transit and land use for greater cumulative benefits for the state

• Plans to plant thousands of new trees across the Central Valley

• Cleaner school buses and water pumps in Central Valley communities

• Agricultural conservation measures aimed at reducing Central Valley sprawl and 

preserving valuable agricultural land6

In addition, the report offers no evidence in support of the following two so-called 

Findings:

• Zero net greenhouse gas emissions during construction7

There is no evidence to support this claim. No numbers whatsoever are offered for GHG 

mitigation activities. This is a classic "aspirational goal" rather than a finding on a plan to 

achieve one.

• Significant contributions to the State’s goals embodied in AB 32 and SB 3758

There is no evidence to support this claim.

Not only is there no evidence to support the following three so-called Findings, they are 

actively misleading, as they are entirely dependent on CHSRA receiving an additional 

$26 billion to build out the IOS to the Los Angeles Basin. In addition, they will mislead 

non-technical readers because they appear to be findings on the project's net emissions 

impacts. Because they exclude the construction emissions of both CP1 and the IOS, 

they represent only one side of the emissions ledger. 

• Greenhouse gas savings from the first year of operations increasing to over 1 

million tons of CO2 per year within 10 years9

• Result in net GHG emissions diversions that, conservatively, are the equivalent 

of the GHG emissions created from the electricity used in 22,440 houses, or 

removing 31,000 passenger vehicles from the road.

10
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 3

• Using methodologies consistent with state practice, an estimated 4 to 8 million 

metric tons of CO2 saved by 2030, as if the state turned off a coal fired power 

plant11

As discussed below, this last assertion is also misleading because the 8 years of 

operations are being compared to roughly one year of such a power plant's emissions.

GHG Emissions Sources for High-Speed Rail System

The diagram on page 9 is the only rendition of emissions category totals in the report.

Amazingly, there is no corresponding table. The diagram comes closer to identifying the 

net impact than anything else in the report. However, its use of graphic symbols instead 

of conventional chart bars makes it impossible to interpret quantitatively. It is unclear 

from the diagram (or its associated text) whether the symbols have any quantitative 

significance, and if they do, whether emissions totals are represented by the height or 

by the area of the symbols. This makes the diagram both useless and deceptive: it

obscures more than it discloses. Given the central importance of this data, choosing this 

indecipherable diagram for its portrayal can only be interpreted as an act of bad faith. 

Operational Emissions Reductions

This project has had a long history of challenges to the technical validity of the HSR 

ridership model and litigation about the hidden changes that were made to it that advantaged Pacheco ridership while penalizing Altamont ridership. Ridership is the key input 

to an analysis of operational emissions reductions. As will be discussed later, the GHG 

reduction benefits of the HSR project are very dependent on ridership. With the controversy surrounding the ridership projections, this net emissions analysis rests on a shaky 

foundation.

The most striking part of this section is the meaningless apples-and-oranges comparison between the annual emissions of a coal-fired power plant and the emissions 

reductions from 8 years of HSR operations.12 This is an attempt to invite positive 

identification with HSR by creating a "Coal Bad--HSR Good" dualism, a classic 

technique of promotion.

Construction Emissions

While the report uses standard methods to calculate the direct emissions resulting from 

construction, it entirely leaves out the emissions resulting from the acquisition of 

construction materials, and offers a weak justification that these emissions shouldn't be 

counted against the project: 

Regarding the construction materials, for some it is possible 

to calculate the impacts over the material's life-cycle, from 

extraction through processing, use onsite, and disposal, and 

express those impacts in GHG emissions terms. Those GHG 

emissions are usually the reporting responsibility of the 

manufacturer, and in terms of a project GHG emissions 
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 4

inventory, happen "upstream" and outside the boundary of 

the project. 

For example, cement manufacturers in California are subject 

to ARB's Mandatory Reporting and Cap-and-Trade Regulations. These regulations require cement manufacturers to 

report their GHG emissions annually to ARB. The emissions 

from cement manufacturing count towards the statewide 

GHG emissions "cap." The GHG emissions covered under 

the "cap" are required to be reduced through emission 

controls or a limited amount (eight percent) may be offset 

through the purchase of ARB certified offset credits.13

The problem is that these emissions from construction materials constitute a very 

significant part of the project's overall emissions, because of the huge amount of 

concrete called for in the plans. This amount is large enough to increase the cement 

manufacturing sector's statewide emissions, which makes the "count it upstream" 

approach entirely inappropriate when evaluating the project's net impacts. 

Perhaps recognizing this, the next paragraph of the report acknowledges the 

appropriateness of including the emissions from construction materials in its analysis, 

yet withholds the data on the flimsy excuse that the data is not "precise" enough:

However, the Authority considers it important to disclose the 

GHG emissions that occur outside of the project associated 

with materials used during construction. These have not yet 

been quantified, due to the limitations of available 

information at this stage of project delivery. While it is 

understood that the rail infrastructure will consist, largely of 

aggregate, concrete, steel, rails, and ballast; the precise

source and supplier of those materials is not yet known. 

Additionally, the precise quantities are not available, given 

the nature of the design-build procurement process... 

(emphasis added)14

This is a masterful exercise in appearing to be fair-minded while simultaneously holding 

back damaging information. It is obvious that in the course of putting the project out to 

bid, the Authority prepared estimates of construction material quantities. These 

estimates were the basis for the calculation of the direct construction emissions. The 

materials' emissions must be huge for the Authority to need to bury them with this kind 

of double-talk.

The Legislative Analyst's April 2012 report15 relied on a 2010 pioneering study by 

Chester and Horvath entitled Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: the case of 

California.

16 The study's 2012 update produced data that enabled this calculation:

Infrastructure construction and operations contribute between 40% and 51% of the
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 5

CHSRA project's GHG emissions per person per kilometer travelled. This figure rises to 

near 100% of the emissions for the scenario with 100% renewable power, and falls to 

32% when the train's capacity is nearly doubled.

17 The paper found "CAHSR infrastructure construction effects are dominated by concrete use. Approximately 67% of CAHSR 

infrastructure emissions are the result of cement production for concrete use..."18 

This is the smoking gun: Construction materials (as well as infrastructure construction, if 

one doesn't assume the success of the zero net GHG emissions program19) make up a 

highly significant percentage of the project's overall GHG emissions. Leaving them out

so compromises the net impact analysis as to render it worthless.

The Chester and Horvath study calculated the project's payback period, the point at 

which the emissions reductions from the substitution of auto and air trips (measured as 

Vehicle Kilometers Traveled, or VKT) with HSR trips equals the HSR project's GHG 

emissions, including its cumulative prior emissions:

The payback sensitivity reveals several important 

considerations for transportation planners and air quality 

policy makers. The cumulative plum-colored lines for the 

high, medium and low forecast figures show that the GHG 

payback will likely occur between 20 and 30 yr (D3) after 

groundbreaking, and acidification potential after 20–40 yr. 

However, payback is highly sensitive to reduced 

automobile travel. The 5.8 billion auto VKT displaced 

dominate emissions changes in the corridor and the effects 

from reduced air travel and CAHSR are small. The reduced 

auto impacts are significantly affected or dominated by lifecycle components, in particular, avoided vehicle manufacturing, vehicle maintenance and gasoline production.

(emphasis added.)20

Chester and Horvath are thus warning that any slip in ridership from currently predicted 

levels would delay the GHG benefits of HSR even further.

Double Counting

When evaluating statewide benefits, it is important that GHG emissions reductions 

calculations represent only the project's own properties. The model that was used, on 

the other hand, "also reflects the GHG emissions benefits of ARB's recent rulemakings 

including on-road diesel fleet rules, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and the Low Carbon 

Fuel standard."21 This means that the report's emissions reduction calculations 

overstate the benefits accruing to the HSR project.

Offset Activities

The only way the CHSRA's GHG Report is able to claim a net beneficial GHG impact is 

by buying offsets in the form of environmental mitigations, including construction 

mitigations,

22 and farmland protection.23 The strategy of the Cap and Trade program is 
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 6

to purchase GHG-reducing offsets at the lowest cost per ton. There's something very 

odd about committing Cap and Trade funds to a project that increases GHGs, which 

then has to buy GHG-reducing offsets. It would be dramatically less expensive on a perton basis to fund the GHG-reducing projects directly. Buying these same offsets as part 

of a CHSRA project package is inherently far more expensive. 

Conclusion

The report offers no numbers capable of serving as a basis for the conclusion that "the 

high-speed rail program will have a positive impact on reducing the state's greenhouse 

gas emissions."24 Instead, that conclusion "'feels right' without regard to evidence, logic, 

intellectual examination, or facts"--the Wikipedia definition of Stephen Colbert's 

'truthiness'. 

Endorsements

The uncritical endorsements of the report by agency heads expose the depth of its 

politicization. It simply is not credible that sophisticated agency heads and their staffs 

failed to spot the profound flaws identified above. Brian Kelly, now Secretary of the 

State Transportation Agency, "reviewed and approve[s]" the report.25 Mary Nichols, 

Chair of the Air Resources Board, "believe[s] the analysis is reasonable..."26 Instead of 

the comprehensive overview expected of someone of her subject matter expertise, she 

offered only superficial comments on the emissions reductions from mobility choices, 

and avoided construction emissions and offsets entirely. These two endorsements 

make it obvious that the Governor ordered his people to "make HSR funding happen" 

no matter what. 

 1 hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/HSR_Reducing_CA_GHG_Emissions_

2013.pdf

2 p. 13. (Unless otherwise noted, all references are to the report accessible at the URL 

above.)

3 Legislative Analyst's Office, Funding Requests for High-Speed Rail, April 17, 2012, p. 

8

4 p. 13. 5 Legislative Analyst's Office, Cap-and-Trade Auction Revenue Expenditure Plan,

February 2014, p. 5

6 p. 6.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 p. 11.

13 p. 14.

14 p. 14.

15 Legislative Analyst's Office, p. 8

16 Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: the 

case of California, Environmental Research Letters, January 2010.
TRANSDEF 3/2/14 Page 7

 17 Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and 

aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California's future, Environmental 

Research Letters, July 2012, p. 5 [Interpolated from the chart data in Figure 1]

18 Chester and Horvath, 2012, p. 4. 19 pp. 13-15. 

20 Chester and Horvath, 2012, p. 9.

21 p. 19.

22 p. 13. 23 p. 15.

24 p. 20.

25 p. 1.

26 p. 5.
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 1 

Draft General Conformity Determination Comments and Responses

No. Comment From Response

1 ISR application disclosed 24,000,000 cubic yards of 

imported soil (attachment B), EIS states 

11,300,000 cubic yards of fill. Discrepancy should 

be recirculated for public review and comment

Chatten-Brown 

& Carstens, 

5/23/14, Pg. 1

The estimate of net imported soil for the entire Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section has increased from 11,300,000 cubic yards (cy) to 29,400,000 

cy (the quantity (24,000,000 cy) mentioned in the comment from the 

ISR application only covered a portion of the F/B Section, for the 

reasons stated in that application). This new value, which is based on 

refined analysis and calculations, has been incorporated into the 

construction analysis and, while it changes the overall emission 

burdens, it does not change the overall conclusions presented in the 

document; the increase does not create any new exceedances of 

General Conformity thresholds for any covered pollutant in any 

construction year, and all construction emissions of covered 

pollutants in all construction years (regardless of exceedance) will be 

offset to net zero through the VERA offset program.

2 It is our understanding that CHSRA plans to fully 

offset emissions for every year of construction in 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin." Add text to the 

Final General Conformity Determination to clearly 

state that these emissions will be fully offset (to net 

zero). 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency, Region 

IX, received 

May 27, 

2014Detailed 

comments, Pg. 

1

Text has been added to the Final General Conformity Determination to 

address this comment.

3 The FEIS and Draft General Conformity 

Determination explain that FRA cannot yet 

determine whether emissions from material 

hauling will exceed conformity thresholds in 

neighboring air basins." Add text to to clearly state 

that (1) this Determination is not intended to fulfill 

general conformity requirements for neighboring 

air basins

(2) separate general conformity determinations 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency, Region 

IX, received 

May 27, 

2014Detailed 

comments, Pg. 

1

Text has been added to the Final General Conformity Determination to 

address this comment.
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 2 

No. Comment From Response

will be conducted for project impacts in 

neighboring air basins if required under the 

General Conformity Rule (Clean Air Act Section 

176(c)(4), revised march 24, 2010).

4 The Draft Conformity Determination relies upon 

AQ-MM#4 which indicates that a Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) between 

the Authority and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District will mitigate for the air 

quality impacts in the year of the source.

The Draft Conformity Determination cannot rely 

upon a document that is not included in the

Determination, nor been created or finalized. 

There is no guarantee

that the elements within the VERA will be effective, 

nor has the VERA been vetted by the public and/or 

specialists.

I request that the Draft Conformity Determination 

not be approved as its foundation has not been 

established. The Conformity Determination relies 

upon the VERA, which is not included or approved.

Aaron Fukuda, 

via email, May 

25, 2014

The California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors, and the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) Governing 

Board approved on May 7, 2014 and June 19, 2014, respectively two 

agreements demonstrating the Authority’s commitment to this 

method of offsetting emissions. Specifically, the parties executed a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies committing 

the Authority to offset its project construction emissions of NOx, 

ROG/VOC, PM10 and PM2.5 to net zero within District’s boundaries 

(and authorizing up to $35 million for this purpose) and committing 

the District to implement the offsets with Authority/project funding 

and a detailed VERA for the portion of the Merced to Fresno HSR 

Section about to enter construction. Per the terms of the MOU, the 

MOU commitments (i.e. offsets) will be implemented through a series 

of VERA agreements substantially similar to the first approved VERA 

mentioned above. A VERA or multiple VERAs will be completed – 

again, based on the already-approved VERA, and implementing the 

MOU – prior to commencement of construction in the FresnoBakersfield Section. 

5 Page 6-1

The Draft Conformity Determination outlines the 

project design features that will be implemented 

during construction. Many of these activities 

include the application of water to abate air quality 

concerns. As the Central Valley is currently 

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 5

As described in the Final EIS that accompanied the Draft General 

Conformity Determination, the construction of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section of the HST will result in a net decrease in annual 

water consumption for the area impacted by the construction of the 

track and facilities (because the HST project will take water-using 

agricultural land out of production), when annualized over a 5-year 
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 3 

No. Comment From Response

experiencing a drought, many of the surface water 

channels will not see water this year and many of 

the groundwater deep-wells are experiencing 

increasing depth to groundwater readings. As this 

occurs it seems reasonable that the Draft 

Conformity Determination provide evidence of the 

quantity of water that would be required, where 

the water would come from and address any air 

quality impacts that may be incurred in acquiring 

or applying dust control water.

construction period. Specifically, it is estimated that the water usage 

during the construction of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HST 

System will be only 6% (868 ac-ft/yr needed for construction 

compared to 14,689 ac-ft/yr for current existing water usage) of the 

existing water usage on an annual basis for the Project Footprint. 

In other words, current annual water usage at locations the Project 

will displace (mostly agricultural land water usage) is far greater than 

the water Project-related construction will require annually in the 

same place. It is important to note that construction water demand is 

not a continuous flow demand on the supplier and often water usage 

is sporadic and a function of the particular construction activities 

going on at the time. It is therefore reasonable to rely on the 

availability of the necessary quantity of water to implement the 

Project Design features described in the Draft General Conformity 

Determination. 

 

Construction demand is frequently offset by water supply system 

storage so other users do not notice a drop in pressure or flow. 

Contractors sometimes also use a small volume of water storage 

onsite during construction to eliminate lengthy trips for water trucks 

to reach a water source such as a municipal fire hydrant. A further 

analysis of water usage during construction was conducted and can be 

found in the Water Usage Memo which was made available to the 

public for http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresno-bakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Vol_II_CH3_6B_Water_Usage_Analysis.pdf. 

6 Page 7-1

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that 

the EMFAC2011 model was used to estimate air 

quality impacts. The EMFAC2011 does not 

incorporate new more-stringent fuel economy 

standards that were adopted in 2012. The new fuel 

efficiency standards significant increase the fuel 

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 5 The General Conformity Rule ensures that the actions taken by federal 

agencies in nonattainment and maintenance areas do not interfere 

with a state’s plans to meet national standards for air quality. 

Currently there are no national standards for CO2 emissions and 
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 4 

No. Comment From Response

economy of cars and therefore the carbon dioxide 

savings being utilized in the model is not

accurate.

therefore they are not addressed in the General Conformity document. 

CO2 emissions are however addressed in Section 3.3 of the FEIS. 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresno-bakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Vol_I_CH3_3_Air_Quality_Global_Climate_Ch

ange.pdf. 

7 Page 9-1

The Draft Conformity Determination addressed air 

quality concerns as they relate to the construction 

of the project. One particular item that is missing is 

the impact to local roadways from the immense 

hauling and import requirements for this project. It 

has been estimated that 24 million cubic yards of 

dirt will need to be imported to create the rail bed. 

This amount of traffic on local roads will require 

local agencies to repave and/or reconstruct many 

of the heavily used

roadways once construction is done. As this will be 

an impact of the project, the air quality impacts 

associated with the repaving and/or 

reconstruction of roads must be included in the 

analysis, which it is not.

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 5

The Draft General Conformity Determination includes emissions from 

trucks used for hauling materials, as detailed in the Air Quality 

Technical Report (http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresnobakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Tech_Air_Quality_Technical_Report_April_20

14.pdf).

Any future repaving and/or reconstruction of roads are secondary or 

perhaps tertiary impacts that are speculative both in likelihood of 

occurrence and quantity and will be offset to net zero in any event (if 

they occur at all) by the VERA mentioned above.

8 Page 9-2

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that 

the mobilization of this project will occur in April 

2014. The Authority has yet to gain full 

environmental clearances, including permits and 

contract. The Draft Conformity Determination 

should be updated to include a more realistic 

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 6 

The Draft General Conformity Determination has construction starting 

in April, 2014. While the start month has changed, mobilization for the 

project is still expected to occur in the year 2014. Since the emission 

estimates used to determine exceedances of the applicable conformity 

thresholds are calculated annually year, the month used as a start for 

mobilization should not affect the total emissions and therefore would 

not affect the conformity analysis, as mobilization is a small part of the 
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 5 

No. Comment From Response

mobilization date and other construction related 

dates should be updated.

overall construction schedule, the major works are expected to occur 

according to the schedule used to estimate the emissions. 

9 Page 9-3

The Draft Conformity Determination indicates that 

anticipated travel distances for hauling trucks 

were used to determine air quality impacts. The 

public should be given information to determine 

what hauling distances were used. In other 

documents provided by the Authority, 24 million 

cubic yards of dirt will be moved to the project for 

construction. As this is a monumental amount of 

dirt, I find it hard to believe that this material will 

be made readily available adjacent or within close 

proximity of the alignment. I recommend that the 

information be provided in the document and 

recirculated for public review.

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014,

Pg. 6

The Draft General Conformity Determination includes emissions from 

trucks used for hauling materials. Details on the distances used for 

haul trucks are included in the AQ Technical Report and Appendices 

which were referenced in the Draft General Conformity Determination 

and made available for public review during the 30 day comment 

period.

10 Page 9-3

The Draft Conformity Determination indicated that 

parking lots at HSR stations were left out of the 

analysis. This removal of this item is not allowed as 

it is a part of the project and will have air quality 

impacts during construction and into the future. 

The FRA should include those structural features 

and recirculate the Draft Conformity 

Determination.

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 6

As stated in the Draft General Conformity Determination, the stations 

will include parking structures rather than lots. Therefore, the 

potential emissions from parking lots were not included in the 

analysis. However, the emissions from the construction of these 

structures were included in the calculations in the Draft General 

Conformity Determination. 
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 6 

No. Comment From Response

11 Page 9-3

The Draft Conformity Determination indicated that 

parking lots at HSR stations were left out of the 

analysis. This removal of this item is not allowed as 

it is a part of the project and will have air quality 

impacts during construction and into the future. 

The FRA should include those structural features 

and recirculate the Draft Conformity 

Determination.

Aaron Fukuda, 

May 5, 2014, 

Pg. 6

See Response to Comment No. 10 above. 

12 Draft Conformity does not analyze the emissions 

from the induced growth that will be created by 

the Project - EIS violates NAPA and Clean Air Act

City of Shafter, 

May 22, 2014, 

Pg. 4

Potential induced growth due to the project has been analyzed in 

detail in http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresno-bakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Vol_I_CH3_13_Station_Planning_Land_Use_D

evelopment.pdf (page 3.13-42). 

The Build Alterative analyzed in the Final EIS considers the potential 

emissions that could result directly from the Project. For example, the 

Final EIS analyzes the potential increased traffic around the new 

stations. However, beyond this analysis, the exact amounts of any 

emissions from induced growth are highly speculative and could not 

be accurately measured. In addition, neither FRA nor the Authority 

has any direct control over these emissions. For these reasons the 

potential emissions from induced growth are not included in this 

Conformity Determination. 

13 The analysis of Impact AQ#4, Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions During Construction, fails to include the 

GHG emissions from the production of materials 

used in construction. Concrete production, 

especially, creates very high GHG emissions. A 

recent paper, attached, estimates these emissions 

to be so high as to offset twenty to thirty years of 

GHG emissions reductions from the reduction in 

VMT due to the operation of the HST. When 

Transportation 

Solutions 

Defense and 

Education fund, 

May 27, 2017, 

via email

For purposes of this analysis, the General Conformity Rule ensures 

that the actions taken by federal agencies in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas do not interfere with a state’s plans to meet 

national standards for air quality for certain specific pollutants. 

Currently there are no national standards for CO2 emissions and 

therefore they are not addressed in the General Conformity document. 

CO2 emissions are however addressed in Section 3.3 of the FEIS. 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresno-bakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Vol_I_CH3_3_Air_Quality_Global_Climate_Ch
Appendix B. Responses to Comments Page 7 

No. Comment From Response

properly analyzed, the impact should be 

considered of substantial intensity under NEPA.

ange.pdf. 

However, while FRA is not required to analyze CO2 emissions in this 

Conformity Determination it is important to note that the Authority is 

taking steps that may result in reduced emissions from cement 

production. Most notably, the Authority will allow the use of recycled 

materials (e.g. aggregates and Supplementary cementitious materials 

(SCM)) if they meet durability and maintainability standards in 

cement. SCMs are commonly used in concrete mix designs for civil 

infrastructure. SCMs substitute cement content with industrial waste 

and by-products, such as silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace 

slag, and fly-ash, as appropriate to the required performance. The use 

of these recycled materials (and other requirements for construction 

waste recycling), will reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with materials manufacture and disposal, including those from cement 

production. 

It is also noteworthy that cement manufacturer emissions are 

regulated in the State of California under AB32, and are covered in the 

cap and trade program.

14 The analysis of Impact AQ#4, Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions During Construction, fails to include the 

GHG emissions from the production of materials 

used in construction. Concrete production, 

especially, creates very high GHG emissions. A 

recent paper, attached, estimates these emissions 

to be so high as to offset twenty to thirty years of 

GHG emissions reductions from the reduction in 

VMT due to the operation of the HST. When 

properly analyzed, the impact should be 

considered of substantial intensity under NEPA.

Transportation 

Solutions 

Defense and 

Education fund, 

May 27, 2017, 

via email

Same as above.