March 2011 Final EIS 

4-1 

4.0 Comments and Coordination 

4.1 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has consulted with the Cooperating Federal 

Agencies (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Surface Transportation Board (STB), 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Park Service (NPS)) as well as state 

agencies, resource agencies, and other governmental agencies in the preparation of this 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1

. 

4.1.1 INTERAGENCY MEETINGS DURING PREPARATION OF THE EIS 

FRA and its third-party contractor held interagency meetings during preparation of the 

EIS to seek input and obtain information from other governmental agencies with unique 

expertise or knowledge of the project area. These meetings included: 

 August 28, 2006, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, FHWA, California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT), Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and San Bernardino 

Associated Governments (SANBAG). 

 October 12, 2006, Interagency meeting. San Francisco, CA. Agencies: FRA and 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

 November 1, 2006, Interagency meeting, teleconference. Agencies: FRA, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

 December 19, 2006, Interagency meeting. Barstow, CA. Agencies: FRA, BLM, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NPS, and California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG). 

 July 31, 2006, Resource Agency meeting, Barstow, CA. Agencies: FRA, USFWS, 

BLM, and CDFG. 

 

1

 DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, the project Applicant also participated in meetings when its knowledge of 

project design and development was needed. 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-2 

 September 25, 2007, Interagency meeting, Barstow, CA. Agencies: FRA, BLM, 

USFWS, and CDFG. 

 November 30, 2007, Interagency meeting, Los Angeles, CA. Agencies: FRA, 

USACE. 

 December 5, 2008, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, BLM, STB, FHWA, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Nevada SHPO. 

 March 3, 2009, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, BLM, FHWA, 

Caltrans, NDOT, ACHP, the California SHPO, and the Nevada SHPO. 

 April 28, 2009, Informational meeting with Native American Tribes, Las Vegas, 

NV. Agencies: FRA, STB, and BLM. Tribes: Chemehuevi Tribe 

 April 30, 2009, Informational meeting with Native American Tribes, Victorville, 

CA. Agencies: FRA, STB, and BLM. Tribes: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 

and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. 

 October 23, 2009, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USACE. 

 November 13, 2009, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USACE. 

 November 19, 2009, Teleconference with Native American Tribes. Agencies: FRA, 

STB, BLM, FHWA, Caltrans, the California SHPO. Tribes: San Manuel Band of 

Mission Indians. 

 January 6, 2010: Informational Meeting and Field Trip with Native American 

Tribes. Agencies: FRA and BLM. Tribes: Timbisha Shoshone, San Manuel Band 

of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of 

Mission Indians, and Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 January 7, 2010: Government-to-Government Consultation Meeting, BLM 

Barstow Field Office. Agencies: FRA and BLM. Tribe: Timbisha Shoshone 

 January 8, 2010, Government-to-Government Consultation Meeting, Highland, 

CA. Agencies: FRA and BLM. Tribe: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians

 January 8, 2010, Government-to-Government Consultation Meeting, San Manuel 

Band of Mission Indians Reservation, CA. Agencies: FRA, BLM, Caltrans. Tribe: 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

 February 8, 2010, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USFWS. 

 February 24, 2010, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USACE (Los 

Angeles District). 

 March 3, 2010, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), and Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA). 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-3 

 April 6, 2010, Informational Meeting with Native American Tribes, San Manuel 

Band of Mission Indians Reservation, CA. Agencies: FRA (represented by project 

archeologist consultants) and BLM. Tribes: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

 April 19 2010, Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and EPA. 

 September 14, 2010, Individual Government-to-Government Consultation 

meetings, Barstow, CA. Agencies: FRA, BLM. Tribes: San Manuel Band of 

Mission Indians and Twenty Nine Palms Band of Indians; Fort Mojave Indian 

Tribe and Chemehuevi Tribe; and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. 

 November 30, 2010. Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USFWS. 

 February 24, 2011. Interagency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and USFWS. 

4.1.2 COOPERATING AGENCY AND EIS WORKING GROUP CONSULTATION 

DURING PREPARATION OF THE EIS 

FRA held regular meetings with the Cooperating Agencies and EIS Working Group 

throughout preparation of the EIS. These meetings have included: 

 October 11, 2006, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, BLM, and 

FHWA. 

 June 21, 2006, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, FHWA, 

BLM, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 November 8, 2006, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, 

BLM, and FHWA. 

 April 20, 2006, Cooperating Agency meeting, Sacramento, CA. Agencies: FRA, 

STB, BLM, and NDOT. 

 January 10, 2007, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

and FHWA. 

 May 9, 2007, EIS Working group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 June 6, 2007, EIS Working Group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 April 8, 2008, EIS Working Group meeting, Sacramento, CA. Agencies: FRA, 

BLM, FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 June 26, 2008: EIS Working Group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 August 7, 2008: EIS Working Group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-4 

 December 10, 2008: EIS Working Group meeting. Agencies: FRA, STB, BLM, 

FHWA, NDOT, Caltrans, and NPS. 

 November 12, 2009, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: 

FRA and STB. 

 November 17, 2009, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, and 

BLM. 

 November 18, 2009, EIS Working Group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, 

BLM, NPS, FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 November 25, 2009, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and NPS. 

 December 8, 2009, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and 

FHWA. 

 December 9, 2009, EIS Working Group teleconference. Agencies: FRA, STB, 

BLM, NPS, FHWA, NDOT, and Caltrans. 

 December 10, 2009, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and STB. 

 January 20, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: FRA 

and NDOT. 

 February 18, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, BLM, 

FHWA, and NDOT. 

 March 5, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: FRA 

and FHWA. 

 April 15, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: FRA 

and FHWA. 

 July 1, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and FHWA. 

 July 21, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: FRA and 

NDOT. 

 August 25, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA and FHWA. 

 September 17, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, FHWA, 

BLM, Caltrans, and NDOT. 

 October 7, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, FHWA, 

BLM, Caltrans, and NDOT. 

 October 14, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Las Vegas, NV. Agencies: FRA and 

NDOT 

 October 14, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Barstow, CA. Agencies: FRA and 

NPS. 

 October 29, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference/webinar. Agencies: FRA, 

FHWA, BLM, Caltrans, and NDOT. 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-5 

 October 27, 2010, Cooperating Agency meeting, Washington, D.C. Agencies: FRA 

and FHWA. 

 November 3, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference/webinar, Washington, D.C. 

Agencies: FRA, FHWA, BLM, Caltrans, and NDOT. 

 November 22, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference. Agencies: FRA, FHWA, 

BLM, and STB. 

 November 30, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference/webinar. Agencies: FRA, 

FHWA, BLM, Caltrans, and NDOT. 

 December 15, 2010, Cooperating Agency teleconference/webinar. Agencies: FRA, 

FHWA, Caltrans, and NDOT. 

 February 11, 2011, Cooperating Agency teleconference/webinar. Agencies: FRA, 

FHWA, and Caltrans. 

4.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

4.2.1 SCOPING

The FRA initiated the formal scoping process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006. 

Three public scoping meetings were held as part of the public scoping process: 

Las Vegas Area Barstow Area Victorville Area

The White House Ramada Inn San Bernardino County Fair Grounds

3260 Joe Brown Drive 1571 E Main Street 14800 Seventh Street, Building 3

July 25, 2006 July 26, 2006 July 26, 2006

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

These meetings provided an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the 

scope of environmental topics that will be analyzed in the EIS. 

4.2.2 CIRCULATION/NOTIFICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS 

FRA initiated the public review and comment period of the Draft EIS by publishing a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIS in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009. 

FRA mailed notice of the Draft EIS availability to approximately 2,500 individuals on the 

project mailing list (including property owners within 500 feet of the proposed rail 

alignments). The notice included information on how to obtain a copy of the Draft EIS, 

the deadline for comments to be submitted, a brief description of the Action Alternatives 

and proposed elements of the project, and the date, location and time of three public 

hearings to be held in the project area as follows: 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-6 

Las Vegas Area: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 5:30 – 8:00 p. m. 

Hampton Inn Tropicana 

4975 Dean Martin Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89118 

Barstow Area: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. 

Ramada Inn 

1511 East Main Street 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Victorville Area: Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. 

Green Tree Golf Course 

14144 Green Tree Boulevard 

Victorville, CA 92395 

Notice was also published in the Victorville Daily Press, the Barstow Desert Dispatch, the 

Las Vegas Sun, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. These notices describe the project, 

indicate where and how to obtain copies of the Draft EIS, inform of the deadline for 

comments to be submitted, provide the dates and locations of the public hearings. 

FRA placed copies of the Draft EIS and appendices at following libraries: 

 Victorville City Library 

15011 Circle Drive, Victorville, CA 92395 

 Barstow Library 

304 East Buena Vista, Barstow, CA 92311 

 Las Vegas Library 

833 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV 89101 

FRA also made electronic versions of the Draft EIS and appendices accessible through 

FRA’s website: www.fra.dot.gov

4.2.3 CIRCULATION/NOTICING OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS

FRA initiated the public review and comment period of the Supplemental Draft EIS by 

publishing a NOA of a Supplemental Draft EIS in the Federal Register on September 3, 

2010. 

FRA mailed notice of the Supplemental Draft EIS availability to approximately 2,500 

individuals on the project mailing list (including property owners within 500 feet of the 

proposed rail alignments). This list was updated in June 2010 to help ensure greater 

accuracy. The notice included information on how to obtain a copy of the Supplemental 

Draft EIS, the deadline for comments to be submitted, a brief description of the project 

modifications and additions since publication of the Draft EIS, and the date, location and 

time of two public hearings to be held in the project area as follows: 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-7 

Las Vegas: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:30 – 8:00 p. m. 

Hampton Inn Tropicana 

SW Event Center B 

4975 Dean Martin Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89118 

Victorville/Barstow Area: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 5:30 – 8:00 p.m. 

Lenwood Hampton Inn 

Jackrabbit Room 1 

2710 Lenwood Road 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Notice was also published in the Victorville Daily Press, the Barstow Desert Dispatch, the 

Las Vegas Sun, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. These notices described the project, 

indicated where and how to obtain copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS, informed the 

public of the deadline to submit comments, and provided the dates and locations of the 

public hearings. 

FRA placed copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS and appendices at following libraries: 

 Victorville City Library: 15011 Circle Drive, Victorville, CA 92395 

 Barstow Library: 304 East Buena Vista, Barstow, CA 92311 

 Las Vegas Library: 833 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV 89101 

 Clark County Library: 1401 E. Flamingo, Las Vegas, NV, 89119 

FRA also made electronic versions of the Supplemental Draft EIS and appendices 

accessible through FRA’s website: www.fra.dot.gov.

4.3 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE 

DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

FRA has prepared responses to all written or oral comments receive on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Comments and FRAs responses have been compiled and 

organized by topic and are presented below on tabular form. 

4.3.1 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS 

FRA received comments from the following parties during the public review period on the 

Draft EIS. 

 American Magline Group 

 Bigley, Arthur 

 Bilt International 

 BLM Barstow 

 Breuer, Mark 

 California Dept. of Water 

Resources, Floodplain 

Management Branch 

 California Public Utilities 

Commission 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-8 

 California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

 Carder, D. Ross 

 Carrell, Matt 

 Center for Biological Diversity 

 CCDOA 

 CDFG 

 City of Barstow 

 Clark, Juanita 

 California Nevada Regional 

Conservation Committee Desert 

Committee 

 Cogan, Karen 

 Councilmember Terry Caldwell, 

Victorville 

 Dale, Lawrence E. 

 DesertXpress Enterprise 

 Donovan, Kelly 

 EPA

 Fagg, Darrell 

 FHWA – CA

 Fitzsimmons, Laura 

 Ford, Ginger 

 Friedman, Alexander 

 Fordsham, Gene M. 

 Gordon, Brett 

 Hepker, George 

 Hernadez, Carmen 

 High Desert Opportunity 

 Hinojos, Manny 

 Hughes, Brendan 

 Kane, Kevin 

 Kilpatrick, Jennifer 

 Lamfrom, David (National Parks 

Conservation Association) 

 Martinelli-Price, Patricia 

 Miranda, Edwardo 

 National Parks Conservation 

Association 

 Nevada Department of Wildlife 

 Nevada Division of Water 

Resources 

 NDOT 

 Nolan, JP 

 Nevada SHPO 

 Office of Assemblyman Steve 

Knight 

 Office of Congressman Buck 

McKeon 

 Office of Supervisor Brad 

Mitzelfelt 

 Peterson, Margaret 

 Piechota, Tom 

 Redlinger, Jeffrey 

 Rhoads, Jeffrey 

 Rocha, Dolores

 Rodriguez, Carolina 

 Rothschild, Mike 

 Rubino, John R. 

 San Bernardino County – Land 

Use Services 

 San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians 

 SANBAG 

 Serrano, Manny 

 Shenberger, Richard 

 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 

 SolaTrek 

 Southern California Edison 

 Southern Nevada Water 

Authority 

 Stewart, Thomas 

 Sumner, Larell D. 

 Taylor, David 

 Trowbridge, Glen 

 Union Pacific Railroad 

 Washington, Stan 

 Waybright, Charles
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-9 

Comments received on the Draft EIS and FRAs response to these comments are organized 

by topic and presented in Table F-4-1.

4.3.2 COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

FRA received comments from the following parties during the public review period on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. 

 Abraham, Ed 

 Air Transportation Association 

 Allegiant Air 

 Allen, Mark 

 Anderson, Kevin (Ironworkers 

Local 433) 

 Atilano, Lucy (Ironworkers Local 

433) 

 Barstow Community Hospital 

 Borgman, Karin 

 Brown, Charles 

 Caldwell, Terry (City of Victorville 

Council Member) 

 California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board – Lahontan Region 

 California State Lands 

Commission 

 CALTRANS 

 Center for Biological Diversity 

 Chavez, Remijio A. 

 City of Barstow (Meyers Nave) 

 City of Barstow (Richard D. 

Rowe) 

 CCDOA 

 Clark County Department of Air 

Quality & Environmental 

Management (DAQEM) 

 Coco-weld, Amber A. 

 Condon, Jill L. 

 Conway, Robert A. (Ironworkers 

Local 433) 

 Dale, Lawrence 

 Desert Conservation Program 

 Dew, Lionel 

 Dieleman, Bob 

 Dieleman, Crystal 

 Doulton, R. 

 Elwis, Charles 

 EPA

 Fancy, Bryan J. 

 Farmer, Steven 

 Fierro, Mark 

 Gonzalez, Juan 

 Guest, Jeff 

 Hall, Charles (CCDOA) 

 Hall, Rich 

 Handelman 

 Hansen, David 

 Harrison 

 Jenkins, Howard 

 Jenkins, Howard and Lynda 

 Kennedy, Aileen

 Knight, Assemblyman Steve 

 Krogh, Didrik 

 Kubacki, Joseph 

 Lee Tran Troung, Robert 

 Lee, Brian 

 Lisha, Eric 

 Loffelmacher, Maria 

 Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power 

 Luchterhand, Al 

 Makar, Steve 

 Manas, Joe 

 Marks, Philip H. 

 Martin, Rod 

 Martini, Alfred G. 

 McEachron, Ryan 

 McIntyre, Julie Hackbrath 

(Mayor ProTem of Barstow) 

 Misiura, Walter and Charlotte 

 Mougala, Tarig 

 National Air Carrier Association 

 National Parks and Conservation 

Association 

 NDOT 

 Newberry Springs Harvard Real 

Property Owners Association 
DesertXpress 4.0 Comments and Coordination 

March 2011 Final EIS 

4-10

 Perez, Alejandro 

 Pleri, Jim 

 Price, Michael

 Randall, Carol 

 Richter, Doug 

 Robertson, James S. 

 Ross, Carl 

 Rothschild, Mike 

 Rowe, Richard (City of Barstow 

City Manager) 

 San Bernardino County Dept. of 

Public Works 

 San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians 

 Seitz, Greg 

 Sielski, Mark 

 Sierra Club – CNRCC Desert 

Committee 

 Silva, Tim (City of Barstow 

Councilmember) 

 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 

 Southern California Edison 

 Southwest Airlines 

 Stimpfel, Ted (Newberry Springs 

Harvard Real Properties 

Association) 

 Stimson, David A. 

 Tarango, McKenzie 

 Torres, Tamara (High Desert 

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce) 

 Unknown 

 Vasseur, Robert A. 

 Velma, Byra 

 Von, Larry 

 Warren, Elizabeth 

 Washington, Stanley 

 Watts, Billy 

 Waybright, Charles 

 Zannis, Mark 

 Ziska, Alinka Woyton

Comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS and FRAs response to these comments 

are organized by topic and presented in Table F-4-2.
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

1 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

Cogan, Karen If the train went in, it would cut down on the number of cars on the road and, 

particularly, when stopped in traffic, harmful gases being belching into the 

air. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

2 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

DesertXpress Enterprises Section 1.2.2 discusses the 3.04 million annual trips diverted from I-15 as a 

result of the project. The EIS mentions the benefit of reducing auto 

emissions and saving fuel. The EIS should also discuss the benefit in terms 

of reducing global warming and meeting the goals of the federal 

Administration and the States, including recent legislation signed by the 

Governor of California.

Section 3.11.2 of this Final EIS discusses the effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on greenhouse gas emissions, which are considered a primary 

contributor to global warming. The EIS analysis shows that the Preferred 

Alternative would result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when 

compared to the No Project Alternative in both 2013 and 2030.

3 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

DesertXpress Enterprises The introduction refers to the ―No Action condition‖ and states that it is being 

used for comparison. It should be explained as to whether this refers to the 

―No Action Alternative‖ or to the Baseline?

The No Action Alternative is described in Section 2.1.3 of this Final EIS and is 

considered the Baseline for analysis purposes under the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The No Action Alternative includes 

planned and programmed transportation improvement that would occur within 

the study horizon year 2030.

4 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

DesertXpress Enterprises Mitigation Measure AQ-2 refers to the ―Build Alternative.‖ Please clarify that 

this does not apply to the Applicant‘s Proposed EMU technology.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in the Draft EIS was unique to the diesel (DEMU) 

locomotive technology. As the electric (EMU) locomotive technology was 

selected for the Preferred Alternative, this mitigation measure is no longer 

applicable or necessary. Clarification has been included in Section 3.11.3 of 

this Final EIS.

5 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

DesertXpress Enterprises Section 3.11.5, entitled ―Measures to Minimize Harm‖ should be renamed as 

―Mitigation Measures‖ in order to maintain consistency throughout the EIS.

This section in the Draft EIS is superseded by Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS 

which is entitled "Mitigation Measures for the Preferred Alternative."

6 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

DesertXpress Enterprises The discussion of climate change concludes that emissions are predicted to 

increase under both technologies proposed for the project, when compared 

to no project. Does this conclusion account for the number of vehicle trips 

the project will take off of the freeway, as described on page 3.13-12? This 

must be clarified because the project would actually result in reduced net 

emissions, just as reported by the consultants at the recent EIS Public 

Hearings held in April, 2009.

See response to comment 2. Under the Preferred Alternative, GHG emissions 

would decrease in association with the diversion of passenger vehicles that 

would otherwise have traversed the entire distance between southern 

California and Las Vegas. 

7 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Additionally, EPA is concerned about the selection of the staging areas and 

the potential impacts that may result to sensitive receptors. In light of the 

potential proximity of schools and other sensitive receptors, we are 

particularly concerned about the impacts to these areas resulting from the 

proposed Project. 

Recommendation:

The Final EIS should describe the specific location for all staging areas to be 

used, and confirm that these locations would result in the least 

environmental impacts and disruptions to sensitive receptors.

Section 2.4.3, Table F-2-8, and Figures F-2-3 through F-2-7 of this Final EIS 

describe, list, and depict temporary construction areas (TCAs) for the 

Preferred Alternative. TCAs would be used as staging areas referenced in the 

comment. TCAs are not located in areas near air quality sensitive land uses. 

8 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Although the Draft EIS reports in Table ES-1 that the Project will have no 

adverse operational or construction impacts to air quality (except for NOx 

emissions if DEMU technology option is chosen), the document contains 

insufficient information to present this conclusion. The Draft EIS does not 

comprehensively assess the Project's operational and construction direct, 

indirect, or cumulative impacts to air quality. To address this insufficiency, 

the Final EIS should include a complete description of potential impacts and 

commitments to reduce those impacts.

Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS discusses the updated air quality effects of 

the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action and other Action 

Alternatives, including operational and construction period emissions. 

Mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative are also listed in Section 

3.11.3 of this Final EIS.

March 2011 4-11 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

9 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In particular, EPA has concerns regarding: the minimal mitigation measures 

to curb particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from 

construction equipment

The Preferred Alternative includes the electric (EMU) locomotive technology 

option, which would result in substantial reductions in particulate matter and 

nitrogen oxide emissions during operations. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and 

AQ-3, identified in Draft EIS Section 3.11.5, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5, 

added to Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS, would be applied during the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative. These mitigation measures would 

reduce fugitive dust emissions by requiring a fugitive dust control plan for each 

of the two air basins.

10 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In particular, EPA has concerns regarding: the need for a more 

comprehensive examination of the mission offsets needed to meet general 

conformity

As set forth in Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative 

would result in a net reduction of most criteria pollutants and would not exceed 

any criteria pollutant de minimis threshold either during operations or 

construction. Therefore, no General Conformity determination is required. 

11 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In particular, EPA has concerns regarding: the lack of air quality impact 

assessment from fill and excavation transport 

Section 3.11.2 of the Final EIS contains additional analysis of construction 

period emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative including impacts 

related to fill and excavation transportation. Also see Mitigation Measures AQ1 and AQ-5 which address construction period air quality effects. 

12 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In particular, EPA has concerns regarding: the need for a staging area plan 

which minimizes exposures to sensitive receptors and residents. 

See response to comment 7. Temporary construction areas (TCAs) are not 

located in areas near air quality sensitive land uses.

13 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA The Final EIS should include an analysis of potential localized hotspot impact 

on PM10 .

All construction-period emissions, including particulate matter (PM10), have 

been recalculated as described in Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS. All 

emissions calculations, and underlying assumptions, have been used in 

calculating the emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative (see 

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

14 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA The Final EIS should include a discussion of the regional impacts of 

increased NOx emissions on the area's ability to attain the ozone standards.

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net reduction in nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) emissions when compared to the No Action Alternative. See Section 

3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS. 

15 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Final EIS should evaluate the general conformity applicability for the other 

emissions associated with the Federal action (i.e., construction, rail 

emissions, etc.) and include a discussion to this effect.

As set forth in Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative 

would result in a net reduction of most criteria pollutants and would not exceed 

any criteria pollutant de minimis threshold either during operations or 

construction. Therefore, no General Conformity determination is required. 

16 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA The Final EIS should include an analysis of the availability and feasibility of 

purchasing the needed NOx emission offsets.

See response to comment 15 above.

March 2011 4-12 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

17 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In the Final EIS, identify homes and sensitive receptors located within at 

least 200 meters from possible alternatives in Victorville, Baker, Barstow, 

and Las Vegas where would be increase in truck and construction 

traffic/idling, increased roadway and rail traffic, construction activities, 

vehicular traffic to and from parking structures and staging area activity, and 

compare these numbers between alternatives. If the Project would result in 

high average daily traffic (10,000 average daily traffic (ADT), for example), 

then the Final EIS should at least identify the total tons per year anticipated 

for the six most significant MSATs, namely diesel particulate matter (DPM), 

acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, for each 

alternative.

The locations where traffic levels would be the highest would be at passenger 

stations. Both the Victorville and Las Vegas passenger stations included in the 

Preferred Alternative are not located in close proximity to sensitive land uses. 

Maintenance facilities in Victorville, Baker, and Las Vegas are also not located 

near sensitive land uses. Construction activities would result in increased 

truck traffic but would not result in traffic volumes exceeding 10,000 average 

daily trips (see Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final EIS). Final 

EIS Section 3.11.2.3 provides a CO2 hotspot analysis at roadways proximate 

to the Victorville and Las Vegas facilities.

18 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Include an assessment of diesel emissions and provide plans for improving 

air quality through reducing diesel emissions during construction activities. 

EPA is available to work with FRA to evaluate the appropriate level of air 

quality analysis for this Project.

All construction-period emissions have been recalculated as described in 

Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS to include diesel emissions during 

construction.

19 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Identify design alternatives and options to further minimize MSAT and 

localized air emission impacts including indoor air quality improvements for 

all sensitive receptors within the project are such as schools and day care 

facilities.

See response to comment 17.

20 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Due to the serious nature of the PM10 and 8-hour ozone conditions in the 

Mojave Desert Air Basin and in Clark County, EPA recommends that the 

best available control measures (BACM) for these pollutants be implemented 

at all times and that the Final EIS and ROD incorporate the Construction 

Emissions Mitigation Plan. At a minimum, these measures should be 

incorporated into the ROD. We recommend that all applicable requirements 

under local rules and the following additional measures be incorporated into 

a Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan.

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3, identified in Draft EIS Section 3.11.5, 

and Mitigation Measure AQ-5, added to Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS, would 

be applied during the construction of the Preferred Alternative. These 

mitigation measures would reduce PM emissions by requiring a fugitive dust 

control plan for each of the two air basins. These measures will be 

requirements of the project and incorporated in the Record of Decision (ROD) 

for the project.

21 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Recommendation: 

The Final EIS should identify and commit to specific mitigation measures or 

specific emission reduction target levels not only for fugitive dust emissions, 

but also for exhaust emissions.

Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS includes substantial mitigation measures to 

reduce particulate matter emissions during construction. Specifically, please 

see Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 designed to minimize fugitive dust 

from construction activities. These measures will be requirements of the 

project and incorporated in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the project. 

22 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Commit to additional minimization measures for these emissions Section 3.11.3 of this Final EIS includes substantial mitigation measures to 

reduce particulate matter emissions during construction. FRA intends for 

these measures to be requirements of the project and incorporated in the 

record of decision (ROD) for the project.

23 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Provide a quantification of (1) the additional air quality impacts associated 

specifically with the trucking of the fill and (2) the air quality benefits 

expected to be achieved by specific mitigation measures. If prior analysis of 

emissions and mitigation strategies has been conducted, update the Final 

EIS to reflect this.

Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS contains additional analysis of constructionperiod emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative. The revised 

analysis includes all emissions from the truck trips needed for the anticipated 

earthwork (see the response to comment 27 below), as well as additional 

fugitive dust associated with the earthwork activities. For more detail on 

specific assumptions in the air quality analysis, please see the worksheets 

contained in Appendix F-L. 

24 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Describe the timeline and threshold for railway improvements to be feasible 

as well as the resulting air quality impacts that the region will experience 

without transit

Section 3.11.2 of this Final EIS analyses air quality effects in both 2013 and 

2030. Air quality benefits of the Preferred Alternative would be realized as 

soon as the project is completed and open for passenger service. The project 

is anticipated to proceed under a Design-Build approach. 

March 2011 4-13 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

25 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA In particular, EPA has concerns regarding: the absence of a thorough 

discussion of the localized PM10 air quality impacts.

All construction-period emissions, including particulate matter, have been 

recalculated as described in Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS. With respect to 

localized fugitive dust (PM10) emissions that would occur from soil disturbance 

activity during construction, the MDAQMD Rule 403.2 (Fugitive Dust Control 

for the Mojave Desert Planning Area) and Clark County DAQEM 

Requirements, discussed in detail under Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and 

Mitigation Measure AQ-3, respectively, require implementation of all 

practicable fugitive dust control measures. With the implementation of these 

measures, temporary effects related to localized PM10 emissions would be 

less than significant. 

26 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA Identify specific mitigation measures need to: 1) protect the Project from the 

effects of climate change, 2) reduce the Project's adverse air quality effects, 

and/or 3) promote pollution prevention or environmental stewardship.

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net reduction of most criteria 

pollutants as well as greenhouse gas emissions and would not exceed any 

criteria pollutant threshold. See Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS. In addition, 

mitigation measures are identified in Section 3.11.3 to reduce all potential 

impacts identified, including those related to construction.

27 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

EPA 

-Quantify estimated fill from tunneling activities and the number of truck trips 

that would result

-Describe the methods, equipment to be used and location of the final 

disposal for this material.

-include a revised air quality analysis and updated emission comparison to 

significance thresholds to account for the emissions from the truckloads 

required to transport fill, as well as additional fugitive dust associated with 

the new fill site. 

Depending upon the approved design-build method, the tunnels will be either 

bored using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) or excavated using a drill and blast 

method. If a TBM, they most likely will be twin bored tunnels, with roughly a 17-

foot radius each; or if using drill and blast excavation, most likely with a single 

large excavated horseshoe shaped tunnel approximately 31 feet tall. The 

material removed from a mile of twin bored tunnel will be approximately 

123,000 cubic yards. The material will be removed by truck back along the 

trackway corridor to be crushed and processed in one of the construction 

staging areas. The geology and geotechnical conditions of the area indicate 

that due to the relatively high quality of the material, most or all of it will be 

used for fill material and sub-ballast for the construction of the project, thereby 

reducing the imbalance between excavated and filled sections of the project 

alignment. Lead civil engineers for this project estimate that the total amount 

of material to be removed from the tunnels to be 282,000 cubic yards. The 

total estimated earthwork quantities for the entire project are: Excavation = 4.6 

million cubic yards (not including the tunneling); Embankment = 10.5 million 

cubic yards. Section 3.11.2 of this Final EIS contains additional analysis of 

construction period emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative. The 

revised analysis accounts for the emissions from the truckloads required to 

transport fill, as well as additional fugitive dust associated with the earthwork 

activities.

March 2011 4-14 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

28 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

SANBAG The EIS ignores air quality impacts to the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). 

Although the net overall effect of the project on air quality is positive, there 

will be an increase in pollutant emissions for vehicles in the SCAB by virtue 

of the diversion of air passenger trips to auto. The SCAB is already the most 

polluted air basin in the U.S. Although the likely increase in emissions in the 

SCAB is small, it is nevertheless an impact that is omitted in the Draft EIS.

It is unlikely that there would be any material change in criteria pollutant 

emissions occurring within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) as a result of the 

expected diversion of air passenger trips to passenger vehicle trips. This is 

because mobile-source emissions have three components – start emissions, 

travel (VMT) emissions, and evaporative emissions. There would be no 

change in start emissions for trips that originate from within the SCAB, as 

these start emissions would occur regardless of the trip destination being the 

DesertXpress (DXE) facility or an area airport. However, start emissions 

related to return trips would occur entirely within the Mojave Desert Air Basin 

(MDAB), as those vehicle starts would occur at the DXE facility in Victorville. 

VMT emissions would also occur within the SCAB regardless of whether the 

destination is the DXE facility or a local airport. While VMT within the SCAB 

would be longer for some trips, it would be shorter for others. The ―hot soak‖

evaporative emissions are those emissions that occur because of the engine 

remaining hot for a period of time after the car is turned off, causing gasoline 

evaporation to continue when the car is parked. For diverted trips, these hot 

soak emissions that would have occurred at a SCAB local airport would now 

occur within the MDAB at the DXE facility parking lot. In addition, there may 

be reductions in air craft and/or ground-support equipment criteria pollutant 

emissions occurring within the SCAB as a result of the anticipated diversion of 

air passengers. Based on these reasons described above, no material change 

in criteria pollutant emissions occurring within the SCAB are anticipated. 

Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS provides a complete analysis of the regional 

operational effects of the Preferred Alternative.

29 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

Councilmember Terry Caldwell, 

Victorville

Removing cars from I-15 will help air quality. The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

30 Air Quality and Global 

Climate Change

Kane, Kevin Project would improve air quality in Victorville area. The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

31 Alternatives BLM Barstow In the summary of the Applicant‘s proposed action, 4A, Mountain Pass via 

southerly alignment (add "through the NE corner of the Mojave Preserve") 

across Nipton Road 

Section 2.3.2.1 of this Final EIS notes that Segment 4A would traverse a 1.55 

mile portion of the Mojave National Preserve.

32 Alternatives BLM Barstow Changing the route may encroach on the MNP and this should be clearly 

shown to maintain consistency with the remainder of the document and so 

there is no doubt from the map that the alternative would encroach on the 

MNP. 

Numerous figures in the Draft EIS depicted Segment 4A traversing a 1.55 mile 

portion of the Preserve near Nipton Road. For one example, see Draft EIS 

Figure 3.1-9.

March 2011 4-15 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

33 Alternatives BLM Barstow In addition, the new route alternative to include a Barstow Station option has 

not been previously discussed in a manner that addresses the City of 

Barstow‘s concerns. Is this a route Barstow would want—it appears to 

require the condemnation of houses through the middle of town. Other route 

options to address their issues should be discussed with the City of Barstow 

and Cooperating Agencies who may be affected to minimize or avoid 

unnecessary conflicts. 

Final EIS Section 3.2, Growth, includes findings from FRA's independent 

evaluation of the possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. 

Appendix F-E includes FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local 

economic expert John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. The possibility 

of a Barstow-area station was specifically considered in Section 1.7.1 of the 

Draft EIS, however the ridership studies did not project significant ridership 

generation from the Barstow area to warrant construction of a separate station. 

As noted in Appendix F-D, the Ridership Study developed for the project and 

independently reviewed by FRA, the Greater Barstow area was projected to 

generate below 3 percent of estimated total train ridership. Moreover, as 

noted in the response to comment 363, the Applicant met several times with 

officials at the City of Barstow. These meetings resulted in no consensus 

regarding the need for or any specific location of a Barstow station. In 

addition, the agency Preferred Alternative includes a passenger station at the 

Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) located off of the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway 

interchange. This passenger station is located approximately 20 miles south 

of Barstow which is close enough to provide convenient access for Barstow 

area residents. The comment appears directed at Segment 2A/2B from 

Lenwood to Yermo, which has not been incorporated as part of the Preferred 

Alternative. Segment 2C, included as part of the Preferred Alternative, was 

proposed within the Supplemental Draft EIS in specific response to concerns 

expressed by the City of Barstow regarding potential land use conflicts. The 

Segment 2C alignment included in the Preferred Alternative requires no 

condemnation of any type of building. 

34 Alternatives BLM Barstow Entire Chapter 2.0: FRA‘s approach to maximize "flexibility" has made it 

difficult to complete the evaluation adequately. BLM cannot comprehensively 

evaluate differences in impacts based on alternatives when the alternatives 

have not been clearly defined and a preferred alternative selected.

The Draft EIS Executive Summary included Tables ES-1 through ES-7 to 

facilitate comparison among alternatives. Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final 

EIS identifies the components of the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 3, 

includes discussion of the aggregated impacts and mitigation measures 

associated with the Preferred Alternative as well as comparisons of the 

Preferred Alternative with other alternatives considered in the EIS. 

35 Alternatives BLM Barstow The east end of the Ivanpah Lakebed should be avoided. Segment 4(b) 

bisects Ivanpah Dry Lake, an area identified in LUPs disallowing motorized 

vehicles.

In response to this issue, Segment 4B was modified by the Project Applicant to 

avoid the Ivanpah Dry Lake bed as well as a proposed solar energy project is 

this same area. This modified alignment is referred to as Segment 4C and 

was studied in detail in the Supplemental Draft EIS. Segment 4C has been 

included as the Preferred Alternative (see Section 2.3.2.1 of this Final EIS for 

more details. 

36 Alternatives BLM Barstow Likewise, impacts related to boring a tunnel through a mountain should be 

analyzed and the assumptions for analysis given. It appears that more land 

may be required for storage of cut and fill of materials. 

See response to comment 27. 

37 Alternatives BLM Barstow With the alternatives identified in the Draft EIS, there is no alternative the 

BLM can chose as a preferred alternative other than the No Action 

Alternative. Generally, the BLM chooses a preferred alternative prior to 

release of a Draft EIS. After revision of the alternatives (based on the 

following paragraphs and attached comments), the BLM may be able to 

choose a preferred alternative for the revised Draft EIS or the Final EIS. This 

is necessary whether the BLM is the lead agency or a cooperating agency.

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) implementing regulations 

(40 CFR 1504.12) do not require identification of a preferred alternative in the 

Draft EIS stage. This Final EIS identifies the Preferred Alternative (see 

Section 2.4) and discusses the impacts and mitigation measures associated 

with that alternative (see Chapter 3).

March 2011 4-16 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

38 Alternatives BLM Barstow In consideration of the BLM‘s evaluation of a right-of-way application, the EIS 

must address the land that is to be considered for all aspects of this project. 

If a width greater than 60 feet is required, the EIS must identify these areas 

in order for BLM to consider inclusion of that land in the right-of-way.

Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this Final EIS identifies all facilities and lands 

necessary to construct and operate the proposed project. In addition, the 

study area for most environmental topics includes additional buffer areas to 

ensure that all potential impacts have been considered. For example, the 

study area (also referred to as the Area of Potential Effect) for cultural 

resources includes an additional 200 feet on either side of the proposed rail 

centerline to account for both direct and indirect effects of the Preferred 

Alternative, as described in Section 3.7, Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources. The impact area for each resource is described within Methods of 

Evaluation of the respective Section of Chapter 3 in the Draft EIS. 

39 Alternatives BLM Barstow The document should indicate how FRA is handing the analysis of design 

decisions in areas where DXE has not yet made design decisions.

 FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface 

Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely 

constructed, operated, and maintained within freeway ROW areas and that will 

allow for greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned 

and programmed improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B 

includes the manual, which is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

40 Alternatives BLM Barstow There has been no resolution of the route proposed to run through the 

Mojave National Preserve. The NPS indicated in previous meetings that it 

cannot authorize this route, and did not indicate otherwise at the December 

10, 2008 meeting. According to the administrative draft Biological 

Assessment (BA) received December 3, 2008, this is the proposed route 

alternative on which Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) proposes to 

consult with the FWS. Since the BLM would, as a cooperating agency, hope 

to adopt this document for its review of the proposal and alternatives, the 

BLM must have this issue resolved prior to publication of the revised Draft 

EIS or the Final EIS.

The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4A. The Biological 

Assessment/Opinion for the project is based on Segment 4C which is included 

in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS, which 

describes the components of the Preferred Alternative. However, as noted in 

Section 2.5.2 of this Final EIS, Segment 4A is identified as the environmentally 

superior alternative insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation 

impacts associated with Segment 4C. Notwithstanding, Section 2.5.2 of the 

Final EIS notes that FRA and Cooperating Agencies could not choose 

Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as there is presently no mechanism 

in place for the National Park Service to grant such a right-of-way through the 

Mojave National Preserve. A draft Biological Assessment was submitted to 

the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on December 16, 2010. 

Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the project, the 

USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which will detail all 

mitigation requirements for the project. 

41 Alternatives BLM Barstow In order for the BLM to grant a right-of-way for an alternative route that does 

not pass through the Preserve, a Biological Assessment must address the 

route of the preferred alternative. This may require additional biological 

surveys.

Because an alternative that does not go through the Preserve has not been 

analyzed in the Draft EIS and no consultations or resource surveys have 

been conducted, there may be biological, cultural or other concerns that 

would require additional mitigation.

The Draft EIS evaluated two alignment options for Segment 4, Segment 4A 

(through the Preserve) and Segment 4B. The Supplemental Draft EIS 

evaluated an additional alternative, Segment 4C. The Biological 

Assessment/Opinion for the project is based on Segment 4C which is included 

in the Preferred Alternative. A draft Biological Assessment was submitted to 

the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted On December 16, 2010. 

Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision for the project, the USFWS is 

expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which will detail all mitigation 

requirements for the project which will also be incorporated into the ROD. 

42 Alternatives Carrell, Matt I think when it comes to locomotive technology alternatives, it is 

unquestionable in my mind that the fully electric train (EMU) is the superior 

alternative. Perhaps not in terms of up-front cost or time to put into service, 

but it is clear that both the United States, and especially California are 

working very hard to move away from further use of dirty polluting supplylimited fossil fuels. Even hybrid should be shunned in the face of a fully 

electric alternative. 

This comment indicates a preference for the electric (EMU) locomotive 

technology option. The EMU technology option has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

March 2011 4-17 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

43 Alternatives Carrell, Matt Frankly, many residents in Victorville would rather not have yet another 

diesel-fume exhausting device running through our town. The whole point of 

taking cars of I-15 wasn't just to alleviate traffic was it? Surely, the 

environmental benefits of electric trains should make themselves selfselecting....

This comment indicates a preference for the electric (EMU) locomotive 

technology option. The EMU technology option has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

44 Alternatives CBD Alternative 4A is problematic not only for its impacts to desert tortoise, but 

also for its proposition of establishing of a right-of-way through the Mojave 

National Preserve. Taking land from the Mojave National Preserve as the 

Applicant proposes sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the 

magnificent legacy that our National Park system is, not only to citizens of 

the United States, but to people worldwide. Further analysis of alternate 

routes for DesertXpress must be carried out before any decision is made. 

Alternative routes must be considered to substantially lessen the significant 

impacts of the project on biological resources, especially impacts on the 

threatened desert tortoise.

The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4A. The Biological 

Assessment/Opinion for the project is based on Segment 4C which is included 

in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS, which 

describes the components of the Preferred Alternative. 

Section 2.5.2 of this Final EIS identifies Segment 4A as the environmentally 

superior alternative, insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation 

impacts associated with Segment 4C. Segment 4A is also established as the 

environmentally superior alternative because of its shorter length and relatively 

close adherence to the I-15 and/or Nipton Road corridors. Notwithstanding, 

Section 2.5.2 of this Final EIS notes that FRA and Cooperating Agencies could 

not choose Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as there is presently no 

mechanism in place for the National Park Service to grant such a right-of-way 

through the Mojave National Preserve. 

45 Alternatives CCDOA Draft EIS incorrectly categorizes the SNSA as a "planned but unprogrammed 

transportation improvement." Instead, it should be a "Planned and 

programmed transportation improvement project."

The Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) project was included in 

the cumulative analysis of this Final EIS (see Section 3.16). The Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), as Joint Lead Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the Ivanpah 

Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362), have 

suspended preparation of an environmental study for a proposed Southern 

Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) in Clark County, Nevada. The FAA 

along with the BLM are suspending work on the environmental study because 

the Clark County Department of Aviation has advised the JLA that it has 

reduced the level of effort on planning for the proposed Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport at this time. At this time, FAA and BLM do not know 

when work will resume on the environmental study. This delay does not affect 

FRA's obligation to include the SNSA as a reasonably foreseeable project, and 

for that reason, FRA is correct to continue to include the SNSA in its 

discussions of reasonably foreseeable projects.

46 Alternatives City of Barstow Location of a Maintenance Facility in Barstow is mentioned in the EIS, 

however, this facility is never discussed in the EIS. Maintenance facilities 

would be located at either end of the alignment and in Barstow. No 

discussion pertaining to such a maintenance facility was found in the EIS. 

Critical issues are the facilities (a) alternative site locations, (b) size and 

operational characteristics, (c) employment generation, and (d) potential 

environmental impacts pertaining to potential locations. While mention is 

made of a maintenance facility in Baker discussion of the facility for Barstow 

was not found.

There is no reference within the Draft, Supplemental, or Final EIS to any 

DesertXpress maintenance facility in the City of Barstow. The commenter 

appears to be referring to a proposed maintenance facility associated with the 

California-Nevada Super Speed Passenger Train (Maglev), a separate project 

and is discussed in Section 1.6.1 of the Final EIS.

March 2011 4-18 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

47 Alternatives City of Barstow Consideration of a station in Barstow, as initially indicated in response to the 

Scoping process, was not included in this EIS. 

The possibility of a Barstow-area station was specifically considered in Section 

1.7.1 of the Draft EIS, however the ridership studies did not project significant 

ridership generation from the Barstow area to warrant construction of a 

separate station. As noted in Appendix F-D, the Ridership Study developed 

for the project and independently reviewed by FRA, the Greater Barstow area 

was projected to generate below 3 percent of estimated total train ridership. 

Moreover, as noted in the response to comment 363, the Applicant met 

several times with officials at the City of Barstow. These meetings resulted in 

no consensus regarding the need for or any specific location of a Barstow 

station. In addition, the agency Preferred Alternative includes a passenger 

station at the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) located off of the I-15/Dale Evans 

Parkway interchange. This passenger station is located approximately 20 

miles south of Barstow which is close enough to provide convenient access for 

Barstow area residents. 

48 Alternatives DesertXpress Enterprises Through discussions with officials from the Union Pacific Railroad, we are 

aware of their general concerns regarding the sharing of their railroad right of 

way with this and other proposed high speed rail and urban rail transit 

projects across the country. In response, we have informed them of our 

ability and willingness to address such concerns in the highly urbanized 

portions of the Las Vegas Valley by placing the DXE tracks at the eastern 

edge of the railroad right of way, and if necessary, to use an aerial guideway 

structure in those urbanized portions of the corridor.

This comment summarizes the discussions the Applicant has had with Union 

Pacific Railroad regarding Segment 6C. The Preferred Alternative does not 

include this segment but rather includes Segment 6B, which initially follows the 

I-15 freeway corridor into the metropolitan Las Vegas area and then parallels 

the corridor along Dean Martin Drive. Please see Section 2.5.1 of this Final 

EIS. 

49 Alternatives DesertXpress Enterprises The Applicant hereby identifies the EMU as our proposed train technology 

for many compelling reasons including the following:

• Reduces travel time which adds significantly more ridership, which in turn 

further defers or eliminates the need for costly and disruptive widening of I15 throughout the corridor

• Saves more energy

• Provides a greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and other 

pollutants

• Does not directly consume fossil fuel and makes the project and the entire 

corridor less vulnerable to major increases in fuel costs

• Reduces dependence upon imported petroleum

• Is significantly quieter

This comment indicates a preference for the electric (EMU) locomotive 

technology option. The EMU technology option has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative (agency and environmentally preferable). Please see 

Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

March 2011 4-19 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

50 Alternatives DesertXpress Enterprises DesertXpress identifies its proposed Las Vegas station location to be Las 

Vegas Central Station B for the following reasons:

• The property owner has performed extensive site planning, feasibility 

studies, engineering and entitlement work which confirm that a DesertXpress 

terminus at this location will be both physically achievable and economically 

viable.

• Although the EIS states that use of Las Vegas Central Station B would 

result in the displacement of existing industrial and warehousing facilities (at 

3.1-58), the property owner has confirmed that the existing facilities are 

occupied by tenants who are subject to short term leases or early 

termination. There are abundant alternative and comparable or superior 

light industrial and warehousing facilities for the current tenants to select 

from for lease throughout the city, and they are available at extremely 

competitive rates.

• The Owner has worked with the local governmental entities to obtain 

approval of a Tentative Map and Commercial Subdivision of H1 zoning 

which would allow for the station.

• The Owner has prepared the Regional Infrastructure Services Evaluation 

Report and has informed DXE that they will soon submit it to Clark County 

Comprehensive Planning and participating agencies, as part of the High 

Impact Project Application process required by the County. The Owner 

requested detailed station information from DXE and their report has 

incorporated that information. DXE believes that this central location 

provides excellent access, and it is the only site that can be served by any of 

the train alignment alternatives in Las Vegas (Alignment Alternatives 6A, 6B, 

and 6C). It is accessible from both the north (Downtown) and south (South 

Strip) ends of the urbanized area, and as such, it is conveniently accessible 

for train passengers and local residents alike. Because of the work already 

done by the property owner, DesertXpress believes that the station can be 

constructed at this site within the expedited implementation schedule that 

has been adopted.

This comment indicates the Applicant's preference for the Las Vegas Central 

Station B. Subsequently, the Applicant requested both the Las Vegas Central 

Station B and Southern Station passenger station be included in the Preferred 

Alternative. DesertXpress Enterprises requested the Southern Station to be 

added as an option for the Las Vegas passenger station based on more 

detailed financial work that has been completed. The Las Vegas Southern 

Station would not require construction of 1.8 miles of elevated track way which 

would be needed to reach the Central Station B site option. This would also 

avoid potential noise, visual, and land use impacts associated with the 

elevated track way and Central Station B site option without substantially 

affecting ridership levels. Please see Section 2.4.2 of this Final EIS. 

51 Alternatives EPA Additionally, we support the electric multiple unit (EMU) locomotive 

technology versus the diesel electric multiple unit (DEMU) technology due to 

clear capacity, speed, air quality and climate change benefits. The Final EIS 

should clearly summarize these benefits in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement.

This comment indicates a preference for the electric (EMU) locomotive 

technology option. The EMU technology option has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

52 Alternatives NV SHPO Due to our unfamiliarity with a rail related 'autotransformer', please describe 

this structure/item, and supply a photo of a typical representation. If it is a 

structure, elevation drawings are needed.

Autotransformer plans were included within Appendix A-5 of the Draft EIS. 

These are structures of approximately 8 feet in height. These are further 

described in Final EIS Section 2.2.2.2. Appendix F-C of this Final EIS includes 

scaled elevation drawings of these autotransformers. 

53 Alternatives Rhoads, Jeffrey The terminal station location Las Vegas should be Downtown adjacent to the 

RTC multimodal transit facility to facilitate linkage to the regional public 

transit network and support adjacent high density transit oriented 

development.

This comment expresses a preference for the Downtown Las Vegas 

passenger station location. This station was not included in the Preferred 

Alternative. Instead, the Preferred Alternative includes either the Southern 

Station or Central Station B. Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final 

EIS. 

54 Alternatives Rhoads, Jeffrey The terminal station should be configured to allow future extension of the 

system toward Salt Lake City or possibly Phoenix/Tucson.

Comment noted. The future extension of the rail system as proposed in this 

comment is outside the scope of this EIS. 

March 2011 4-20 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

55 Alternatives SANBAG The Draft EIS reference the fact that an investment grade analysis of project 

finances will be conducted in the future. Until the investment grade analysis 

of the project is prepared and investors capitalize the project, the availability 

of private equity to construct and operate the project is uncertain. SANBAG 

believes it is important that both the State and San Bernardino County 

jurisdictions not make commitments that would increase the financial burden 

to the State or localities should the DesertXpress fail to meet revenue 

expectations. This is particularly true given that the additional transportation 

capacity offered by DesertXpress could result in diversion of entertainment 

and tourism business to Las Vegas as opposed to remaining in Southern 

California.

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As 

described in Final EIS Section 1.5.1 DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may 

become eligible to for apply for financing from the federal government through 

a federal loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing (RRIF) program.

56 Alternatives Southern California Edison Discuss interconnects required by this project. The project does not require nor include interconnects to other rail facilities. 

Connections with electrical facilities would be achieved through the included 

"utility corridors" in Victorville, Baker, and at the Frias Substation Site. Please 

see Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

57 Alternatives California PUC Commission staff concurs with the Applicants decision to construct a fully 

grade separated railroad passenger service. Commission staff also 

recommends that the construction of the passenger station in Victorville be 

constructed to not include any at-grade pedestrian crossings and to meet all 

ADA requirements. Modifications or construction of highway rail-crossings, 

including pedestrian crossings, require Commission approval. 

As described in Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS, this project will be 

fully grade-separated. As such, the project design will not include any at-grade 

pedestrian crossings of track, and the rail alignment rights-of-way will be 

fenced. Stations would meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) (see Section 2.3.2 of this Final EIS).

58 Alternatives Sumner, Larell D. I believe for the future the best transportation train is the electric. This comment indicates a preference for the electronic (EMU) technology 

option. The EMU technology option has been included in the Preferred 

Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

59 Alternatives Union Pacific The draft EIS indicates that the BNSF main line right of way between 

Victorville and Barstow may be an alternate routing for HSR. Union Pacific is 

opposed to shared use of the BNSF right of way with the DesertXpress 

because planned speeds in excess of 110 mph may impair the operation of 

our fright trains or subject us to greater liability.

Several alternative alignments, including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

(BNSF) corridor, were eliminated for particular sections of the route. The 

alternatives eliminated as potential alignment segments are detailed in Table F2-5 of this Final EIS, along with the rationale for their elimination. 

60 Alternatives - General 

- Consultation 

Process

BLM Barstow Intro and Table 2-5: FRA‘s response is not the typical course. The issuance 

of a Draft EIS is typically the timeframe to begin Section 7 consultation since 

their expertise provides analytical information used in the decision making 

process. BLM will need to have a biological opinion prior to making a 

decision or signing a record of decision. It is important that the consultation 

process is started early in the NEPA process. Without a preferred alternative 

included as part of the Draft EIS BLM is unsure what alternative USFWS will 

include in the consultation.

Section 7 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began 

during preparation of the Draft EIS. A draft Biological Assessment was 

submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on 

December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for 

the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which 

will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

61 Alternatives/Appendix 

A

NV SHPO Need substation locations noted on appropriate site plans and elevations, or 

on their own pages.

Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Draft EIS notes that substations would be 

located on the lands identified for maintenance facilities: the Victorville 

Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF), the Las Vegas Area 

Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF), and the Baker Maintenance of Way 

facility site. Plans for these maintenance facility sites including site plans were 

included in the Draft EIS within Appendix A-4. Appendix F-C of this Final EIS 

includes updated plans that illustrate the placement of the substations. 

62 Alternatives/Appendix 

A

NV SHPO Need elevations of fuel and water tanks for the Las Vegas Areas MSF site 

options included on the elevation drawing of the station buildings and 

structures. Also, need the height of the proposed signal tower, guard house, 

etc. listed on the drawing.

Please see Appendix A-4 of the Draft EIS which included these drawings. No 

above ground fuel or water tanks are part of the project design. The signal 

towers shown in the Draft EIS are no longer elements of this project. 

March 2011 4-21 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

63 Alternatives/Cumulati

ve

EPA Address the interrelationship and potential overlap of the proposed 

alternatives and the technology to these, and other high speed rail 

proposals, in the Project area. The Final EIS should identify alternatives that 

minimize impacts of the proposed train networks by coordinated the location 

of stations, parking lots, bicycle storage facilities, and additional 

infrastructure, where feasible.

Other planned and potential high speed rail projects are described in Section 

1.6, Relationship to other Transportation projects and plans in the Study Area, 

of this Final EIS and potential cumulative impacts from the California High 

Speed Rail System is discussed further in Section 3.16. At present, none of 

the other projects are within 50 miles of the Preferred Alternative, and thus do 

not overlap with the DesertXpress project. 

64 Alternatives; 

Hydrology and Water 

Quality

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board

The Mojave River locations (OMSF Site 1 and TCA 1A) should be avoided 

and relocated to uplands away from the critical Mojave River habitat area. 

The Bell Mountain Wash locations (OMSF Site 2 and TCA 1B) should be 

preferred, although runoff from these facilities should be treated or managed 

to avoid impacts to Bell Mountain Wash and underlying groundwater.

This comment indicates a preference for the Victorville Operations, 

Maintenance, and Storage Facility site 2 (OMSF 2) alternative. The OMSF 2 

option has been included in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 

2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

65 Avoidance 

Alternatives

Bilt International The Victorville station should be built on the Fancy Family Trust land. The comment indicates a preference for a specific Victorville station site, that 

appears to be coterminous with VV3A and VV3B. The Preferred Alternative 

includes Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3B) which is located in the vicinity of the I15/Dale Evans Parkway interchange.

66 Avoidance 

Alternatives

CCDOA At the intersection of Segments 5 and 6, just south of the I-15 Interchange at 

Sloan Road, the preferred alternative (Alignment 5B/6B) may conflict with the 

planned Super Arterial Connector ramps just north of the point where the 

alignment has crossed over to the western side of I-15. The Draft EIS does 

not provide sufficient design detail for CCDOA to determine whether a 

conflict exists. The CCDOA will need to work with the project Applicant to 

arrive at an acceptable engineering solution for this potential conflict. 

Alignment 5A/6A, with an alignment in the median of I-15, would require the 

southbound Super Arterial off-ramp be constructed so as to pass over the 

DesertXpress tracks but would not otherwise conflict with the connector 

ramps for the Super Arterial. Alignment 5a/6a would, however, limit the 

ability to connect the Super Arterial center transit way to the I-15 

HOV/Managed Lands that are proposed for the median of I-15 from Sloan 

Road to the I-15/I215 Interchange.

The project design in Segment 5 has been coordinated with plans for the 

Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) project and super arterial. 

The Sloan Maintenance facility was relocated at the request of the Clark 

County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) and studied in the Supplemental 

Draft EIS. Additional design issues associated with connector ramps with the I15 freeway would be resolved during detailed design once detailed plans are 

developed by CCDOA. It is important to note that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) as Joint Lead Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the Ivanpah Valley Airport 

Public Lands Transfer Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362) have suspended 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

SNSA in Clark County, Nevada. The FAA along with the BLM are suspending 

work on the EIS because the Clark County Department of Aviation has advised 

the JLA that it has reduced the level of effort on planning for the proposed 

Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport at this time. At this time, FAA and BLM 

do not know when we will resume work on the EIS.

67 Avoidance 

Alternatives

CCDOA Segment 5B near Primm: The preferred alignment of the DesertXpress at 

this Segment is 5B would conflict with the northbound on-and off-ramps for 

the new highway interchange. Moreover, to accommodate the DesertXpress 

tracks and trains, the interchange would have to extend over the tracks, and 

may penetrate into protected airspace. By contrast, alignment 5A, in the 

median of I-15, would not raise this problem.

 Please see Supplemental Draft EIS comment S-296, which reflects further 

dialogue/consultation between the commenter and the project Applicant on this 

matter. As noted in the response to comment S-296, FRA reviewed the 

proposal from DXE to shift the transition point between Segment 4C and 5B, 

as requested by CCDOA. This shift was achievable within the Area of 

Potential Effect for the project and did not alter any conclusions about the 

environmental effects of either segment. Accordingly, Appendix F-C (Plan and 

Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative) reflects this change. 

68 Avoidance 

Alternatives

CCDOA The proposed MSF site approximately five miles south of Sloan Road is 

preferred in the Draft EIS, yet would directly conflict with the planned 

alignment of the Super Arterial. (Exhibit 3) CCDOA cannot support any 

facility that would conflict with the Super Arterial and the use of the 

Transportation and Utility Corridor for airport-related utilities and 

infrastructure.

See response to comment 66 above

March 2011 4-22 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

69 Avoidance 

Alternatives

CCDOA Alternative site for the MSF would not conflict with the Super Arterial. 

CCDOA is willing to work with the project Applicant to develop a mutually 

acceptable avoidance alternative for the Sloan MSF if necessary.

See response to comment 66 above.

70 Avoidance 

Alternatives

CCDOA At the intersection of Segments 5 and 6, just south of the I-15 interchange at 

Sloan Road, the preferred alternative (alignment 5B/6B) may conflict with the 

planned Super Arterial Connector ramps just north of the point where the 

alignment has crossed over to the western side of I-15. The Draft EIS does 

not provide sufficient design detail for the CCDOA to determine whether a 

conflict exists. To that end, FRA should provide additional detail regarding 

this alignment.

See response to comment 66 above.

71 Avoidance 

Alternatives

DesertXpress Enterprises For the record, DXE did meet with the Mayor, City Manager of Barstow, and 

San Bernardino County representatives shortly after the scoping meetings 

and stated our commitment to work with the City in an effort to address their 

concerns. We provided detailed alignment drawings and discussed 

candidate locations for a potential Barstow station including a potential 

station at the proposed Industrial Park. We requested the City to provide 

feedback with their preferred alignment and station location, and we placed 

several calls to the City Manager thereafter to again request feedback on 

these questions. We did not receive feedback from the City until October of 

2008, at which time we met with the new City Manager, and other City staff. 

We subsequently have met with newly elected Mayor Gomez and again 

committed to work with the City in an effort to address any remaining 

concerns the City has. We are striving to expedite those discussions and 

should any potential revisions to the proposed alignment appear feasible, we 

will immediately inform the FRA and request that they be incorporated into 

the EIS.

Comment noted. 

72 Avoidance 

Alternatives

DesertXpress Enterprises DXE principals have coordinated with staff, consultants, and outside legal 

counsel from the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) who are 

involved in the planning of the proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport at a site near 

Jean, south of Las Vegas. Through those discussions, DXE recently learned 

that the alignment being developed by CCDOA for a dedicated access 

roadway to the proposed new airport, informally called the ―Super Arterial‖, 

that would parallel I-15 along the east side of the existing freeway, would 

conflict with the Sloan overnight maintenance and storage facility site for 

DXE. Consequently, CCDOA has identified a potential site alternative for the 

Sloan facility that would be located approximately two to three miles south of 

the site shown in the EIS, and their staff and consultant team have indicated 

that it may be possible for them to re-align the proposed Super Arterial to 

enable this site to be proposed as an Avoidance Alternative for the current 

Sloan site. It appears that this alternative site may be feasible, because it is 

located on BLM land immediately adjacent to I-15 that CCDOA apparently 

already had included in its environmental analysis for the Super Arterial. DXE 

will continue to work in cooperation with CCDOA to determine if this site 

would be a feasible Avoidance Alternative and if it would be, we will 

immediately request FRA to include it in the EIS.

See response to comment 66 above.

March 2011 4-23 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

73 Avoidance 

Alternatives

DesertXpress Enterprises The Applicant requests that a third alternative location for the Victorville 

Station Site be considered as an Avoidance Alternative adjacent to the 

Northern OMSF site 2 at the Dale Evans Parkway interchange. A preliminary 

layout of the alternative station site is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, the Applicant formally proposed a 

new Victorville Station Site (VV3). VV3 was fully evaluated in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative includes Victorville Station 

Site 3 (VV3). Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

74 Avoidance 

Alternatives

DesertXpress Enterprises Therefore, the Applicant hereby proposes that FRA consider Segment 4C as 

an Avoidance Alternative and analyze the potential environmental impacts of 

Segment 4C in the EIS.

Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, the Applicant formally proposed 

Segment 4C as an alternative alignment that would avoid conflicts identified for 

Segments 4A and 4B. Segment 4C was fully evaluated in the Supplemental 

Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative includes Segment 4C. Please see 

Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS. 

75 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Botanical surveys for almost any desert botanical species conducted in 

December is not considered reliable because most perennial species are in 

dormancy and may be difficult to identify, while most annual species are not 

present. This is especially true with native and non-native herbaceous 

species. Specific survey protocols exist for sensitive species, including the 

appropriate windows for survey, and can be obtained from USFWS and/or 

CDFG.

The botanical surveys for Segment 4C were conducted during the spring of 

2010 to determine the presence of any sensitive species within or adjacent to 

the proposed alignment. The proposed alignment in Nevada was previously 

surveyed for sensitive botanicals. The remainder of the alignment is within or 

immediately adjacent to the I-15 roadway or within an urbanized area and not 

supporting sensitive species habitat. 

Natural heritage data was utilized to determine potential habitat for sensitive 

botanical species within the project alignments. Prior to initiating construction, 

surveys will be conducted for sensitive botanicals utilizing appropriate Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) protocols including window of survey. Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS 

includes mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative which include 

preconstruction surveys for special-status species (Mitigation Measure BIO-2). 

76 Biological Resources BLM Barstow This is evident with the admission that no baseline surveys were conducted 

for invasive plant species (3.14-27).

The possible presence of invasive plant species will be surveyed prior to 

construction, as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, in Section 3.14.3 of this 

Final EIS. This measure includes several other provisions to ensure that no 

invasive species are introduced or spread during project construction. The 

measure requires coordination with BLM field offices and the National Park 

Service to ensure that appropriate practices are implemented to avoid the 

spread and introduction of invasive plant species. 

77 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Change "noxious weed species" to "invasive weed species." The term 

noxious is a legal term used by federal, state and county agricultural 

departments. The only noxious weed currently listed on page 3.14-27 and on 

CDFA‘s noxious weed list (A-Rated) is halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus). 

Replace noxious with invasive where it occurs in the EIS except when 

referring specifically to halogeton.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text so that the term ―noxious weed 

species‖ has been replaced with ―invasive, non-native weed species.‖ See 

Section 3.14.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision. 

78 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Under special-status plants, 48 species have been identified that could occur 

in the project study area. All California BLM FO‘s require that ground-based 

surveys be conducted for special-status plants and conform to minimum 

survey standards contained in BLM Manuel 6840-1 for this project type, 

consistent with policy. Since surveys were not conducted during Spring 2009 

will surveys be conducted during Spring 2010? Appropriate mitigation would 

apply to conserve these species and their habitats.

Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1 outlines the methodology utilized in the evaluation 

of biological resources. Appendix F-N contains a protocol-level biological 

survey for Segment 4C, the only segment of the Preferred Alternative that 

substantially departs from the I-15 freeway corridor and other previously 

developed areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 of this Final 

EIS would require preconstruction surveys for special-status plants (see 

Section 3.14.3). Qualified botanists will conduct preconstruction surveys for 

sensitive botanical species and invasive, non-native weeds prior to initiating 

construction of the project. If sensitive botanical species are observed within 

the temporary construction area of effect, avoidance and minimization 

measures will be applied by the project sponsor. 

March 2011 4-24 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

79 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Change "permanent loss of natural vegetation" to "permanent loss of native 

vegetation."

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text so that the term ―permanent loss of 

natural vegetation‖ has been replaced with ―permanent loss of native 

vegetation.‖ See Section 3.14.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this 

revision. 

80 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Change "natural vegetative communities" to "native vegetative 

communities." Change "Noxious weeds typically" to "Invasive, non-native 

species typically."

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text so that the term ―natural vegetative 

communities" has been replaced with "native vegetative communities". See 

Section 3.14.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision. 

81 Biological Resources BLM Barstow When referring to the Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

this project must conform to the California Desert Native Desert Plant Act 

specifically concerning the loss of Yucca, Prosopis and other native desert 

succulent and cacti species, consistent with BLM policy.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include a discussion of the 

California Desert Native Desert Plant Act. See Section 3.14.1.3 of this Final 

EIS for specific locations of this revision. Implementation of Mitigation 

Measure BIO-10 would require the project Applicant to comply with the 

California Desert Native Desert Plant Act. 

82 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Measures BIO-4; The BFO requires all proponents to submit an 

Invasive Weed Monitoring and Treatment Plan for approval prior to 

implementation of the project. Would FRA/DXE have this prepared for the 

Final EIS?

Please see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, which incorporates this mitigation 

language. 

83 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Measures BIO-9; The BFO requires all proponents to submit an 

Erosion Control and Restoration Plan for approval prior to implementation of 

the project. Could FRA/DXE have this prepared for consideration of 

adequacy in the EIS analysis? When the Erosion Control and Restoration 

Plan is not submitted and a part of the analysis, it is difficult to consider the 

mitigation objectives and it is a more difficult process to place these 

mitigation measures in a ROD.

The Erosion Control and Restoration Plan will be drafted and submitted to the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prior to initiating construction as part of 

the BLM right-of-way grant requirements. 

84 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Measures BIO-10; This project must conform to the California 

Desert Native Desert Plant Act and the SB County Code, subsection 

88.01,050, consistent with BLM policy.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include a discussion of the 

California Desert Native Desert Plant Act. See Section 3.14.1.3 of this Final 

EIS for specific locations of this revision.

85 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Measures BIO-14; This project must conform to the minimum 

survey and mitigation standards contained in BLM Manual 6840-1.

This Final EIS amends Mitigation Measure BIO-13 to reference that survey 

and mitigation standards must conform to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Manual 6840-1 (See Final EIS Section 3.14.1)

86 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Bio-6: The paragraph that starts "All succulents within the limits of 

disturbance will relocate" should include California as well as Nevada.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 of this Final EIS includes language clearly indicating 

that the limits of disturbance would be within California and Nevada (See Final 

EIS Section 3.14.3). 

87 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Mitigation Bio-4: When will invasive weed surveys be conducted and what 

protocol will be used?

Please see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which 

requires incorporation of weed control measures into project plans. These 

measures include the requirement to conduct an invasive weed survey of the 

project ROW prior to initiating project construction. The measure also sets 

forth criteria by which such surveys shall be conducted. 

88 Biological Resources BLM Barstow Vegetative community typing done by remote sensing indicates that 

comprehensive ground based botanical surveys were not conducted.

Section 3.14.2.3 of the Draft EIS describes the methodology used for 

vegetative mapping, including comprehensive reconnaissance-level pedestrian 

and windshield surveys . 

89 Biological Resources CBD The desert tortoise translocation plan needs to be included for public review 

and comment as part of this document.

As described in the Draft EIS (Mitigation Measure BIO-2), desert tortoise 

encountered during preconstruction surveys will be relocated off the project 

right-of-way based on a US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), and California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) approved project-specific Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan. Public 

disclosure of the agency-approved Desert Tortoise Relocation Plan is under 

the discretion of the aforementioned reviewing agencies. 

March 2011 4-25 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

90 Biological Resources CBD The impacts to desert tortoise are significant and adverse. Permanent 

impact to desert tortoise habitat at a minimum is identified 333.9 acres and 

at a maximum 1,383 acres. The EIS also identifies 60.7 is federally 

designated Critical Habitat in the Superior-Cronese unit is the minimum 

acreage permanently disturbed and a maximum of 589.3 acres in the 

Superior-Cronese, Ivanpah Valley and the Mojave National Preserve units. 

The Superior-Cronese unit has already sustained huge losses from previous 

large-scale projects including the Fort Irwin expansion.

Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS identifies the adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on desert tortoise habitat. While mitigation would reduce impacts 

to biological resources, when taken collectively, the DesertXpress project in 

combination with past, present, and future projects would result in a cumulative 

impact to special status plants and animals and their associated habitats. See 

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 for mitigation related to this species. 

Also see the Biological Assessment (Appendix F-M) submitted to the USFWS 

on December 16, 2010. Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS 

describes in detail the cumulative biological impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative in combination with other projects in the area of the Mojave 

National Preserve. 

91 Biological Resources CBD Mitigation measures are inadequate. No clear avoidance and minimization 

measures are identified. Additional surveys for a variety of sensitive species 

are proposed (at pg 3.14-68-69). These surveys should have done and the 

results used as the basis for the EIS.

Measures for the Preferred Alternative to reduce and avoid adverse impacts to 

biological resources have been developed in coordination with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 

and US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Ecological Services Offices in 

Ventura, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition to these measures, 

additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be 

implemented as a result of consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Assessment was submitted to 

the USFWS on August 17, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of 

Decision for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion 

(BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. The Bureau 

of Land Management will also identify site and resource specific measures that 

will be implemented as part of the right-of-way grant. The mitigation measures 

for biological resources are included in Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS and 

identifies 21 separate measures to mitigate potential impacts to biological 

resources as a result of project implementation. 

92 Biological Resources CDFG The proposed project is within the range of the Mohave ground squirrel 

(MGS). Not all lands within the range are potential habitat for the MGS. The 

Department reviews the potential for MGS habitat on a site specific basis. 

The Department evaluates potential MGS habitat on a site-by-site basis and 

as such, individual habitat analyses with documentation stating why the 

lands are or are not considered MGS habitat should be submitted to the 

Department for concurrence, and be available for public review. A Full MG 

report with trapping results may be adequate for concurrence proposes 

but was not submitted to the Department. In addition, if the sites do 

contain occupied habitat, the developer is at risk of taking a Threatened 

species without an Incidental Take Permit, which is a violation of Fish and 

Game Code § 2080.

The Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) Habitat Suitability Report was submitted to 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and coordination with Tanya 

Moore and Becky Jones occurred on March 5, 2008. The CDFG concurred 

with the habitat suitability conclusions and suggested protocol level trapping 

may be required to determine presence/absence of this state-listed sensitive 

species as required by CDFG regulation, policy, and species protocol. While 

impacts to suitable MGS habitat is disclosed in the DEIS, SEIS, and FEIS, the 

Surface Transportation Board has issued a determination, (see Final EIS 

Section 1.4.1.2) that the DesertXpress project is exempt from state and 

location regulations including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Planning, permitting and 

implementation of the proposed project will not require the issuance of an 

incidental take permit from CDFG relative to MGS. Additional coordination 

between the FRA, the project Applicant and CDFG will occur during final 

engineering design and development of the construction, operation and 

maintenance (COM) plan in order to avoid, as feasible, additional incidental 

take of MGS.

93 Biological Resources CDFG As noted in section 3.14.2, (Biological Resources), Methods of Evaluation, 

"A survey targeting potentially occurring special-status plants was not 

conducted in the California portion for the alignment in 2007. Subsequent 

surveys would be appropriate. 

See response to comment 75.

March 2011 4-26 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

94 Biological Resources CDFG Segment 2B, according to the provided calculations and tables, crosses the 

least amounts of streams (impacting more linear feet), impacts the least 

amount of desert tortoise habitat, has the least amount of temporary impacts 

to Mohave ground squirrel habitat (although, nearly double the permanent 

impacts over the alignments 2A) and avoids Mohave fringed-toed lizard 

habitat. However, the Department cannot verify this information give the 

small scale of the provided maps. 

The Biological Assessment submitted to the USFWS includes higher resolution 

resource maps as appendices and is now attached to this Final EIS as 

Appendix F-M. 

95 Biological Resources CDFG Since segment 4B is intended to transverse the mountain range avoidance, 

minimization and/or mitigation measures should be developed to address the 

following: impacts to big horn sheep and other large ungulates that may be 

attracted to the tunnels, impacts to their migration patterns

Segment 4B is not part of the Preferred Alternative; however, mitigation 

measures are included in Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS in order to avoid and 

address the potential impacts to desert bighorn sheep (see Mitigation Measure 

BIO-2).

96 Biological Resources CDFG Since segment 4B is intended to transverse the mountain range avoidance, 

minimization and/or mitigation measures should be developed to address the 

following: the gila monster, a California Species of Special Concern and,

Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS includes mitigation measures for potential 

impacts to gila monster (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2). 

97 Biological Resources CDFG Since segment 4B is intended to transverse the mountain range avoidance, 

minimization and/or mitigation measures should be developed to address the 

following: the potential conflict of proposed mitigation measures and 

locations of energy projects being developed within the Ivanpah Valley.

 The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4B. Segment 4C is 

included in the Preferred Alternative and was developed specifically to avoid 

the referenced conflicts with energy sites in the Ivanpah Valley. 

98 Biological Resources CDFG Section 3.14-16 Desert Tortoise Survey Methods indicates that only select 

areas within a 50 mile stretch of California were surveyed for the presence or 

absence of desert tortoise. The Department needs appropriate surveys to 

establish mitigation measures including, but not limited to: 

translocation plans, burrow excavation, burrow creation and mitigation 

ratios. The document details the method used as "two biologists walking 

meandering transects within an 300-foot wide corridor..." the Department 

recommends for this project surveys be conducted according to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise protocol. 

As discussed in Draft EIS Section 3.14.2.3, the approach to desert tortoise 

surveying was collectively determined through coordination with US Fish and 

Wildlife Services (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG). The agencies reviewed preliminary maps of the proposed alignment 

and provided guidance and recommendations on special-status species 

surveys and habitat assessments during the agency coordination meetings. 

Mojave Desert tortoise relocation instead of translocation would not be 

implemented for this project. A determination will be made regarding 

appropriate tortoise burrow excavation, creation and habitat mitigation ratios 

through the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process.

99 Biological Resources CDFG Currently, as part of another project's desert tortoise translocation plan, 

permanent desert tortoise fencing has been established in an effort to 

prevent translocated or displaced individuals from entering Interstate 15 

and/or the right of way. Given the submitted maps, the Department was 

unable to determine the spatial relationships between the proposed 

alignments and the existing desert tortoise fencing. If either of the proposed 

alignments were to pass through (north of) the fenced areas, it is 

foreseeable that the Applicant may encounter artificially high numbers of 

tortoise and could be undermining the mitigation efforts implemented for the 

previous project. This could be more detrimental to the species' welfare than 

may be initially realized.

If either of the proposed alignments were to affect the tortoise fencing by 

necessitating its removal or relocation, then the fencing would need to be 

replaced and maintained. A Department approved maintenance plan may be 

required to be implemented by the Applicant. Additionally, if the desert 

tortoises are to be impacted by fence relocation, a desert tortoise 

translocation plan should be approved by the Department prior to 

construction.

If the proposed project adversely impacts established mitigation measures, the 

measures will be reconstructed or re-established outside the area of impact. 

This Final EIS includes the best available information regarding potential 

impacts to these measures and a commitment to reconstruct or re-establish 

the measures through coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and/or Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). All Mojave Desert tortoise fencing that is removed 

as a result of project implementation would be reconstructed based on 

USFWS and CDFG protocol. Mojave Desert tortoise that occur within the 

project area would be relocated away from the proposed right-of-way and onto 

adjacent lands containing acceptable tortoise habitat. A relocation plan will be 

developed as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-15 and the Biological 

Opinion. A draft Biological Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on 

August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the 

issuance of a Record of Decision for the project, the USFWS is expected to 

issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for 

the project. 

March 2011 4-27 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

100 Biological Resources CNRCC Desert Committee We are concerned, as well, that both Segments 4A and 4B of the proposed 

route would place at risk the California population of the Northeastern 

Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Unit. Segment 4A would physically reduce 

critical desert tortoise within the Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Area 

(DWMA), an area deemed necessary to the recovery of the species by the 

Recovery Plan. DWMAs provide reserve-level protection for the desert 

tortoise. The Recovery Plan recommends that land management within all 

DWMAs restrict human activities that negatively impact desert tortoises so 

as to advance the recovery of the population. Segment 4A would further 

impair the recovery of the desert tortoise by creating a barrier to wildlife 

movement and by isolating habitat between the proposed rail alignment and I15. 

Segment 4C has been included in the agency Preferred Alternative. Section 

3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS identifies the adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on desert tortoise habitat. Several mitigation measures in in 

Section 3.14.3 of this Final EIS specifically address impacts to desert tortoise.

101 Biological Resources CNRCC Desert Committee Segment 4B equally threatens the Northeastern Recovery Unit population 

through the reduction of quality tortoise habitat. Furthermore, the proposal to 

traverse the area on the flank of the Clark Mountains is of grave concern as 

this habitat – at an elevation of approximately 3,000 feet, is crucial for the 

survival of the Northeastern Desert Tortoise population under the impact of 

climate change. Segment 4B, as well, would cause habitat fragmentation and 

create a barrier to normal movement by the desert tortoise. 

All alignment options through the Mountain Pass area - Segments 4A, 4B and 

4C would result in impacts to Desert tortoise habitat. These impacts have 

been disclosed in the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS. Final EIS Sections 

3.14.2 and 3.14.3 discuss the impacts of the Preferred Alternative on biological 

resources including Desert tortoise. Final EIS Section 3.14.5 provides 

mitigation measures to address identified effects. Segment 4C is identified in 

Final EIS Section 2.5.1 as part of the Preferred Alternative. A draft Biological 

Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final 

submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of 

Decision for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion 

(BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

102 Biological Resources DesertXpress Enterprises The introductory paragraph states that cumulative effects to biological 

resources are discussed in this section; however, no such discussion 

appears in this section.

Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS describes in detail the 

cumulative biological impacts of the Preferred Alternative in combination with 

other with other past, present, and future projects in the surrounding areas. 

103 Biological Resources DesertXpress Enterprises The methodology described for biology identifies the project area of 

disturbance as within a 400-foot-wide corridor in areas where the alignment 

is outside of the I-15 ROW. This area of potential disturbance is much wider 

than the actual area that would be disturbed; therefore, the impacts are 

greatly over-stated. This should be clarified.

The biological study area was formulated to fully account for all permanent and 

temporary impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed 

facility. The study area was also used to identify and analyze potential indirect 

impacts associated with the project construction and operation. Because of 

this, the study area is larger than the eventual footprint of the proposed 

project.

104 Biological Resources DesertXpress Enterprises Table 3.14-8 shows the number of acres of habitat significantly impacted; 

however, it does not specify whether these impacts are associated with 

direct takes of habitat or indirect impacts from noise, dust, etc. Please 

clarify. Also, please qualify these estimates to reflect the fact that this 

analyzed area of potential disturbance is much wider than the actual area 

that would be disturbed as per the above comment; therefore, the impacts 

may be greatly over-stated.

Section 3.14.2 of this Final EIS identifies the adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on biological resources.

March 2011 4-28 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

105 Biological Resources EPA Expand upon Mitigation Measure BIO-20 to identify which wildlife species will 

experience barriers to movement across I-15 once a fully fenced rail corridor 

is in place. The Final EIS should include a commitment to incorporate into 

the design of the rail network specific wildlife crossing features that are 

developed with specific movement patterns for each species. Information 

such as road kill data can inform placement of larger wildlife movement 

structures. Monitoring of wildlife usage of existing highway under-and overcrossings (remote camera, scat and tracking analysis, etc.) is important for 

designing how the new rail corridor can be designed to maintain existing 

movement.

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 

3.14.4.5. Also see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which 

sets forth measures regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife 

crossings. Where the alignment is in the freeway ROW, the project sponsor 

would install culverts under the proposed railroad line that match existing I-15 

or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing transportation 

facilities, the project sponsor would install culverts at natural drainage features 

and at appropriate intervals to allow for wildlife passage, including desert 

tortoise to pass under the proposed rail grade. In order to reduce potential 

impacts to desert bighorn sheep, no natural drainages would be obstructed or 

blocked by the construction or operation of the proposed project. The culverts 

would be designed and spacing would be determined through coordination with 

USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, and NDOW, to ensure they meet agency wildlife 

standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line and 

would direct tortoises to the culverts. The impact to the Mojave Desert 

ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters including the 

narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, 

operation, and maintenance. 

106 Biological Resources EPA Incorporate goals and objectives developed for the California Missing 

Linkages Report and the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project 

and identify how Project alternatives have been designed to allow for 

continued wildlife movement: 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/program_efforts.htm

http://scwildlands.org/missinglinks/reports/download_missinglinkages.htm

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include a discussion of the goals 

and objectives of the California Missing Linkages Report and California 

Essential Habitat Connectivity Project in regards to wildlife movement. See 

Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision.

107 Biological Resources EPA Use data developed for the statewide California Wildlife Action Plan and the 

Nevada Wildlife Action Plan to inform proposed to avoid resources. Both 

wildlife action plans address at-risk species and provides range maps. 

Http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/WAP

http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/nevada.html

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include a discussion of the 

California Wildlife Action Plan and the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. See 

Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision.

108 Biological Resources EPA In addition to reviewing the available data indicated where species ranges 

may be bisected by the Desert Xpress corridor, EPA recommends that FRA 

facilitate a meeting of scientists and local experts to explore specific 

locations and design features for wildlife crossings that are needed. 

Specifically, FRA should coordinate directly with Nevada Department of 

Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game to ensure that wildlife 

crossing structures are 1) designed appropriately for use by affected wildlife 

and 2) sited correctly to allow for most effective use by the full range of 

animals that currently cross the I-15 Corridor. We are available to assist in 

establishing an interagency meeting of wildlife experts.

See response to comment 105 above. 

109 Biological Resources EPA Identify the connections that would likely remain after construction of the 

Project and highlight these areas as "connectivity zones" for protection and 

preservation. In the Final EIS, identify specific commitments for preservation 

of these corridors through mitigation measures and cooperative agreements.

See response to comment 105 above. 

March 2011 4-29 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

110 Biological Resources EPA The Final EIS should also clearly articulate under which alternatives Big Horn 

Sheep, Desert Tortoise and Mohave Ground Squirrel would be less impacted 

and to what extent.

Section 3.14.2.4 of this Final EIS provides a comparative analysis between the 

Preferred Alternative and the other action alternatives and the relative adverse 

effects on biological resources. See Tables F-3.14-1 through F-3.14-3.

111 Biological Resources EPA As applicable, disclose how fencing the train route will affect wildlife 

movement and discuss how fencing for safety purposes will be integrated 

with proposed wildlife passages, such as culverts, bridges, viaducts, 

underpasses, and overpasses.

See response to comment 105. 

112 Biological Resources National Parks Conservation 

Association

This proposed route (Segment 4A), which overlays a 1.55-mile section of 

Mojave National Preserve, would have significant habitat reduction impacts 

to multiple species, including the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), a 

species federally listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service and provided legal protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Segment 4A as proposed in the Draft EIS not only encroaches on the 

Mojave National Preserve, it also presents significant negative impacts to 

desert tortoises living in the Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Unit 

(DWMA). From the Desert Xpress Draft EIS, Section 3.14.1.1, the section 

entitled ―Federal Regulations‖: On June 28, 1994, the [United States Fish 

and Wildlife] Service approved the final Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) 

Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan). The Recovery Plan divides the range of the 

desert tortoise into six recovery units and recommends establishment of 14 

desert wildlife management areas (DWMAs) throughout the recovery units. 

Within each DWMA, the Recovery Plan recommends implementation of 

reserve-level protection of desert tortoise populations and habitat, while 

maintaining and protecting other sensitive species and ecosystem functions. 

The design of DWMAs should follow accepted concepts of reserve design. 

As part of the actions needed to accomplish recovery, the Recovery Plan 

recommends that land management within all DWMAs should restrict human 

activities that negatively impact desert tortoises.

The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4A. The Biological 

Assessment/Opinion for the project is based on Segment 4C which is included 

in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS, which 

describes the components of the Preferred Alternative. Notwithstanding, 

Final EIS Section 2.5.2 identifies Segment 4A as the environmentally 

preferable alternative, insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation 

impacts associated with Segment 4C, is the shortest of all segment 4 

alignments, and stays closest to the I-15 corridor. 

113 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife Due to the fact that wildlife habitat within the project area for segments 5, 6, 

and 7 is quickly becoming marginal at best and therefore not likely to be 

inhabited by a large number of individuals, the Department views the threats 

to wildlife listed in Appendix L of the Draft EIS to be non-significant provided 

a reasonable set of minimization and mitigation measures is followed.

Comment noted. 

114 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife Both paragraphs cast somewhat inaccurate information. The following should 

be considered, Conservation management and special protections for flora 

and fauna are provided mainly by State and federal laws, regulations and 

policies, with management carried out by authorized agencies. Under the 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural resources, the Nevada 

Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of unique and rare species, those 

experiencing population declines in all or portions of their range within the 

state, and species having been provided some level of State and/or federal 

management protection through laws and policies. By nature, authorities to 

manage plant and animals overlap between the State and federal natural 

resource management agencies.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include additional information 

related to Nevada Regulations that provide context for the associated 

regulations of biological resources. See Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS for 

specific locations of this revision. 

March 2011 4-30 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

115 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife The remainder of the paragraph pretty much reflects NRS 503.585 which 

provides a definition and action to be taken by the Board of Wildlife 

Commissioners when a species of wildlife is determined threatened with 

endangerment, but does not provide the complete picture relative to 

classification of all State protected wildlife. Based on guidance found in 

NRS‘s 501.105, 501.110, and 501.181, wildlife classifications for protected, 

sensitive, and threatened wildlife are defined in NAC‘s 503.0035, NAC 

503.004, and 503.0045, respectively, and where criteria for determining 

when wildlife may be classified as protected and sensitive is in NAC‘s 

503.103 and 503.104, respectively.

Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS includes appropriate updates to the 

Regulatory Environment discussion.

116 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife The above points have relevance to section 3.14 and Appendix L where 

discussion and tabular presentation of wildlife is provided, especially where a 

species ―Status‖ is so indicated.

Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS includes appropriate updates to the 

Regulatory Environment discussion.

117 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife Again, the degree to which construction and operation of the DesertXpress 

in Nevada along segments 5, 6, and 7 would impact wildlife species varies 

somewhat depending on the location along each segment. However at no 

point does the Nevada Department of Wildlife (Department) believe impacts 

would result in a significant population decrease caused by the high-speed 

rail project alone.

Comment noted.

118 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife After the first sentence, the paragraph weighs heavy on the administrative / 

regulatory aspects for wildlife. A balance with the same supportive 

description concerning plants can be found in the applicable NRS and NAC 

chapters for NDF.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include additional information 

related to Nevada Regulations that provide context for the associated 

regulations of biological resources. See Section 3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS for 

specific locations of this revision. 

119 Biological Resources Nevada Department of Wildlife State authorization required to move any wildlife from one location to another 

has its base in NRS 503.597, NAC 503.093 is more specific to authorization 

required before State protected (including those further classified as 

endangered, threatened, or sensitive) may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

The construction of the proposed project may impact sensitive plants regulated 

by the State of Nevada through the Nevada Division of Forestry. Section 

3.14.1.2 of this Final EIS includes appropriate updates to the Regulatory 

Environment discussion. However, also see Final EIS Section 1.4.1.2, which 

describes that the Surface Transportation Board issued a declaratory order 

stating that the DesertXpress project would not be subject to state and local 

environmental review, land use, or to other permitting requirements. 

March 2011 4-31 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

120 Biological Resources San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

In some areas of the right-of-way of I-15, protected native desert plants have 

re-established their presence over the years. The project should provide 

mitigation prior to the removal of such protected local native plants so that 

such plants can be relocated whenever possible.

Please see Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5, which explains that multiple year 

drought conditions led to a determination to conduct limited botanical surveys, 

given anticipated scarcity of resources. The botanical surveys for Segment 4C 

were conducted during the spring of 2010 to determine the presence of any 

sensitive species within or adjacent to the proposed alignment. The proposed 

alignment in Nevada was previously surveyed for sensitive botanicals. The 

remainder of the alignment is within or immediately adjacent to the I-15 

roadway or within an urbanized area and thus generally does not support 

sensitive species habitat. The California and Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program databases were reviewed for existing information regarding the 

location of previously observed sensitive botanical resources. In addition, the 

BLM resource specialist in the Barstow, Needles and Las Vegas field offices 

reviewed the project alignment for potential sensitive botanical resource 

habitat. Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1 for a discussion regarding 

the methodology used to evaluate biological impact to the affected 

environment. Final EIS Section 3.14.3 includes mitigation measures for the 

Preferred Alternative which includes preconstruction surveys for special-status 

species (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-2). 

121 Biological Resources Lamfrom, David Segments 4A and 4B would traverse prime tortoise habitat. Mitigation ratio 

should be five to one.

Segment 4C was selected as a Preferred Alternative. As described in Final 

EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-18 requires compensation for the 

permanent loss of desert tortoise habitat up to a ratio of 5:1. A draft Biological 

Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final 

submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of 

Decision for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion 

(BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

122 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

BLM Barstow It would be preferable to split Cultural resources and Paleontological 

resources into two sections. Please fix typo: "Historic archaeological sites 

may include" to "Historic archaeological sites may include....."

Comment noted. FRA acknowledges that cultural and paleontological 

resources are different. However, they are covered under Section 3.7, Cultural 

and Paleontological Resources, of this Final EIS. FRA has separated the 

discussion of cultural and paleontological resources within this chapter.

123 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

BLM Barstow The BLM is requesting that the proponent use the BLM's Potential Fossil 

Yield Classification [PFYC] system for rating paleontological resources 

sensitivity.

Paleontological sensitivity was evaluated using the criteria of the Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable 

Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995) (see Section 3.7.2.1 of this 

Final EIS).

124 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

DesertXpress Enterprises It might be appropriate to lay out the current schedule for the Programmatic 

Agreement with the SHPO described on this page. Also, it would be 

appropriate to point out that the Draft EIS impact evaluation area is wider 

than necessary for the utility corridor and for the alignment (115 ft. from 

centerline for direct impacts and 200 ft. from centerline for indirect impacts). 

Thus, if a certified archaeologist is out in the field during construction, 

impacts will be avoided or minimized within the actual area needed for 

construction equipment, which will be much smaller than 400-feet wide.

Comment noted. A Programmatic Agreement (PA) was executed for the 

project and is included in Appendix F-H.

March 2011 4-32 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

125 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

DesertXpress Enterprises With respect to Mitigation Measure CR-6, what is the extent of further 

literature review necessary to resolve the sensitivity of the geologic units? 

Please advise.

In addition to the studies already completed, as discussed in Draft EIS Section 

3.7.5, Mitigation Measure CR-6 requires that, before ground-disturbing 

activities begin, the project sponsor retain a qualified paleontologist as defined 

by the SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation 

Guidelines Committee 1995) or other appropriate personnel (e.g., California 

licensed professional geologist with appropriate experience and expertise) to 

conduct further literature review and discussion with subject area experts in 

order to resolve the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units identified 

as ―undetermined.‖ The extent and level of analysis necessary would be 

determined by the qualified paleontologist.

126 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

DesertXpress Enterprises As the Mojave River crossing may need further information about habitation 

sites and a village site, DesertXpress will be supporting additional field 

investigation and impact analysis and mitigation measures as part of the 

Section 4(f) work necessary for preparation of the Final EIS. This information 

should provide opportunities to further reduce and avoid potential impacts to 

archaeological and paleontology sources. DesertXpress would like to attend 

a meeting with the SHPO and FRA or the consultant to discuss proper 

wording for our Contract Documents and to implement effective mitigation 

measures.

FRA conducted further analysis of this potential habitation site, which would 

have been potentially impacted by Segment 2A/B. However, the Preferred 

Alternative includes Segment 2C, which avoids this site by more than 2 miles 

and thus would have no direct or indirect effect.

127 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

FHWA - CA Assurance that the Section 106 compliance is completed and sites within the 

I-15 ROW in Nevada are verified with the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT).

Please see Appendix F-H, the executed Programmatic Agreement developed 

for the project.

128 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

NV SHPO The Federal Railroad Administration needs to continue their Section 106 

(National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended) consultation with 

the SHPO to refine the APE.

FRA revised the area of potential effect (APE) in response to the Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) comment and other project changes. 

Section 3.7.2.1 of this Final EIS provides an updated description of the APE, 

as approved during the Section 106 consultation process for the project.

129 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

NV SHPO The document contains a description of an Area of Potential Effect (page 3.7-

8) that does not reflect our comments submitted to the Federal Railroad 

Administration on 1/18/2008 and 3/23/2009.

Please see the response to Comment 128.

130 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

NV SHPO Need confirmation that the heights of the proposed signal tower, water tanks, 

fuel tanks, substations, guard houses, fences, buildings, and any other 

proposed structure is being considered in the creation of an appropriate 

project area of potential affect (APE).

FRA considered the height of these facilities in establishing the APE. The 

signal towers reference in the comment were subsequently removed from the 

project description as the Project Applicant was able to implement an 

alternative communications approach. These changes were reflected in the 

latest APE transmitted to the SHPOs in November 2010.

131 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

NV SHPO The height of the proposed signal tower may necessitate approaching the 

APE as a radius around the tower, similar to an FCC cell tower.

See response to comment 130.

March 2011 4-33 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

132 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

The Tribe's interest in the site extends back to prehistoric periods. The Draft 

EIS states "habitation sites (to include village sites) were encountered within 

the APE along Segments 2, 3, and 4 in California." Upon review of Tables 

3.7-6 through 3.7-11, Segments 1, 2, 3, 5 are identified as habitation sites 

and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Notably, 

rock art sites and a trail exist along the Mojave River in Segments 2, 3, and 

6. These sites are merely an example of the Project area's historical and 

cultural significance to the Tribe, and the basis for the Tribe's opposition.

Subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS, FRA engaged in government to 

government consultation with several Tribes interested in the project, as 

detailed in Final EIS Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination. Project 

modifications and additions identified in the Supplemental Draft EIS and this 

Final EIS were developed in part to avoid sensitive cultural resources. This 

consultation also included discussion of the Programmatic Agreement for the 

project. FRA received substantial comments on the Programmatic Agreement 

from several interested Tribes. The executed PA (Appendix F-H) reflects 

many such comments. 

133 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

In addition, this number accounts only for sites surveyed, and does not take 

into account sites that will be inadvertently discovered during the Project's 

activities. The Tribe notes that the lack of surface discoveries of 

archaeological resources does not preclude subsurface existence, ground 

disturbance activities may yield inadvertent discoveries.

The possibility of inadvertent discoveries is an important consideration 

included in the Programmatic Agreement for the project (Appendix F-H) 

developed in consultation with Native American Tribes. See also the response 

to comment 132. 

134 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

The Draft EIS is silent on appropriate measures to address inadvertent 

discoveries, which, given the Project's scope and impact on Serrano cultural 

resources, is short-sighted and will likely delay the Project when such 

discoveries are made.

See response to comment 133.

135 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

The Draft EIS lists only three (3) mitigation measures for the entire Project: 

test excavation of known areas, avoidance if feasible (which the Draft EIS 

states is NOT feasible, so this mitigation measure is moot), and compliance 

with federal or state law regarding the treatment of human remains. These 

measures are sorely lacking in detail, and completely fail in addressing the 

devastating impact this Project will have on Serrano ancestral lands.

Appendix F-H, the Programmatic Agreement for the project, sets forth detailed 

requirements for the evaluation of cultural resources. The Programmatic 

Agreement includes outlines for the Historic Properties Treatment Plan and 

NAGPRA Plan of Action that will be developed for the project. As per the 

response to comment 132, the Programmatic Agreement reflects substantial 

comments submitted by several interested Tribes. 

136 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

In short, the Tribe finds that Treatment Plans are the most effective and costefficient mechanism to address negative impacts on sites of cultural and 

historical significance. The absence of such a plan on a project of this scope 

and size is ill-advised, and is another reason for the Tribe's opposition to the 

Project.

See response to comment 135. 

137 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

The Draft EIS fails to identify or address traditional Serrano gathering and 

use areas. There may be areas within the APE that are used for traditional 

Serrano activities. The Draft EIS fails to address the presence of these 

areas, and does not indicate efforts to identify those areas through 

government to government consultation.

During 2009 and 2010, FRA conducted extensive formal consultation with 

several interested Tribes. On multiple occasions, in formal consultation 

meetings and other informational meetings, FRA and/or its third party 

consultants asked tribes for input on any resources of importance, including 

traditional use areas. These consultations contributed to the consideration of 

additional avoidance alternatives as well as the terms of the Programmatic 

Agreement, including the outlines for the Historic Properties Treatment Plan 

and the NAGPRA Plan of Action. 

138 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians recognizes that the San Manuel Band 

of Serrano Mission Indians is the tribe that has the most direct link to the 

project route on the California side. Therefore we support the 

recommendations made by San Manuel. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians is 

requesting that the requests made by the San Manuel Band of Serrano 

Mission Indians be honored.

Comment noted.

March 2011 4-34 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

139 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Ongoing consultation. Including the transfer of information to the Soboba 

Band of Luiseno Indians regarding the progress of this project should be 

done as soon as new developments occur.

FRA engaged in government to government consultation with several Tribes 

interested in the project, as detailed in Final EIS Chapter 4.0, Comments and 

Coordination. Project modifications and additions identified in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS and this Final EIS were developed in part to avoid 

sensitive cultural resources. This consultation also included discussion of the 

Programmatic Agreement for the project. FRA received substantial comments 

on the Programmatic Agreement from several interested Tribes. The 

executed PA (Appendix F-H) reflects many such comments. 

140 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Working in and around traditional use areas intensifies the possibility of 

encountering cultural resources during the construction/excavation phase. 

For this reason the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requests that Native 

American Monitor be present during any ground disturbing proceedings. 

Including surveys and archaeological testing. 

See response to comment 139. The Programmatic Agreement in Appendix FH includes stipulations regarding the presence of Native American monitors 

during ground-disturbing activities. See Programmatic Agreement page 7, 

item B7. 

141 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

Nevada DOT The Archeological Section of the Nevada DOT requires the submission of 

site forms for every property surveyed and recorded during a Section 106 

survey for the National Historic Preservation Act. The NDOT requires these 

site forms along with a report or reports by Secretary of Interior Standards 

and properties surveyed. Site forms, reports and context are required topics 

to be covered, the context of properties surveyed. Site forms, reports and 

context are required to evaluate the eligibility of each site and determine the 

eligibility of the sites and determine the effects of the project on those sites. 

Until these items are submitted, the environmental process can not proceed.

As described in Section 3.7.2 of this Final EIS, the project is utilizing a 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) approach in fulfillment of requirements under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As a condition of 

cultural survey permits from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the 

Project Applicant is obligated to prepare site records of all cultural resources 

identified within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). For further discussion, 

please see Appendix F-H, containing the executed PA for the project; the PA 

also depicts the APE. 

142 Cumulative Impacts American Magline Group The DesertXpress project will consume significant portions of the Interstate 

15 right of way without providing congestion relief for the highly congested I15 corridor from the Los Angeles Basin to Las Vegas. This could potentially 

preclude the maglev project which would extend into the Los Angeles basin 

with stations in Anaheim and Ontario.

See responses to comments 405 and 407 with regard to the potential for the 

project to reduce congestion on I-15. Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, 

which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Train proposal and 

its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

143 Cumulative Impacts BLM Barstow Clarify or identify figure locations. Are the figures the maps? BLM is unable 

to locate the figures. 

This comment appears to be referring to Draft EIS Figures 3-16.1 through 3-

16.7. These figures were provided on Draft EIS pages 3.16-4 through 3.16-10. 

144 Cumulative Impacts BLM Barstow There do not appear to be modifications in the Draft EIS to indicate that the 

Applicant for the solar project, Brightsource (the ISEGS project), and DXE 

are working together or acknowledge each other‘s projects and the potential 

conflicts.

The potential conflict with the proposed Solar Power project was identified 

during the Draft EIS review period. In response the Applicant prepared plans 

for a new alignment through the Mountain Pass area to avoid the proposed 

Solar Power project. The alignment is referred to as Segment 4C and was 

studied in detail in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The analysis of Segment 4C 

did not identify any new or more severe impacts than those associated with 

Segment 4B, while avoiding potential conflicts with the proposed Solar Power 

project and reducing/avoiding potential impacts to the Ivanpah Dry lake bed. 

As such Segment 4C has been included in the Preferred Alternative See Final 

EIS Section 2.3.2.1. 

145 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA The discussion of the Heliport on page 3.16-12 of the Draft EIS should be 

updated to reflect the current status of the project. I.E. the FAA issued a 

FONSI/ROD on Feb 20, 2009, and the DOI is projected to convey the land to 

Clark County this year.

The Southern Nevada regional Heliport was considered by FRA as a 

reasonably foreseeable present and future action. See Final EIS Section 

3.16.1.2. 

146 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA CCDOA's new supplement commercial service airport is the "Southern 

Nevada Supplemental Airport," not "Ivanpah Valley Airport."

Reference to the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport was corrected in the 

Supplemental EIS and carried forward in all references within this Final EIS. 

March 2011 4-35 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

147 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA The precise opening date for the SNSA has not been set, but is not 

expected to open by 2018, as stated several times in the Draft EIS.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) as Joint Lead Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the 

Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362) 

have suspended preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 

proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport in Clark County, Nevada. 

The FAA along with the BLM are suspending work on the EIS because the 

Clark County Department of Aviation has advised the JLA that it has reduced 

the level of effort on planning for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport at this time. 

148 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA Land use restrictions near the SNSA would preclude any significant 

development in southern Clark County. Assumptions of indirect growth 

associated with SNSA are not appropriate. 

Final EIS Section 3.16.2.2 discusses that the proposed airport in conjunction 

with other reasonably foreseeable project would result in some indirect growth 

in and around these facilities but that this growth would be small in nature. 

Given the size, construction, and permanent employment potentially 

associated with the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport facilities, FRA's 

assumption that some level of growth would occur is reasonable even 

considering current land use restrictions. 

149 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA MGM Mirage Project should not be characterized as being related to SNSA. This comment is acknowledged and the appropriate edits have been made. 

See Final EIS Section 3.16.2.1.

150 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA The Draft EIS states: "Development of the Ivanpah Airport and Southern 

Nevada Regional Heliport would require the implementation of utility lines, 

placing demands on the public service providers in the communities of 

Primm, Jean, and Sloan." CCDOA will develop and provide utility 

infrastructure to support the construction and operation of the Airport 

independent of the existing and future needs of surrounding communities.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) as Joint Lead Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the 

Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362) 

have suspended preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 

proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport in Clark County, Nevada. 

The FAA along with the BLM are suspending work on the EIS because the 

Clark County Department of Aviation has advised the JLA that it has reduced 

the level of effort on planning for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport at this time. At this time, FAA and BLM do not know when work will 

resume on the EIS. 

151 Cumulative Impacts CNRCC Desert Committee Our concern for the survival of the California population of the Northeastern 

Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Unit is heightened by the cumulative 

impacts to the habitat of the Ivanpah Valley as a consequence of the 

possible siting of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System advanced by 

BrightSource Energy, the siting of the proposed Optisolar power plant, the 

construction of the Joint Point of Entry project along I-15, and the proposed 

DesertXpress rail line. Each will significantly and negatively affect the 

biodiversity of the Ivanpah Valley. Collectively, they threaten the very survival 

of the Northeastern Recovery Unit‘s desert tortoise. 

Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS identifies the adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on desert tortoise habitat. While mitigation would reduce impacts 

to biological resources, when taken collectively, the DesertXpress project in 

combination with past, present, and future projects would result in a cumulative 

impact to special status plants and animals and their associated habitats. 

Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS describes in detail the 

cumulative biological impacts of the Preferred Alternative in combination with 

other projects in the area of the Mojave National Preserve. 

152 Cumulative Impacts EPA include a comprehensive summary of the proposed projects in their entirety 

to provide a better understanding of how this project fits into the greater 

regional setting of all future, related projects.

See Final EIS Section 3.16.1.2 and 3.16.2 for a comprehensively updated and 

revised cumulative impact discussion. 

153 Cumulative Impacts EPA clarify in what forum the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and 

the Maglev project will be compared.

See Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project 

environmental review process. Please also see Final EIS Section 2.2.2.3, 

which notes that magnetic levitation technology was considered but rejected 

as a technology option for the DesertXpress project due to prohibitive cost and 

uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

March 2011 4-36 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

154 Cumulative Impacts EPA Integrate all 'reasonable foreseeable actions' as they relate to the proposed 

Project and fully describe the potential impacts of these options on future 

traffic volumes and emissions.

See response to comment 152. 

155 Cumulative Impacts EPA Conduct a thorough cumulative impact assessment for the Final EIS. EPA 

recommends the use of the June 2005 Guidance for Preparers of Indirect 

and Cumulative Impacts Analysis developed jointly by Caltrans, FHWA, and 

EPA [http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative_guidance/purpose.htm]. The 

guidance will assist in identifying cumulative impacts and preparing an 

analysis that is sound and well documented. 

See Final EIS Section 3.16.1.2 and 3.16.2 for a comprehensively updated and 

revised cumulative impact discussion. 

156 Cumulative Impacts EPA Identify parties responsible for mitigating the environmental impacts 

associated with the indirect and cumulative impacts of the projected land use 

changes.

The mitigation measures contained in this Final EIS relative to the Preferred 

Alternative would be the responsibility of the project Applicant to implement 

unless otherwise noted.

157 Cumulative Impacts EPA Discuss whether the recent ARRA may affect the ability of California and 

Nevada to accommodate the larger railway projects mentioned in the Draft 

EIS including the California High Speed Train project and the CaliforniaNevada Interstate Maglev Train.

Please refer to Section 1.6.1 of this Final EIS, which discusses the CaliforniaNevada Interstate Maglev Train Proposal and its relationship to the 

DesertXpress project and please also see Section 1.6.2 which describes the 

California High Speed Rail Project and FRA's funding through the High-Speed 

Intercity Passenger Rail Program. 

158 Cumulative Impacts EPA The analysis is insufficient, however, in that it did not discuss the cumulative 

localized contributions to air emissions from concurrent construction or 

operations of the multiple projects described in the cumulative impacts 

analysis. The 'Growth' subsection of the cumulative analysis reads: 

"construction period jobs may have a more substantial effect on local growth 

especially if the construction period for the action alternatives overlaps with 

construction of several other large transportation and land development 

projects in the area" (at p.3.16-20). The localized cumulative air quality 

impacts of such a scenario should be considered reasonably foreseeable 

and the Final EIS should discuss the impacts of multiple construction 

projects overlapping.

Section 3.11.2.3 of this Final EIS discusses the air quality effects of the 

Preferred Alternative, including operational and construction period emissions. 

Section 3.16.4 of this Final EIS provides a qualitative assessment of potential 

cumulative air quality impacts. 

159 Cumulative Impacts Southern California Edison What impact will this project have on the High Desert Corridor (Palmdale to 

Apple Valley)?

The project would not result in a direct or indirect effect on the High Desert 

Corridor. These are separate projects with independent utility. Section 1.6.6 

of the Draft EIS discussed the High Desert Corridor project and its potential 

relationship to the DesertXpress Project. Section 1.6.6 of this Final EIS 

clarifies that the location of the proposed corridor is several miles to the south 

of the Preferred Alternative's southern terminus for the DesertXpress project. 

160 Cumulative Impacts Nevada DOT Cumulative Impacts of DesertXpress must explain impacts to current federal 

actions, existing environmental documents under review and their 

investments through the I-15 corridor.

The cumulative analysis contained in Chapter 3.16 of both the Draft EIS and 

the Supplemental EIS provides a thorough assessment of cumulative impacts. 

Section 3.16.3 of this Final EIS includes updated analysis, where warranted, to 

assess the cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

161 Cumulative Impacts / 

Transportation

FHWA - CA The document should address known potential conflicts between 

DesertXpress and the other projects in the regional transportation plan, as 

well as how the issues will be coordinated and mitigated for if necessary.

See Final EIS Section 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2, which identify projects in the RTPs 

of California and Nevada. Also see specific project discussions under Section 

1.6 of Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, which address in greater detail planned 

and programmed transportation projects in the project vicinity. 

March 2011 4-37 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

162 Cumulative 

Impacts/Biological 

Resources

CBD Cumulative impacts are particularly problematic. For instance, ―As the solar 

and wind energy projects within close proximity to Segments 2A/2B, 

Segments 3A/3B and Segments 4A/4B are primarily located within open, 

undeveloped land, it is not anticipated that these projects would cumulatively 

effect or interfere with the normal functioning of existing land uses‖ EIS at 

pg. 3.16-18. The proposed solar projects alone will be eliminating tens of 

thousands of acres of desert tortoise habitat. Along with the animals on the 

proposed DesertXpress project, all of threatened animals will need to be 

moved through translocation which is not currently being recommended as 

mitigation by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Desert Tortoise 

Recovery Plan. A much more thorough analysis is required to accurately 

identify the cumulative impacts, not a cursory dismissal of the impacts, which 

in this case is clearly inaccurate.

Section 3.14.2.3 of this Final EIS identifies the adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on desert tortoise habitat. While mitigation would reduce impacts 

to biological resources, when taken collectively, the DesertXpress project in 

combination with past, present, and future projects would nonetheless result in 

a cumulative impact to special status plants and animals and their associated 

habitats. See Final EIS Section 3.16.16. 

163 Cumulative Impacts; 

General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow There has not been any documented coordination between First Solar 

(OptiSolar) and the proponent. A letter was sent to both companies to 

facilitate the companies working together to determine the level of conflict 

between the two projects and possible solutions. These discussions need to 

continue.

FRA believes this comment is referring to the Solar project in the Ivanpah Lake 

area that has recently been approved. Segment 4 B was modified by the 

Applicant to avoid the Ivanpah Dry Lake bed as well as a proposed Solar 

Energy project is this same area. This modified alignment is referred to as 

Segment 4C and was studied in detail in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Segment 4C has been included as the Preferred Alternative through the 

Mountain Pass area (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS). 

Coordination with this project has occurred and resulted in the development of 

Segment 4C to avoid direct impacts with this project. Also, above there is 

some discussion re: coordination between DXE and solar. 

164 Energy EPA Discuss the cumulative impact of other reasonably foreseeable projects that 

will also increase demand on the existing energy supply.

Section 3.16.3 of this Final EIS includes updated analysis, where warranted, to 

assess the cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative, including a 

discussion of cumulative energy impacts. 

165 Energy EPA Identify the number and capacity of energy facilities that were either 

operational or under construction as of 2008 and discuss whether the future 

supply is expected to be adequate to meet growth in demand, given the 

number of power plants planned.

See Final EIS Sections 3.13.2.1, 3.16.2.4, and 3.16.2.13 which describes the 

number and capacity of relevant energy facilities described by the commenter. 

166 Executive Summary BLM Barstow Executive Summary Map—this map (ES-1) should show that Alternative 4A 

would cross the Mojave National Preserve. 

Figure ES-1 in the Draft EIS is a project overview map and shows the 

proximity of Segment 4A and the Mojave preserve. Subsequent Figures in the 

Draft EIS depict the alignments in more detail including Segment 4A showing 

clearly that this alignment would cross into the Preserve (See Draft EIS Figure 

2-1.5).

167 Executive Summary BLM Barstow change "convenient alternative to automobile travel" to "convenient 

alternative to automobile and bus travel." Bus traffic between Victorville and 

Las Vegas may account for approx. 10% of the traveler volume between 

these two destinations. 

The Executive Summary was extensively revised in the Final EIS. The 

comment is acknowledged. The Ridership Study utilized (see Appendix F-D) 

provides a more detailed assessment of existing travel modes between 

southern California and Las Vegas. 

168 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises In the discussion of traffic and transportation impacts, ―worsen‖ should be 

defined and quantified to show the extent of potential impacts.

In the context of traffic analyses, "worsen" refers to longer delays at 

intersections or increased volumes along roadways. See Final EIS Section 

3.5.2.1. The sections within Chapter 3, Introduction, of this Final EIS provides 

expanded discussions of the comparative impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

against other alternatives considered in the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

March 2011 4-38 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

169 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises The Executive Summary often is the only section of an environmental 

document that the public reads, and therefore we believe it is important that 

this section of the document clearly summarize the content of the full Draft 

EIS. Therefore, we would suggest that the Executive Summary focus on the 

key information for understanding potentially significant impacts and feasible 

mitigation measures and making the choice among the alternatives and 

facility options. To this end, we believe that the summary would be improved 

by adding a textual summary of the alternatives comparison.

The environmental resource sections within Capter 3, Introduction, of this Final 

EIS provides expanded discussions of the comparative impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative against other alternatives considered in the Draft and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Chapter 2 also contains an extensive discussion of 

the alternatives as well as describes the Preferred Alternative. 

170 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises The Executive Summary includes a comprehensive table that provides a 

summary of the analysis and conclusions of the EIS, and NEPA provides 

that an agency may prepare the summary in the form of a matrix or table. In 

some instances, the terminology is a bit unclear as to what the actual impact 

would be. For example, on page ES-6, the impact is ―removal of obstacles to 

growth‖, and another is ―number of housing units displaced‖. In such a case, 

it is unclear what impact is being addressed. The terminology used to 

describe the significance of each impact is not consistent throughout the 

chart; at times the significance is deemed ―high, medium, or low‖, at other 

times ―yes or no‖ and ―none,‖ or a number. We would suggest that the 

consultant strive to come up with a consistent descriptor throughout the table 

if at all possible.

The Executive Summary tables within the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS 

documents were based on the thresholds of significance used throughout the 

Draft EIS. These thresholds are a mix of quantitative and quantitative factors; 

some factors are "absolute" and thus have a measurable impact or do not 

have a measurable impact. Consistent descriptors for all environmental topics 

is thus not necessarily appropriate. Please see Executive Summary Table 1. 

171 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises The Executive Summary and the EIS should clearly specify that this is a 

project-specific EIS, not a programmatic EIS. On Figure ES-1, the bottom of 

the map refers to the ―DesertXpress Project EIS.‖ Other than this reference, 

we did not find a clear discussion regarding the type of EIS prepared. The 

EIS should state that it is a Project EIS, and should include a discussion to 

explain that a project-specific EIS is an EIS prepared for an individual 

undertaking, and focuses on the direct, indirect and cumulative 

environmental impacts of a proposed action and is limited to the proposed 

action‘s geographic scope.

This Final EIS has been prepared as a project-level EIS and includes the 

construction and operation of a specific undertaking, including direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts. Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS is clear in 

this regard.

172 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises The text should include reference to the project location within San 

Bernardino and Clark Counties.

The Executive Summary of this Final EIS adequately describes the 

DesertXpress project, including the project's location within San Bernardino 

and Clark Counties.

173 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises Figure ES-1 refers to ―Option C;‖ however, Option C is not described in the 

text of the Executive Summary. Figure ES-1 should show the locations of 

stations and ancillary facilities.

These comments were addressed in revisions to Draft EIS figures contained in 

the Supplemental Draft EIS.

174 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises The comparison table should spell out all acronyms (TOD, FRA, etc.) This comment was addressed in the Executive Summary tables of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Also see Final EIS Executive Summary Table 1. 

175 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises In the discussion of geology and soils impacts, the alternatives would not 

impact faults and landslides; these are baseline conditions and represent 

engineering considerations to minimize risks. Such criteria should be 

removed from the table

The analysis is intended to identify potential geologic hazards to which the 

project might be exposed. These include such hazards as faults and 

landslides. The analysis does not state or imply that the project would have an 

impact on such features, but rather that such features pose a potential risk to 

the project. 

March 2011 4-39 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

176 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises With respect to the discussion of cultural resources and species habitats 

criteria, please add the following footnote: ―Many of these potential impacts 

(number of resources in the study corridor) will be avoided or substantially 

reduced during final design when the actual area of disturbance during 

construction is more precisely defined.‖

The impacts identified in this Final EIS are based on maps provided by the 

project Applicant along with reasonable buffer areas to provide a conservative 

assessment of potential adverse effects. While the commenter may be correct 

that impacts identified in this Final EIS may be avoided or substantially 

reduced, it would not be appropriate to include this potential reduction in the 

EIS analysis at this time, since such designs have not been developed. 

Mitigation measures included in this Final EIS will ensure that, through the 

detailed design phase of the project, impacts would be avoided or substantially 

reduced. 

177 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises Table ES8 refers to ―incremental‖ impacts. This should either be explained or 

removed. Please include only the environmental topics that are related to the 

train technology. Please consider quantifying ―significant‖ electrical power for 

EMU as per subsequent information contained within the document, and 

describe that this is within the existing capacity of electric power providers.

The Executive Summary was extensively revised in the Final EIS. The 

comment is acknowledged. 

178 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises With respect to noise and vibration, are the numbers presented referring to 

expected numbers of receptors impacted? Please consider inserting a 

footnote regarding mitigation (i.e., noise walls, double pane windows). With 

respect to air quality and energy, it would be clearer to use ―reduction of‖

rather than a minus sign. These are important benefits of the project 

compared with the No Action Alternative and should be quantified to show 

differences.

The Executive Summary was extensively revised in the Final EIS. The 

referenced comparison table is not included in the Final Executive Summary. 

The comment is acknowledged. 

179 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises With respect to the first bullet point, it would seem to be appropriate to revise 

to state ―minimize impact footprint of facilities to reduce direct impacts.‖

The comment is noted. 

180 Executive Summary DesertXpress Enterprises With respect to the discussion of noise and vibration impacts, is ―severe‖ the 

same as ―significant‖? Please explain.

The discussion of FRA's view of noise and vibration impacts is contained in 

the regulatory requirements of Section 3.12.2 of this Final EIS. The distinction 

between "severe" and "impact" is made clear in this section. FRA strongly 

recommends mitigation for severe impacts. 

181 Farmlands and 

Grazing Lands

BLM Barstow General: Impacts to Grazing Allotment not addressed Section 3.3, Farmlands and Grazing Lands, of the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS includes maps showing known grazing allotments and discusses the 

project's potential impacts to these allotments. Section 3.3.2 of this Final EIS 

evaluates the Preferred Alternative's direct and indirect effects on grazing 

lands compared to the No Build and Other Action Alternatives. Mitigation 

Measures FAR-5 and FAR-6 would minimize effects to grazing lands, 

specifically National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing 

allotments. 

182 Farmlands and 

Grazing Lands

DesertXpress Enterprises Please reiterate that in many areas, the actual right of way will be less than 

75-feet

The rationale for the width utilized is described in Section 3.3.2.1 of the Draft 

EIS.

183 Farmlands and 

Grazing Lands

DesertXpress Enterprises Table 3.3-1 states: ―2A/2B would pass through prime farmland near Barstow‖ 

Please confirm accuracy

The assertion is accurate and is shown in Figure 3-3.2 of the Draft EIS

March 2011 4-40 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

184 Farmlands and 

Grazing Lands

DesertXpress Enterprises Mitigation Measure FAR 2 states that the ―project sponsor shall provide 

severance payments to property owners in the vicinity who would otherwise 

choose to continue agricultural operations.‖ Please clarify.

Mitigation Measure FAR-2 discusses the potential for the project to have 

"severance" impacts -- in other words, dividing an existing parcel in current 

agricultural use such that one or both sides of the divided parcel is too small a 

size to be viably farmed. The mitigation measure stipulates that as a first 

course of action where such severance might occur, the project Applicant 

identify ways for the project to avoid dividing property in this manner, such as 

through an underpass. Where such solutions are not viable, the mitigation 

recommends compensation to farmers for the economic loss associated with 

the severance. 

185 General American Magline Group The items in our letter of August 14, 2006 to David Valenstein in response to 

the Notice of Intent for the DesertXpress project have not been fully 

addressed in this draft EIS.

The commenter's letter was included in a Scoping Summary report published 

in December 2006. The Scoping Summary report addressed comments 

raised pertaining to potential physical adverse environmental effects (see 

Appendix P of the Draft EIS). 

186 General Bigley, Arthur Minerals needed for superconductivity are present in Nevada; make maglev 

a more viable option. 

The comment is noted; the comment does not address the analysis within the 

EIS but asserts a point about minerals in the Nevada area and a preference 

for the maglev project. 

187 General BLM Barstow The Affected Environment and Impacts Analysis chapter should address the 

direct and indirect impacts of the various alternatives to other land values 

and uses. This information has to be specific enough to be able to make a 

reasoned choice among alternatives and to identify appropriate mitigation to 

reduce significant impacts. In three landscape level planning efforts, 

mitigation or avoidance strategies for some resources, such as T&E and 

sensitive species, have been adopted for the entire route. The BLM must 

have enough information to be able to apply the mitigation and 

compensation strategies outlined in these efforts, or identify in what ways 

they may depart from the strategies in these plans and whether those 

departures are substantial. This is in addition to addressing them in the 

cumulative assessment, where appropriate.

The technical sections within Chapter 3 of the Draft and Supplemental Draft 

EIS address direct and indirect impacts of the various alternatives. The 

analysis considers the existing physical environment, as well as foreseeable 

future projects. 

188 General BLM Barstow The document seems to be a programmatic EIS for a conceptual project that 

lacks the basic vital details needed for a specific project review. Figure 2.1-

1: It is very difficult for BLM to determine if issues are adequately addressed 

when station facilities have not been identified as "proposed". By not 

identifying these locations and alternatives, a follow up EIS or EA will be 

required if the locations are part of a federal agency decision.

The Draft, Supplemental, and Final EIS documents were prepared as a projectlevel documents. The project is well-defined, and includes all project facilities 

and construction areas which are identified in the Figures presented in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS.

189 General BLM Barstow General: 5-15-09 Draft route segment 4(c) is not identified in the document. At the time of publication of the Draft EIS, this segment had not been defined. 

Segment 4C was fully analyzed within the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

190 General BLM Barstow General: Resource surveys not completed for 4(b) or (c) alignments. All resource surveys were completed for Segment 4B, under permit from the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), where required. Resource surveys for 

Segment 4C were conducted in the summer/fall of 2009 and have been 

incorporated into the Final EIS (see Chapter 3, Introduction, of this Final EIS). 

191 General BLM Barstow General: No POD was submitted per 43CFR 2804.25. This is needed to 

flesh out project proposal.

This is a regulation regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 

issuance of right-of-way permits under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The comment does not pertain to the environmental review 

process under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

192 General BLM Barstow General: Alignment 4(c) goes through State Trust lands. The Draft EIS does 

not indicate any coordination with State Lands Commission.

The State Lands Commission was advised of the Draft EIS and submitted a 

comment letter on the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

March 2011 4-41 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

193 General BLM Barstow General: Per 2804.26(a) (5): Proponent has not demonstrated technical or 

financial capability to construct the project or operate it.

This is a regulation regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 

issuance of right-of-way permits under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The comment does not pertain to the environmental review 

process under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

194 General BLM Barstow There has not been adequate coordination with potentially affected parties 

such as energy development Applicants and current rights-of-way holders 

such as Caltrans/NDOT for land under consideration in any of the 

alternatives. The BLM realizes that additional discussions have taken place; 

however, this coordination and the possible outcomes have not been 

discussed in the Draft EIS.

The Supplemental Draft EIS included a new rail alignment (Segment 4C) that 

was intended to avoid several energy related projects in the Ivanpah Valley 

area; Segment 4B in the Draft EIS would have conflicted with these projects. 

Segment 4C was ultimately selected as part of the Preferred Alternative.

195 General BLM Barstow There is a need for additional consultation with Tribal entities on this project. 

FRA initiated tribal consultation in March 2007; but at that time, the 

information for the project was conceptual and general. While some informal 

discussions occurred during the period before release of the Draft EIS, the 

substantive information which the Tribes were waiting to comment on was 

sent to them in May 2009. During the Intertribal working group meeting on 

May 20, 2009, the group discussed concerns about the May 22, 2009 

deadline for comments on the cultural package sent to the Tribes earlier in 

the month. The Tribes have expressed concern that the deadline is 

inadequate for responses and are requesting more time to comment. 

Representatives of the Morongo Tribe stated at this meeting that they did 

not receive the cultural package until May 18, 2009. Two other Tribes, San 

Manuel and Soboba, indicated that they had received the information for the 

first time earlier in May 2009, and are requesting more time for review. 

These two Tribes have not received responses from FRA to concerns voiced 

at the Victorville Tribal consultation meeting on this project conducted just 

after release of the Draft EIS on April 30, 2009. Timely responses to those 

concerns may help the Tribes in their review of this proposed project.

Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS summarizes the 

Tribal consultation efforts since project inception, including numerous 

government-to-government consultation meetings with individual Tribes. 

196 General California Department of Water 

Resources, Floodplain 

Management Branch

YES The comment is noted. 

197 General CBD In California, because the project crosses some private lands and affects 

state wildlife and potentially state lands, the process needs to be compliant 

with the California Environmental Quality Act. 

Section 1.4.1.1 of this Final EIS describes the Surface Transportation Board's 

(STB) Preemption Authority. In response to a request for a declaratory order 

filed by DesertXpress, STB issued a decision in DesertXpress Enterprises, 

LLC-Petition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance Docket No. 34914 (STB 

served June 27, 2007) (June 2007 Dec. Order) stating that the project would 

not be subject to state and local environmental review, land use, or to other 

permitting requirements. STB found that the environmental review would be 

under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and related federal 

environmental laws instead of the individual laws and regulations of California 

and Nevada, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

However, the DesertXpress NEPA process has been consistent with many 

CEQA requirements including publication in the California State Clearinghouse 

and notification of both the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS. In 

addition, the technical analysis in both all of the environmental documents 

covered all of the environmental topic areas with the CEQA Checklist in 

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 

March 2011 4-42 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

198 General CCDOA The preferred alignment near Sloan is alignment 5B/6B, which will require 

construction of a bridge crossing Interstate 15 just south of the Heliport. The 

alternative alignment (5A/6A) would travel down the median of I-15. Either 

alignment may be close enough to the Heliport to trigger notice requirements 

under Part 77.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the 

compatibility with existing and planned aviation uses and established Runway 

Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires 

the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm that 

the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

199 General CCDOA Both the Alternative A and B alignments for Segment 5 of the DesertXpress 

would penetrate the Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach 

surface for proposed Runway 18R-36L at SNSA. The Draft EIS should 

acknowledge this issue.

The Project Applicant has received a determination of no hazard from the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) relative to Segment 5. In addition, the 

FAA in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as Joint Lead 

Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer 

Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362) have suspended preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport in Clark County, Nevada. The FAA along with the BLM 

are suspending work on the EIS because the Clark County Department of 

Aviation has advised the JLA that it has reduced the level of effort on planning 

for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport at this time. At this 

time, FAA and BLM do not know when we will resume work on the EIS.

200 General CCDOA Alignment in Segment 5. The Applicant‘s preferred alignment for Segment 5 

(i.e., the segment alongside the Airport Site and Airport Environs Overlay 

District), is alignment 5B, which lies on the east side of the right-of-way of I15 between the towns of Primm and Jean, Nevada. Under this alternative, 

the DesertXpress track will be constructed, and the trains will run, almost 

adjacent to the western boundary of the SNSA site.

The Draft EIS also examines alignment 5A, which places the tracks in the 

median of I-15 (i.e., slightly farther to the west of the proposed runways). 

However, it is not clear in the Draft EIS whether the I-15 median in that area 

is wide enough to accommodate the rails at grade. If not, the rails may need 

to be elevated, which could raise addition Part 77 conflicts. The FRA should 

clarify, in its Final EIS, whether this alignment would require an elevated 

track as it passes along the SNSA and/or the Jean Airport.

See response to comment 199.

201 General Cogan, Karen As a resident of Victorville and a person interested in preserving the integrity 

of our desert landscape, I highly approve of getting a high speed train 

carrying passengers from Southern California to Las Vegas! Having done 

this trip several times myself, I cannot begin to describe the frustration of the 

traffic on the I-15 to and from this tourist city. Not only does it get clogged up 

with traffic at various construction sites and/or accident scenes along the 

way, but the sheer volume of the traffic - especially on holiday weekends - is 

MIND BOGGLING. Also, there are some VERY SCARY drivers out there 

who insist upon zooming along the route at very dangerous high speeds.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

March 2011 4-43 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

202 General DesertXpress Enterprises If possible, we suggest that the EIS conclude whether the effect of each 

impact is ―less than significant,‖ ―less than significant with mitigation,‖ or 

―significant and unavoidable‖ in order to allow a clearer understanding of the 

significance of impacts. This is the terminology commonly used for CEQA, 

and the CEQ NEPA Regulations suggest that a similar methodology would 

be appropriate. For a good example of the type of impact statement and 

identification of significance before mitigation that we suggest be included for 

all impact discussions, please see the analysis of visual and aesthetic 

impacts that appears on pages 3.6-52 to 3.6-53 of the EIS. If this is not 

possible, we would suggest an effort be made nonetheless to strive to adopt 

a more consistent terminology.

The comment is noted. Consistent conclusions regarding adverse effects and 

residual impacts have been employed in the Supplemental Draft EIS and Final 

EIS. 

203 General EPA Discuss the methodology proposed for any design that involves tunneling 

(including equipment and planned locations for staging tunnel operations and 

methods for transportation of tunnel equipment) and quantify impacts 

expected (for example, amount of material removed per mile tunnel, impacts 

associated with storage of removed material, road access required, impacts 

associated with the transport of removed material, etc.). Identify specific 

mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

Because DesertXpress is a design/build project, the final tunneling method will 

be determined by the selected design/build contractor. The selected 

contractor will be required to adhere to all relevant mitigation requirements and 

conditions in this Final EIS and Record of Decision. Detailed tunnel feasibility 

studies completed for the Applicant indicate that the tunnels will be constructed 

utilizing either a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) or by drill and blast excavation. 

In either case, the construction occurs from within the trackway alignment, well 

within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) studied in the EIS. The rough track 

bed leading up to the tunnel portal areas will be constructed first to provide 

access to the tunnel portals. The TBM or the drill and blast and shield 

installation equipment will be trucked across the trackway alignment in sections 

and assembled in the area immediately outside the tunnel portal area. For the 

TBM method, the first 200 feet likely will be hand mined to provide a launching 

chamber. The mined material will be removed in muck cars along the 

previously constructed trackway corridor. An approximate 50‘ x 50‘ area will 

be required outside the tunnel to position an electrical switch gear and 

machine shop – which also lies within the APE. The operation will require an 

approximate 20 gpm water supply for TBM cooling and dust control. In the 

event ground water is encountered, any excess water will be tested and 

treated as appropriate (e.g., sedimentation pond with additives or Baker tanks 

for storage and removal from the site). The geologic and geotechnical 

conditions in the vicinity of the tunnels generally consist of hard rock material, 

primarily gneiss and granitic gneiss. This will make excellent fill material and 

sub-ballast for the trackbed, if not for the ballast itself. The material will be 

crushed on site or at the closest staging area and trucked to the closest areas 

where fill material is needed. Thus, most if not all of the tunnel spoil will be 

used for construction of the project.

204 General FHWA - CA Segment 7 A or B would seem to be economically and aesthetically less 

feasible than option C utilizing the UPRR right of way. Structures required to 

cross the Las Vegas interchanges would be massive and no space is 

available for placing such structures in the existing highway right of way.

The Preferred Alternative includes either the Las Vegas Central Station B or 

the Southern Station; only one of these will ultimately be selected. Therefore, 

no aspect of Segment 7 is included in this project, nor within the 

Environmental Preferable Alternative described in Section 2.5.2 of this Final 

EIS. 

205 General Friedman, Alexander Also, in the past Amtrak offered a great route "The Desert Wind", which did 

connect Los Angeles with Las Vegas (but was unfortunately shut-down); and 

this route should be re-established. I believe - Amtrak, in collaboration with 

Desert Xpress, should endorse the initial route to connect with Los Angeles.

This comment addresses extending service into Los Angeles Basin, which is 

not part of the project being considered at this time.

March 2011 4-44 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

206 General Frodsham, Gene M. Comments about union and minority participation are not within the scope of 

the environmental impact study and should be ignored. 

The comment is noted and appears to refer to oral comments made at public 

meetings on the Draft EIS. The comment does not address the analysis within 

the EIS.

207 General Hughes, Brendan There is currently a rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The 

former Amtrak Desert Wind service should be resumed between LA and 

Vegas. This would take a bit longer than the proposed Desert Xpress, but 

not having to drive to Vegas would be a draw for many people, especially 

with rising gas prices. This Alternative of resumption of service between LA 

and Vegas on the Union Pacific line should be seriously considered and 

adopted in the EIS.

Section 2.2.3 of this Final EIS describes alternative alignments, including that 

suggested by the commenter, which were considered but dismissed from 

further analysis. 

208 General National Parks Conservation 

Association

On this basis, we feel that it is highly inappropriate for the Applicant in this 

Draft EIS process to propose—as the Applicant‘s preferred alternative—the 

creation of a new transportation right-of-way through Mojave National 

Preserve. Any new right-of-way through Mojave National Preserve would 

have to be federally legislated, and NPCA would similarly oppose legislation 

that compromised the integrity of Mojave National Preserve or any National 

Park Service unit by creating a new transportation corridor through its 

federally protected land.

The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4A. The Biological 

Assessment/Opinion for the project is based on Segment 4C which is included 

in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS, which 

describes the components of the Preferred Alternative. However, as noted in 

Section 2.5.2 of this Final EIS, Segment 4A is identified as the environmentally 

superior alternative insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation 

impacts associated with Segment 4C. Section 2.5.2 also establishes that 

Segment 4A is environmentally preferable in its shorter length and relatively 

close adherence to the I-15 and/or Nipton Road corridors. Notwithstanding, 

Section 2.5.2 of the Final EIS notes that FRA and Cooperating Agencies could 

not choose Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as there is presently no 

mechanism in place for the National Park Service to grant such a right-of-way 

through the Mojave National Preserve. A Biological Assessment was 

submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) on August 

17, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a record of decision (ROD) for the project, 

the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion, which will detail all 

mitigation requirements for the project. 

209 General National Parks Conservation 

Association

NPCA applauds the Applicant for recognizing the importance of our national 

parks, and asks that the Applicant apply its own identified criteria for 

developing alternatives by withdrawing the route through Mojave National 

Preserve as an alternative from the final Environmental Impact Statement.

See response to comment 208

210 General Union Pacific As a common carrier railroad, Union Pacific is subject to the requirements of 

federal law governing abandonment or discontinuance of freight operations. 

Specifically, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 

USC§10501 et seq.) prohibits a railroad from abandoning or discontinuing 

freight services over main or branch lines of railroad without authority from 

the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). Neither the FRA nor the 

DesertXpress high-speed rail authority may take any action that effectively 

requires or causes Union Pacific to abandon or discontinue freight service 

on or over the Sloan - Las Vegas line without prior authority from the STB.

The comment is noted. 

211 General Hinojos, Manny Volunteer to spread word about project at San Bernardino County Fair The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

212 General Rothschild, Mike Maglev is a worthy project but very costly at this time. Existing high-speed 

rail technology is preferable at this time. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

March 2011 4-45 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

213 General Nolan, JP Electric train is preferable The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

214 General Serrano, Manny People in Victorville are supportive of this project The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

215 General Office of Supervisor Brad 

Mitzelfelt

Supervisor Mitzelfelt supports the project for its environmental benefits and 

potential for job growth.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

216 General Office of Congressman Buck 

McKeon

Congressman welcomes consideration of the proposed project The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

217 General Taylor, David Train will go through two parcels I own. People on Skyline East in Barstow 

will experience incredible noise effects. Route should be relocated to I-15.

The Preferred Alternative includes Segment 2C, which follows the I-15 corridor 

through Barstow. Please refer to Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration, of this 

Final EIS, for noise and vibration impact analysis in this area.

218 General Office of Assemblyman Steve 

Knight

Assemblyman Knight is supportive of the project The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through additional or modified analysis of a specific 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 

219 General Trowbridge, Glen Seek federal funding to extend train to Los Angeles basin and or the Ivanpah 

Airport. Expand EIS to cover this possibility.

The Applicant has demonstrated (through the ridership study, on which FRA 

conducted an independent review) that there are logical reasons and 

reasonable expectations of ridership associated with a Victorville station. Also 

see Section 1.6.2 of this Final EIS, which describes the potential for a future 

connection to the proposed Palmdale high-speed rail station as a separate 

project with independent utility from DesertXpress. Section 1.6.8 of this Final 

EIS describes the potential for a future connection to the Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport (in the Ivanpah area). 

220 General Waybright, Charles If train goes bankrupt, what is plan to have it removed? The comment is noted. It is anticipated that any agreement granting the 

project Applicant use of the right-of-way would include provisions in the event 

of financial default. 

221 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow Purpose and Need: The lead agency needs to select a preferred alternative 

in the very near future. This selection of a preferred alternative needs to 

occur by the lead agency, FRA prior to formal consultation with the FWS 

because this project is considered a federal action, thus requiring Sec. 7 of 

the ESA as per 50 CFR 402.14. Obtaining a biological opinion from the FWS 

is not technically considered a "permit." Further conformance with 50 CFR 

402.14 would require that consultation occur as early in the project planning 

process as possible and surely not after the ROD has been approved if it is a 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. In other words, if 

subsequent decisions will be based on the selection of the route in this EIS, 

the decision has made a commitment of resources that is inappropriate prior 

to consultation on ESA. BLM cannot make a decision in the absence of a 

biological opinion issued under Section 7 if the action "may affect" T&E 

species. 

FRA agrees with the comment. This Final EIS defines and analyzes an 

agency Preferred Alternative. This alternative was incorporated into the BA 

presented to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A draft Biological 

Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final 

submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological 

Opinion (BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

March 2011 4-46 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

222 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow The lack of documentation of involvement by the USFWS as a key federal 

agency is critical. 

Please see page 3.14-14 of the Draft EIS, as well as Section 4.2 of the Final 

EIS. There have been numerous coordination meetings with USFWS, 

including some involving BLM staff and/or held at the BLM Barstow office. The 

biological analysis has been extensive and includes analysis of all lands 

necessary to construct and operate the proposed project including passenger 

stations, maintenance facilities, and temporary construction areas. A draft 

Biological Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and 

a final submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological 

Opinion (BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

223 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow General: Please include information about the coordination with Caltrans. It 

is important to determine if the train can operate in the I-15 ROW.

Both the California (Caltrans) and the Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT) have been extensively involved in the environmental review process. 

Section 4.1, Agency Involvement, of the Final EIS, details these agencies 

participation during the preparation of the EIS, including their involvement in 

the working group consultations. 

224 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow General: The document does not identify that coordination to finalize the 

Section 4(b) or (c) has taken place.

This comment was provided in a May 29, 2009 comment letter regarding the 

Draft EIS. Following the Draft EIS, FRA coordinated extensively with the BLM 

and other agencies in formulating Segment 4C. The Supplemental Draft EIS, 

published August 2010, included full description and analysis of Segment 4C. 

This Final EIS Section 2.4.1 identifies Segment 4C as part of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

225 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow There is a need for further communication with the National Park Service 

(NPS). The proposed action, which passes through the Mojave National 

Preserve, would benefit from NPS involvement and is critical to the success 

of this project.

FRA invited the National Park Service (NPS) to be a cooperating agency for 

this environmental review process, and NPS is currently acting in that capacity 

in the preparation of this Final EIS. NPS personnel joined the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) staff and others at cooperating agency meetings held by 

FRA during preparation of the EIS. The Preferred Alternative includes 

Segment 4C which avoids impacts to the Mojave National Preserve. 

226 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow There has not been adequate coordination with the City of Barstow. The City 

of Barstow has expressed strong concerns regarding the absence of an 

alternative that provides a stopping point in Barstow. Further coordination 

with Barstow may help resolve this issue by providing a reasonable 

alternative that warrants analysis.

The Supplemental Draft EIS included a complete analysis of Segment 2C, 

which follows the I-15 corridor through Barstow, avoiding many of the issues 

identified by the City with regard to Segment 2A/2B. The development of 

Segment 2C and analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS was in direct 

response to comments from the City of Barstow. Segment 2C is included in 

the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS). 

227 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow From the BLM‘s perspective, there has not been adequate coordination with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding the Biological Opinion. 

The BLM‘s regulations do not allow signature of a Record of Decision until 

after Section 7 Consultation is complete and the FWS has issued a signed 

Biological Opinion.

There have been numerous meetings with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Ventura and Las Vegas Ecological Services offices. See Final EIS 

Section 4.1.1, which identifies all interagency meetings on the project, 

including several meetings with the USFWS. A draft Biological Assessment 

was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on 

December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for 

the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which 

will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

228 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow There has not been adequate coordination with the State Historic 

Preservation Officers for California and Nevada.

Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS includes an updated 

discussion of the Section 106 interagency meetings and related tribal 

consultations over the course of the project. The mitigation measures 

identified in this Final EIS and the procedures and responsibilities contained in 

the Programmatic Agreement have been developed in consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Officers for California and Nevada. An executed 

Programmatic Agreement is included in Appendix F-H.

March 2011 4-47 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

229 General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow There has not been adequate consultation with Tribes. The BLM recently 

conducted a series of Tribal Listening Sessions. At the session in Palm 

Springs, several Tribes expressed concerns that they received materials too 

late to provide substantive comments.

FRA has engaged in extensive government-to-government tribal consultation. 

Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS summarizes 

interagency and Tribal consultation efforts since project inception.

230 General - 

Consultation Process

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

The Tribe opposes the proposed DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

("Project") as described in the Draft EIS in absence of meaningful 

government to government consultation and appropriate mitigation 

measures to lessen the Project's negative impact on significant Serrano 

cultural resources in the area.

FRA has engaged in extensive government-to-government consultation and 

will continue to meet it obligations to meaningful tribal consultation. Chapter 4, 

Comments and Coordination, of this Final EIS summarizes interagency and 

Tribal consultation efforts since project inception.

231 General - 

Consultation Process; 

Cumulative

BLM Barstow General: The document does not identify that coordination with First Solar 

(OptiSolar) has taken place.

FRA initiated the public review and comment period of the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS by publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 

environmental documents in the Federal Register, and by mailing notices to 

approximately 2,500 individuals on the project mailing list. Consistent with 

NEPA, beyond making the document available for public comment, the Project 

Applicant has not separately consulted with OptiSolar as part of this 

environmental review process. 

232 Check consistency with SDEIS comment matrix. General - Project 

Attributes

BLM Barstow Because this is a federal action and crosses the Mojave River, there may 

also be a requirement the FRA initiate consultation with the USACOE under 

Section 404 of the CWA under (see Title 33, USC, Chapter 26, Subchapter 

1344). The required NPDES permit under Section 402 of the CWA would be 

issued by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and should be 

issued to FRA, not the Applicant. – FRA‘s declaration that not "all 

construction methods and techniques are known at this time" is a difficult 

framework for BLM decision making on a right-of-way application. It is 

difficult submit complete comments on an EIS if the project has not been 

clearly defined. As the project is further developed, there could be important 

issues that are not considered.

Section 1.4.1 of the Draft EIS states that the Project Applicant will be 

responsible for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. The NEPA process 

also requires analysis of water resources that are not under the jurisdiction of 

the USACE. The Project Applicant submitted a formal jurisdictional 

determination request to USACE in July 2010. The Project Applicant is 

currently responding to USACE requests for additional information. Field 

verification of the delineation of ―waters of the U.S.‖ is scheduled for December 

2010. No wetlands will be affected, but the proposed project is expected to 

temporarily impact an estimated 0.2 acres and permanently impact 5.96 acres 

of ephemeral drainages (other ―waters of the U.S.‖) subject to Corps 

Jurisdiction. The Project Applicant has incorporated a number of measures 

into the project design to avoid and minimize these impacts. The Project 

Applicant will also (1) either create new ephemeral drainage, or (2) restore, 

where feasible, through reestablishment of former ephemeral drainage, 9.10 

acres of ephemeral drainage within the alluvial fan system where the project 

impact is located to compensate for unavoidable impacts to ―waters of the 

U.S.‖ With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the proposed 

project will not result in more than minimal adverse effects to the aquatic 

environment. 

233 General - Project 

Attributes

BLM Barstow There are not any cut/fill computations of the tunnels (of unknown 

dimensions) for the millions of cubic yards of excavated material or 

indications of where it in anticipated to be used

Please see the response to comment 27 above. The material will be removed 

by truck back along the trackway corridor to be crushed and processed in one 

of the construction staging areas. 

March 2011 4-48 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

234 General - Project 

Attributes

BLM Barstow It was only recently determined that the proposed action for the train is to 

operate off overhead electrical lines rather than internal combustion engines 

(each with their own engines). This means that the tunnel will now need to be 

much taller than originally planned to accommodate the overhead lines under 

this alternative. BLM does not yet have a complete description of the location 

of needed electrical substations or information about the required intervals 

for substations, any description of the overhead lines, conflicts with other 

projects using these substations, or the possible impacts to wildlife from the 

overhead lines or visual impacts from those. In addition, the engineering of 

the tunnel still needs to be disclosed (i.e. structural reinforcement, hydrologic 

concerns from percolated rainfall, flood events,). Without any plan of 

development with engineering, we cannot move forward with analysis.

The electric (EMU) and diesel (DEMU) locomotive technology options are 

analyzed throughout all sections of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Section 2.4.8 of the Draft EIS provides a detailed discussion of the key 

differences between the two technology options. It is unclear how the 

commenter arrives at the conclusion that the tunnels would need to be much 

taller for the EMU alternative. Maps and text in the EIS clearly identify the 

location of each autotransformer and substation. Overhead power lines and 

major electrical transmission corridors necessary to serve the project have 

also been describe, mapped and analyzed in the EIS. The visual effects of the 

EMU alternative and utilities corridors was analyzed in Section 3.2.6 of this 

Final EIS. Power line corridors would not present a barrier to wildlife migration. 

Finally, Mitigation Measure GEO-11 addresses tunnel construction issues 

raised in the comment. 

235 General - Project 

Attributes

BLM Barstow General: There is no discussion of the 1.2 miles of tunnels, size of tunnels, 

volumes of material; how/where the material would be disposed; transporting 

material to final destination not mentioned.

Please see response to comments 233 and 203 above. 

236 General - Project 

Attributes

Breuer, Mark Also, you should build the train off to the side of the freeway not in the 

middle. For construction and expense, traffic and future maintenance it 

should be a completely separate system. 

This comment indicates a preference for the side running alternative, which 

has largely been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative, as described in 

Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS. 

237 General - Project 

Attributes

Breuer, Mark I also believe the train should be diesel and not have to count on overhead 

lines in 115 degree heat in the summer. To many things can go wrong with it 

and would also detract from the desert landscape.

Please see Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS for a discussion of the 

reasoning behind the selection of the electric (EMU) locomotive technology as 

part of the Preferred Alternative. 

238 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA The electric multiple train unit ("EMU") technology would include a series of 

tall structures may create airspace issues.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.5, which includes a new mitigation measure 

that would address effects related to airport operations. Please also see Final 

EIS Section 3.16, which describes cumulative impacts to traffic/transportation 

along I-15. 

239 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Catenary Wires and Supports: The EMU option shows catenary supports, 

which are drawn to be 35' in drawings submitted to CCDOA by DesertXpress 

but stated to be 25' in the Draft EIS. Reducing the height from 35' to 25' 

would alleviate many issues of Part 77 surface penetrations.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.5, which includes a new mitigation measure 

that would address effects related to airport operations. Please also see Final 

EIS Section 3.16, which describes cumulative impacts to traffic/transportation 

along I-15. 

240 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Electrical Substations: The EMU option has three electrical substations. 

However, the Draft EIS has conflicting references to locations of the 

substations. On page 2-25, the three substations are on sites of Victorville 

OMSF, Baker MOW, and Sloan MSW facilities. however on page 3.1-43, the 

Draft EIS says the substations will be at Victorville OMSF and Las Vegas 

MSF sites, with a midpoint substation near Baker, California.

The Preferred Alternative includes three electrical substations: at the 

Victorville Operations Maintenance and Storage Facility (OMSF), in Baker, and 

at the Frias Substation. Utility corridors linking these substations to nearby 

electrical lines were considered in the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS 

documents. 

241 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Electrical Substations: Only the Sloan MSF is close enough to a public-use 

airport to trigger Part 77 obligations. Please provide height information so 

that the CCDOA can analyze for Part 77 issues.

The Sloan MSF is not included in the Preferred Alternative, thus no triggering 

of any requirement to assess under Part 77 regulations. 

242 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Transformers: The proposed locations for Autotransformers 14, 15, 16A, and 

16C2 are located near the SNSA, Jean Airport and/or Heliport (Appendix A5). Please provide structure heights of the various components of the 

transformer facilities so that the CCDOA can analyze for obstruction 

conflicts.

Autotransformer plans were included within Appendix A-5 of the Draft EIS. 

These are structures of approximately 8 feet in height. These are further 

described in Final EIS Section 2.2.2.2. Appendix F-C of this Final EIS includes 

scaled elevation drawings of these autotransformers. 

March 2011 4-49 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

243 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Electrical Utility Connections: If the Sloan Road is selected as the location for 

the MSF, the utility corridor to the new Sloan Road MSF would extend from 

the Nevada power Transmission Line to the Sloan Road MSF site adjacent 

to I-15 (page 2-33) The Draft EIS does not provide a map depicting the 

location of the new corridor and new towers. Please provide so that CCDOA 

can determine if there may be any Part 77 issues. The Draft EIS should be 

updated to include information on new corridor and tower locations.

The proposed utility corridor linking the Sloan Maintenance and Storage 

Facility (MSF) site to the Nevada Power Transmission line is shown on several 

figures within the Draft EIS, including Figure 2-1.6 as well as map 6 of 

Appendix A-2 (large scale maps). The Sloan MSF is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative, nor its associated utility corridor. 

244 General - Project 

Attributes

CNRCC Desert Committee We are concerned that Segment 4A of the proposed route as defined in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) would compromise the 

integrity of the Mojave National Preserve and threaten the National Park 

System. Creating a new transportation right-of-way through the Mojave 

National Preserve to facilitate a private rail line would compromise the 

integrity of the park and set a precedent that would undermine the very 

nature of the National Park System.

The Preferred Alternative does not include Segment 4A through the Mojave 

National Preserve. See Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS, which identifies 

Segment 4A as the environmentally preferable alternative, insofar as it has 

substantially lower levels of effect to resources than Segment 4C. 

245 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Demonstrate avoidance and minimization measures to reduce environmental 

impacts associated with the construction of passenger stations and 

maintenance facilities, such as multi-level parking structures as opposed to 

large expansive parking lots.

Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS relates the factors considered in developing the 

agency Preferred Alternative. Chapter 3, Introduction, includes discussion of 

the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the components of the 

Preferred Alternative. The mitigations proposed in this Final EIS would 

minimize, reduce, and/or avoid environmental impacts associated with the 

passenger stations and maintenance facilities. Numerous mitigation 

measures, including those in air quality and hydrology, provide specific 

direction that will guide the construction of the project, inclusive of stations and 

maintenance facilities. 

246 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Minimize the number of parking spaces to the greatest extent possible at the 

station in order to facilitate the use of transit.

As discussed in Section 2.3.2 of this Final EIS, both the Victorville and Las 

Vegas passenger stations would be compatible with local land use plans for 

mixed-use development and would accommodate transit connections, such as 

buses taking people to and from station areas. In addition, all potential Las 

Vegas Station options are in close proximity to the Las Vegas Strip and related 

attractions, which would be accessible via taxis, shuttle buses, and potential 

future extensions of the Las Vegas Monorail. The Las Vegas passenger 

station design is intended to facilitate/accommodate these transit connections. 

247 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Coordinate with other transit providers to maximize station access by transit See response to comment 246.

248 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Provide accessibility to Metrolink's San Bernardino station to enhance rider 

access to the proposed line for Southern California without the need to drive 

to Victorville.

The comment suggests that the project be expanded to incorporate a shuttle 

connection between San Bernardino and Victorville. While the project does 

not include this component, nothing would preclude private vendors from 

offering such services upon initiation of rail service. 

249 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Design the new facilities to be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, in addition to 

linking with other modes of transit.

The comment is noted; the station designs will facilitate linkages with other 

transit modes, including buses, which typically carry bicycle racks. Travelers 

to and from the passenger station to board the trains can be expected to be 

carrying luggage and thus are less likely to travel to the station by bicycle or 

foot. 

250 General - Project 

Attributes

EPA Support policies that will increase density and mixed-uses in the station 

areas.

As discussed in Section 2.3.2 of this Final EIS, the Las Vegas Station is within 

a mixed use area; the Victorville Station is in an area designated for future 

mixed use development. 

March 2011 4-50 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

251 General - Project 

Attributes

FHWA - CA Typical cross sections: the designs feature a heavy reliance on concrete 

barrier at the edge of the shoulder, and within the clear zone of the interstate 

roadway, which will result in increased crashes, many of which will be at a 

higher level of severity than the read end crashes DesertXpress proposes to 

decrease by reducing traffic. Additionally, minimum width shoulders give little 

opportunity for enforcement and emergency response activities to occur 

without affecting live travel lanes. Concrete barriers should be eliminated 

where ever possible, moved away from the roadway wherever possible, or 

substituted with a more forgiving crash barrier (high tension cable barrier or 

similar). The project should also coordinate with law enforcement to provide 

areas acceptable for use during enforcement activities along I-I5.

Section 3.5.2.3 of this Final EIS includes a safety analysis of the Preferred 

Alternative that includes a discussion of the safety risks associated with the 

proposed improvements. In order to reduce the safety risks associated with 

run-off-the-road crashes, the Preferred Alternative has incorporated "clear 

zones" (the distance between the travel lane and obstacles or steep slopes) of 

at least 30 feet into the project design. 

252 General - Project 

Attributes

FHWA - CA It is unclear how DesertXpress intends to acquire any ROW beyond the I-15 

corridor when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not the underlying 

fee owner. How will DesertXpress assure that all ROW will be acquired in 

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 (84 Stat.1894, 42 U.S.C.4601)?

Please see Section 1.5.1 of this Final EIS, which includes an updated 

discussion of potential compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 

253 General - Project 

Attributes

Friedman, Alexander I believe, the project should only be endorsed if the rail line is connected with 

Los Angeles. Folks, a vast majority of Las Vegas visitors come from Los 

Angeles, not from Victorville! 

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing 

transportation facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville 

terminus. For example, the Cambridge Systematics report states that "the 

location of the Victorville terminal would be passed by virtually every auto 

traveler going between Southern California and Las Vegas." Ridership 

Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by Steer 

Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown 

Los Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and 

Las Vegas. All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must 

pass Victorville" DXE Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical 

Memorandum: FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

254 General - Project 

Attributes

Frodsham, Gene M. The solar electric system for supplying electric locomotives for the high 

speed rail is not in place. Building a solar electric capacity would entail a 

huge expense and delay the opening of the system. The system built for 

diesel-electric (diesel) locomotives can be designed to be upgraded later to 

solar electric. There will always be a need for diesel backup in case the 

electricity supply is cut off, so starting with the diesel and adding solar 

electric supply is the preferred option, with the original diesel engines being 

relegated to the backup. To do otherwise would be to delay the project. The 

existence of the high speed rail will be an impetus for the development of 

solar electric supplies. 

This comment relates to other comments recommending that the electric 

(EMU) locomotive technology reuse electrical power from solar energy plate(s), 

which is not part of the agency Preferred Alternative. The EMU technology 

would utilize electric power available through existing infrastructure (see 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS). 

255 General - Project 

Attributes

Frodsham, Gene M. The magnetic-levitation (mag-lev) option for the high speed rail should not be 

considered. The mag-lev option would be far more expensive, and would 

delay the development of a high speed rail system in the United States. 

While mag-lev is state of the art, it is not developed to the level where it is 

practical to install at a large scale. At this time the mag-lev ideas is only in 

the experimental stage with small, expensive, sections being studied; it is not 

ready. An additional space can be allotted next to the high speed rail when in 

a decade or two the mag-lev technology is ready. 

This comment indicates that magnetic levitation technology should not be 

considered. The comment is noted.

256 General - Project 

Attributes

Frodsham, Gene M. The station in Las Vegas should be sited and designed so the system is 

easily extended to Salt Lake City. 

The comment is noted; the comment does not address the analysis within the 

EIS but states a preference for a possible future project.

March 2011 4-51 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

257 General - Project 

Attributes

Frodsham, Gene M. A standard for the gage and rolling stock of the high speed rail system is a 

good idea. The line from [Los Angeles] to Las Vegas should be extended to 

Salt Lake [City] and to Denver and Omaha, and then to the east coast. This 

would form the backbone for the development of high speed rail system in 

the United States. 

The comment is noted; the comment does not address the analysis within the 

EIS but states a preference for a possible future project. However, please see 

DEIS section 2.4.8, which states that the project would use a standard gauge 

steel wheel on steel rail system that would be compatible with other railroads 

and thus potentially expandable. 

258 General - Project 

Attributes

Hughes, Brendan Second, I believe it is inappropriate for the Desert Xpress to propose its 

route through a unit of the National Park System. The Mojave National 

Preserve is off limits to development. If the Desert Xpress is to proceed, it 

should find a way to boost power to surmount Mountain Pass within the I- 15 

median, instead of taking the Nipton Road bypass or the tunnel through 

Clark Mountain. The way railroads have done this in the past is to add an 

extra locomotive when necessary, and Desert Xpress should explore this 

option. This will be cheaper than tunneling and will not attempt to go through 

a National Park.

The comment is noted. The proposed project does not utilize locomotive cars; 

rather each train car is instead individually powered through the overhead 

catenary system. Therefore, adding another locomotive for power is not an 

option. Moreover, as set forth in Final EIS Section 2.4.1, median alignments in 

general were rejected from the Preferred Alternative due to concerns about 

operations, safety, and freeway maintenance. Also see Final EIS Section 

2.2.3.1, which describes several alignment options considered but ultimately 

dismissed from further analysis due to infeasibility, cost, environmental 

concerns, and related factors. 

259 General - Project 

Attributes

Kilpatrick, Jennifer My comment is that the concept of making the train tracks entirely "gradeseparated", so that there would be no roads crossing the track, is an 

absolutely essential narrowing of the definition and scope of the project, 

which perhaps obviated the need to consider a panoply of public safety/land 

use impacts of the project at locations where the high speed train line would 

meet trucks and cars. 

The proposed project is fully grade-separated, as further described in Section 

1.2.1 of the Final EIS. 

260 General - Project 

Attributes

Kilpatrick, Jennifer However, as a result of the omission of a train crash public safety analysis in 

this Draft EIS, in terms of this project's effect on its human environment, if atgrade crossing(s) of tracks and streets/roads were later to be designed into 

the project, such a design change would be completely unacceptable and 

unlawful under NEPA and CEQA without further environmental review 

through a subsequent/supplemental/amended EIS/EIR.

The proposed project is fully grade-separated, as further described in Section 

1.2.1 of the Final EIS. Should the Project Applicant propose a change that 

would entail at-grade crossings, additional analysis under NEPA would be 

required. Section 3.5.2.3 of this Final EIS includes a safety analysis of the 

Preferred Alternative that includes a discussion of the safety risks associated 

with the proposed improvements. 

261 General - Project 

Attributes

Rhoads, Jeffrey Equipment, traffic control and signalization compatibility with the voter 

approved California High Speed Rail system seems to be appropriate for this 

project. This would leave open the possibility of integration of the subject 

alignment into a super regional system serving the southwestern US from 

San Francisco to Tucson. 

Although the DesertXpress project has independent utility and is not 

considered a connected action to the California High Speed Rail project, the 

two projects are potentially complementary, as described further in Section 

1.6.2 of this Final EIS. 

262 General - Project 

Attributes

Rhoads, Jeffrey An obvious next step project is to link this proposed project with the 

California system at Palmdale. In my opinion work on determining feasibility 

of this next phase should begin immediately but independently of this project 

to avoid delay of the DesertXpress. Perhaps proposed the E220 corridor 

alignment between Palmdale and Victorville may be a suitable alternative for 

study. If so proposed right of way width should be identified to allow for 

multiple modes such as freight rail, dedicated passenger rail, highway, 

commuter bikeway and expressway.

Please see response to comment 261 above. 

263 General - Project 

Attributes

Rhoads, Jeffrey I understand the proposed system intends to use lighter weight rolling stock 

in the European TGV model. If this is approved by the FRA, Will the heavier 

equipment required for use in the planned California network be able to 

share this dedicated passenger only alignment along with proposed light 

DesertXpress lighter equipment? 

Equipment for the California High Speed Rail system has not yet been 

selected. Once it is selected, DXE, in coordination with FRA, will evaluate 

what is necessary to accommodate potential future shared use. All equipment 

and operation DesertXpress would need to comply with all applicable FRA 

safety regulations. 

264 General - Project 

Attributes

Rocha, Dolores Is the Train going to run on electricity, diesel or gas? The electric (EMU) locomotive technology option is part of the Preferred 

Alternative (see Section 2.5.1 of this Final EIS). 

265 General - Project 

Attributes

Rocha, Dolores How high is the wall suppose to be or is there a wall being built. Fencing and wall heights would vary by location but would be designed to 

preclude human or animal intrusion onto the tracks. Please see Section 

2.4.9.1 of this Final EIS. 

March 2011 4-52 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

266 General - Project 

Attributes

Rodriguez, Carolina If you could lower your rates, I do believe they are a little high 100.00 round 

trip to Vegas, but it is still a plus for everyone. are you also doing special 

offers for every day riders like the Metro link? I would like to learn more of 

this project and it should be started sooner.

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted. At 

present, there is no information on the possibility/nature of any special 

offers/discounts the rail operators may provide.

267 General - Project 

Attributes

Rubino, John R. I can not make sense of only linking Victorville (80 miles from Los Angeles) 

and Las Vegas. There are rail right-of-ways further into California that could 

be extended. (There use to be the Santa Fe train than ran from Las Vegas to 

Los Angeles.) A terminal in Los Angeles, allowing for parking cars and 

connected to bus routes, makes more sense. What about people coming 

from Las Vegas? Are they going to get limos or buses or rent cars to 

complete their trip? VICTORVILLE AS A TERMINAL STOP IS NOT 

FEASIBLE.. 

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing 

transportation facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville 

terminus. For example, the Cambridge Systematics report states that "the 

location of the Victorville terminal would be passed by virtually every auto 

traveler going between Southern California and Las Vegas." Ridership 

Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by Steer 

Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown 

Los Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and 

Las Vegas. All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must 

pass Victorville" DXE Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical 

Memorandum: FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

268 General - Project 

Attributes

Rubino, John R. Moreover, a train dedicated only to passengers will not survive monetarily. 

What is required is a line that can ALSO haul freight, containerized or not, 

that can be transferred to semi's at either end. Additionally, the passenger 

train could be structured to ferry cars so a certain number of passengers 

could de-board the train and continue their trip in their car. 

The comment is noted, but the train as proposed is designed only for 

passengers as described in more detail in Final EIS Chapter 1 (Purpose and 

Need), in which Section 1.2 defines the purpose of the project as providing 

passenger rail. 

269 General - Project 

Attributes

Rubino, John R. A high-speed train at 200+ miles per hour, terrain permitting, is more than 

adequate for the 350 miles between LA & LV. I see this being preferable 

over a mag-lev line (too expensive to construct and maintain and may be 

overly- susceptible to earth movement at its higher speed.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor 

require response through analysis of specific environmental impact of the 

proposed action. 

270 General - Project 

Attributes

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

If DesertXpress is placed along the I-15 freeway right-of-way, it will limit the 

future expansion of the freeway when and if it becomes necessary to add 

more lanes in spite of the high-speed trains. For this reason, the County 

prefers the elevated rail system along the freeway median. This will also 

restrict the noise footprint of the train to the areas already impacted the most 

by the noise of the existing freeway traffic.

This comment indicates support for the median option, Please see Section 

2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of the Final EIS for further discussion of considerations in the 

selection of the Preferred Alternative. The California (Caltrans) and Nevada 

(NDOT) Departments of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) were involved in selection of the agency Preferred Alternative.

271 General - Project 

Attributes

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

Since two options are under consideration, the all-electric train system 

seems preferable for

the following reasons:

a. Greenhouse gas emissions would be less than with the diesel-electric 

option.

b. The electric-only system will be quieter for riders as well as residents 

along the route

c. Diesel uses more fossil fuel with seemingly diminishing supply sources 

world-wide and

prices which fluctuate wildly and unpredictably.

d. Risk of storage, spillage, fires and pollution are greater with diesel fuel 

than with an electric system.

The electric (EMU) locomotive technology option has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS).

March 2011 4-53 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

272 General - Project 

Attributes

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

The locations of Park-and-Ride sites, connections with buses and taxi 

services in close proximity to the high-speed train stations should be 

encouraged for the convenience of the high-speed passengers. The County 

would like to see more detailed plans even though local permits are not 

required for the approval of the high-speed system, since the demand for 

such ancillary services will impact local governments, economy and available 

services.

As discussed in Section 2.3.2 of this Final EIS, the passenger stations would 

be compatible with local land use plans for mixed-use development served by 

local transit, and with highway access. In addition, all potential Las Vegas 

Station options are in close proximity to the Las Vegas Strip and related 

attractions, which would be accessible via taxis, shuttle buses, and potential 

future extensions of the Las Vegas Monorail. DesertXpress will encourage 

and support transit connections to the station sites. 

273 General - Project 

Attributes

Clark, Juanita Use SolaTrek technology for train. See Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS for a discussion of the reasoning 

behind the selection of the electric (EMU) locomotive technology option as part 

of the agency Preferred Alternative. Also see Final EIS Section 1.2.1, which 

calls for the project to utilize a reliable and proven high-speed rail technology, 

such as those currently in use in numerous locations in Europe. 

274 General - Project 

Attributes

SolaTrek Why not use SolaTrek technology for DesertXpress? See response to comment 273. 

275 General - Project 

Attributes

Union Pacific Union Pacific understands from the Draft EIS that the DesertXpress's 

preferred alternative routing does not occupy any part of Union Pacific's right 

of way between Daggett and Las Vegas. However, Option C for Segments 6 

and 7 propose an alternative routing on and within Union Pacific's right of 

way between Sloan and Las Vegas, Nevada. Union Pacific opposes this 

alternative routing and believes that preserving its right of way for freight 

service expansion is the best policy at this time. Further, fiber optic lines and 

the high-pressure fuel line already located within the railroad right of way 

make joint use with high-speed passenger rail (where speeds will exceed 

110 mph) problematic for operations and liability exposure. Slow speed 

freight trains and high-speed trains (over 110 mph) are incompatible on the 

same tracks at any time and at any location, including at-grade cross-overs. 

The FRA should not contemplate operation of freight trains on any 

DesertXpress trackage at any time (and vice versa).

This comment indicates opposition to Segment 6C, which is not part of the 

agency Preferred Alternative. In addition, as described in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives of this Final EIS, the DesertXpress project is being developed as a 

dedicated passenger rail line and does not contemplate the operation of freight 

trains. 

276 General - Project 

Attributes

Union Pacific Union Pacific is opposed to shared use of its railroad right of way or tracks 

with high-speed passenger trains where speeds will exceed 110 mph. Union 

Pacific is opposed to location of any high-speed rail line so close to our right 

of way as to substantially impair our ability to serve existing or future rail 

freight customers. Union Pacific understand that this and other high-speed 

rail lines may need to make lateral crossings over or under our right of way 

at certain locations as part of the overall design of the system. Union Pacific 

is not opposed to such crossing provided they meet our engineering 

standards and will not impair future capacity expansion nor hinder current 

operations. 

This comment indicates opposition to Segment 6C, which is not part of the 

agency Preferred Alternative. 

277 General - Project 

Attributes

Donovan, Kelly Negative economic effects to Barstow if there is no train stop there. 

Proposed route through proposed industrial park would hurt Barstow.

Regarding the feasibility of a Barstow station, please see the response to 

comment 33. Regarding the introduction of Segment 2C as an alternative 

routing that would avoid the Barstow Industrial Park, please see the response 

to comment 288. 

278 General - Project 

Attributes

Gordon, Brett Consider including freight component on DesertXpress. The comment is noted, but the train as proposed is designed only for 

passengers as described in more detail in Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final 

EIS.

279 General - Project 

Attributes

Lamfrom, David (National Parks 

Conservation Association)

Segment 4A would traverse Mojave National Preserve. This would be an 

inappropriate precedent.

Segment 4C has been included in the Preferred Alternative. This routing does 

not traverse the Mojave National Preserve (see Section 2.4, Preferred 

Alternative, of this Final EIS). 

March 2011 4-54 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

280 General - Project 

Attributes

Piechota, Tom Ensure that selected technology encourages sufficient ridership. Encourage 

connection with Ivanpah Airport

Please see Section 1.6.8 for discussion of a potential future connection to the 

Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport. The electric (EMU) technology option 

included as part of the Preferred Alternative has more robust ridership 

projections than the diesel (DEMU) option considered. See Section 2.4.4 of 

this Final EIS. 

281 General - Project 

Attributes

High Desert Opportunity High Desert Opportunity supports the project The comment is noted. This comment indicates support for the project. 

282 General - Project 

Attributes

Taylor, David Electric train is preferable Please see Section 2.4.4 of this Final EIS for a discussion of the reasoning 

behind the selection of the electric (EMU) locomotive technology option as part 

of the Preferred Alternative. 

283 General - Project 

Attributes

Taylor, David Train should have a station/stop in Barstow As discussed in Section 2.3.2.2 of this Final EIS, the Project Applicant has not 

proposed a Barstow station site and FRA has not included analysis of one, as 

ridership projections indicated that the anticipated number of passengers 

boarding at a potential Barstow station would be insufficient to support a 

station.

284 General - Project 

Attributes

Washington, Stan What is plan for minority participation in development of the project? The comment is outside the scope of the environmental effects of the 

proposed action. Notwithstanding, Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 notes that project 

construction would result in substantial short-term employment, particularly in 

the cities along the project route (Victorville, Barstow, Las Vegas). 

285 General - Project 

Attributes

Waybright, Charles Need to have secure parking in Victorville else crime will result. The comment is noted. 

286 General/Executive 

Summary

DesertXpress Enterprises Also, the alternatives are discussed as Alternative A and Alternative B in the 

initial chapter, and are occasionally referenced later as the Alternative A 

Alignments and the Alternative B Alignments, and other times as the Median 

Alternatives and Right of Way Alternatives. We would suggest that the EIS 

should remain consistent with regard to the title and description of each 

alternative and the alignments within each alternative.

Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS provides a complete description of all 

alignments and facilities considered during the development of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

287 Growth BLM Barstow BLM has submitted a substantive socioeconomic comment concerning 

losses in visitor-related income and FRA did not address the comments 

because "none of the other FCA‘s provided similar comment or concerns." 

These comments need to be addressed appropriately. Additionally, one of 

the cities along the route has raised such concerns.

See response to comment 277. 

288 Growth City of Barstow The EIS fails to discuss key land use policy changes, which have a strong 

potential to increase urbanization, especially in the Lenwood area through 

which the proposed train would pass. These include development proposals 

south of the City. While not currently active due to nation-wide economic 

issues, urbanization south of Barstow has been discussed for many years. 

The potential for development in this area must be addressed in the EIS; see 

documentation pertaining to SCH# 2003081054 P & V Enterprises 

Development Project 27 Mar 2006, as well as extensive public media 

discussion of the SunCal and Whitewater Junction projects over the last two 

years. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS included revised land use information for the City 

of Barstow, and further proposed Segment 2C, which avoids the area 

identified by the commenter for future industrial development. Segment 2C is 

included in the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final 

EIS). Also see response to comment 277 and Appendix F-E, which more 

specifically address these and other subsequent comments of the City of 

Barstow regarding potential economic impacts of the project. 

289 Growth City of Barstow Of more immediate and direct concern is development of the Barstow 

Industrial Park, see Exhibit A. A Notice of Preparation for this project (SCH 

#2007111069) was available for review and comment from 15 Nov 2007 

though 14 Dec 2007. 

See response to Comment 288 above. The Preferred Alternative avoids this 

area. This matter is also addressed in Appendix F-E. 

March 2011 4-55 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

290 Growth City of Barstow A corner of the site of the WalMart Distribution Center, (SCH #2006011037 

West Barstow Specific Plan No. 4 and Food Distribution EIR 2 Apr 2008) is 

crossed by the preferred DesertXpress alignment. While apparently not 

seriously impacted, see Exhibit A, why is the WalMart project not mentioned 

in the EIS?

See response to Comment 288 above. 

291 Growth Dale, Lawrence E. as presented by Desert Express this project will bring approximately 500 to 

700 jobs to Victorville and Las Vegas (however) when going through the 

middle of the industrial park taking portions of8 of the proposed warehouse 

buildings (Desert Express) will in effect reduce probably more jobs in 

Barstow than they will create.

See response to Comment 288 above. 

292 Growth DesertXpress Enterprises The EIS describes the regional and local environment of the impacted 

counties and cities. For each City, and Clark County, population and housing 

are addressed, along with employment. For San Bernardino County, only 

population is addressed. Housing and employment should also be discussed 

if the data is available.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.2, Growth, which includes updated 

demographic data where available from various local, county, and state 

sources. 

293 Growth DesertXpress Enterprises Under section 3.2.4, the EIS discusses growth effects including exceeding 

growth projections and removing obstacles to growth. Then, rather than 

discussing these effects, the EIS discusses the fact that existing housing 

would not be removed, with the exception of one residence. It is unclear why 

the housing displacement is discussed under growth and removal of 

obstacles, as it does not seem to logically follow in the discussion.

Final EIS Section 3.2 reflects substantial revisions to the Growth section and is 

specific to the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative does not 

involve the need to remove any housing. 

294 Growth DesertXpress Enterprises DesertXpress will work with the FRA and EIS consultant team to further 

refine the estimate of construction and operating period jobs.

This information is reflected in the economic impact studies prepared for the 

project (see Appendix F-E) and is incorporated into the analysis within Final 

EIS Section 3.2. 

295 Growth EPA Update all growth related projections to reflect the latest economic 

developments and ridership forecasts and update the valuation of 

alternatives, as appropriate. The impact of these recent events on previous 

growth projections should be considered, and their relevance to the Project 

and future plans for passenger only transport in the region discussed. Each 

of the alternatives analyzed should be considered in light of the most recent 

forecasts.

See response to comment 293. 

296 Growth EPA Clearly indicate by including a quantitative tabular summary how the SNSA, 

its associated transportation corridor, and future expansion of the I-15 

freeway could affect future ridership growth projections along the I-15 

Corridor and its impact on the Project's viability in future build years.

The Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) project was included in 

the cumulative analysis of this Final EIS (see Section 3.16). The Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), as Joint Lead Agencies (JLA) pursuant to the Ivanpah 

Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-362), have 

suspended preparation of an environmental study Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for a proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport 

(SNSA) in Clark County, Nevada. The FAA along with the BLM are suspending 

work on the environmental study EIS because the Clark County Department of 

Aviation has advised the JLA that it has reduced the level of effort on planning 

for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport at this time. At this 

time, FAA and BLM do not know when work will resume on the environmental 

study. This delay does not affect FRA's obligation to include the SNSA as a 

reasonably foreseeable project, and for that reason, FRA is correct to continue 

to include the SNSA in its discussions of reasonably foreseeable projects.

March 2011 4-56 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

297 Growth EPA Include a table of all proposed station sites with estimates of acres of 

induced growth/urbanization impacts associated with each location.

It is speculative to assume acres of induced growth associated with either 

station site included in the agency Preferred Alternative. In Victorville, all three 

station sites considered were located at some distance from other developed 

portions of Victorville but were within a Specific Plan area that the City has 

identified for future urban growth, with or without the project. The Las Vegas 

station area sites evaluated are all within a complex built up urban 

environment, limiting the potential for stations to induce new growth beyond 

what is already called for in current land use plans. 

298 Growth EPA Include specific mitigation measures, as appropriate, to address and offset 

growth-inducing impacts to San Bernardino and Clark counties. Specifically, 

the Final EIS should include strategies for addressing, planning for, and 

mitigating growth-related impacts in counties that will be most affected. The 

Final EIS should also include references to the transit-oriented principles that 

FRA has developed as part of the California High Speed Train system.

This Final EIS concluded that the agency Preferred Alternative did not have 

any substantial adverse impacts related to growth, so no mitigation measures 

are included (see Section 3.2.2.2 of this Final EIS). 

299 Growth Fagg, Darrell Number two, it will create jobs, to build and operate. Number three, I think it 

would help bring monies in to Las Vegas.

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

300 Growth Ford, Ginger This would bring jobs and revenue to the City of Victorville and possibly its 

surrounding areas. 

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

301 Growth Rodriguez, Carolina If you do this it will bring a lot of profit to you, and it is a plus to our city 

because people can ride in the train and see our city and may want to move 

here and then our houses might be rented and we would not have all this 

empty home and we will have a lot of revenue for our city.

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

302 Growth San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

In terms of the local economy, while the construction of the train system may 

provide local temporary employment, the regular operations of the highspeed train system with a peak capacity of approximately 5,000 passengers 

per hour per direction could deprive the County of gaming and tourist income 

from the local casinos and shops by making it easier for residents of 

California to travel to Las Vegas. New casinos and related businesses have 

developed in Southern California since the studies for the DesertXpress train 

were performed in 2005. The draw of the local casinos and related 

businesses to Southern California may discourage the use of the high-speed 

train system and could affect its viability and use. The EIS should be updated 

to reflect such changes as patronage of local casinos or changes in travel 

habits.

Ridership estimates are based on existing and forecasted demands from the 

Las Vegas Visitor Bureau and other sources. These estimates take into 

account the presence of gaming attractions in southern California. Casinos in 

California may affect the overall ridership to some extent; however, Las Vegas 

as a destination has substantial demand that is forecasted to continue well into 

the future in spite of development of casino gaming venues in California. The 

project would serve a small portion of the overall travel demand between 

Southern California and Las Vegas. 

303 Growth Hepker, George Project would bring jobs to the community. This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

304 Growth Lamfrom, David (National Parks 

Conservation Association)

Project would have negative economic impact on City of Barstow See response to comment 277. 

305 Growth Peterson, Margaret Indirect job growth would be of benefit to the high desert communities This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

306 Growth Martinelli-Price, Patricia Unclear of the economic benefit to Las Vegas Please see Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3, which discusses anticipated construction 

jobs in the urban areas near the project, including Las Vegas. 

307 Growth Redlinger, Jeffrey Encouraged about the potential for the project to create jobs This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

308 Growth, 

Transportation

City of Barstow The Barstow share of 2.9% of a total of 13,258,169 annual auto visitor 

person trips is reported as 379,639 trips reported on Table 17, page 18.

The comment is referring to the Ridership Study, which is included as 

Appendix F-D to this Final EIS. The figure cited refers to the origins of all 

travelers to Las Vegas from Southern California. The study noted that the 

inclusion of a Barstow station was projected to result in a net increase of 

ridership of under 3 percent. Please also see the response to comment 33. 

March 2011 4-57 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

309 Growth, 

Transportation

City of Barstow The statement on EIS page 6-7-18 is conclusionary and not supported by 

any quantifiable data, such as an actual vehicle survey. The potential loss of 

visitor trips stopping in Barstow must not be ―written-off‖ in a such a cavalier 

manner. While 380,000 trips is a small component of overall project related 

trip assessments, it may well be critical to the economic well being of the 

Barstow community. Although the EIS must, by law, focus directly on 

environmental issues, there is a strong nexus between local economic 

conditions and environmental factors associated directly with blighting 

influences. Such concerns include (a) compromised public heath and safety, 

(b) inadequate provision of infrastructure and services, and (c) 

environmental degradation due to neglect. These factors must be addresses 

in the EIS. 

Please see the response to comment 308 above. Please also see Appendix FE, which fully analyzes potential economic impacts to the City of Barstow. 

310 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board

Portions for the project that affect waters of the United States and/or waters 

of the state by dredge or fill must obtain water quality certification from the 

state under section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act.

Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS identify the need for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permits. This 

Final EIS amends the Draft EIS to include text indicating that water quality 

certification will be required to comply with Section 401. See Section 3.8.1.2 of 

this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision.

311 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board

Because the project involves land disturbance in more than 1.0 acre in area 

and transportation related industrial activities in the form maintenance 

facilities, a SWPPP must be developed and implemented in accordance with 

a NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit.

Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

Draft EIS identify the need for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permits.

312 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board

Incorporate designs that minimize focused storm water runoff from 

impervious surfaces by directing runoff onto existing vegetated areas using 

curb cuts and swales, etc., and infiltrating runoff as close to the source as 

possible to avoid forming erosion channels. Please show on plan drawings 

the on-site storm water control measures.

Mitigation Measure HYD-6 of this Final EIS (see Section 3.8.3) requires the 

proper design of station and maintenance facility drainage systems. The 

approved design-build plans for the facilities will include detailed runoff 

calculations and necessary drainage basins or capture and treatment designs 

will be planned accordingly. In regards to the rail alignment, the rail segments 

would not result in large amounts of impervious surface as they would be 

constructed on ballast. The rail alignments would also connect with and mirror 

the existing culverts along the I-15 freeway, which would channel any runoff 

from the alignment.

313 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board

Consider development features that span the drainage channels or allow for 

broad crossings. Design features of future development should be 

incorporated to ensure that runoff is not concentrated by the proposed 

project.

The project rail alignment will bridge over the drainages and waterways that 

would be crossed. Based on preliminary design information from the 

Applicant, the crossings of these water resources would not permanently alter 

the course or flows of these water resources. This Final EIS amends the Draft 

EIS to include additional information related to maintaining the natural washes 

in their present location and natural form as practicable and feasible. See 

Section 3.8.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision. 

314 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

CCDOA Series of connected drainages that are characterized as "stopping" at I-15 

need to be properly characterized.

Water from several ephemeral drainages flows perpendicular into the roadway 

right-of-way and then is funneled down-slope collecting other small drainages 

and eventually a culvert transfers the water across to the other side of the I-15 

right-of-way. The proposed project will match I-15 drainage locations and 

sizes. This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS to include additional information 

related to maintaining the natural washes in their present location and natural 

form as practicable and feasible. See Section 3.8.1.1 of this Final EIS for 

specific locations of this revision. 

315 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

CCDOA Floodplains within Segment 5 have not been properly identified. Figure F-3.8-5 of the Final EIS shows floodplains within Segment 5.

March 2011 4-58 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

316 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Identify how hydrological connectivity along the project corridor supports the 

intent to utilize natural stream channels where they can provide adequate 

protection from flooding.

The project rail alignment will bridge over the drainages and waterways that 

would be crossed. Based on preliminary design information from the Project 

Applicant, the crossings of these water resources would not permanently alter 

the course or flows of these water resources. This Final EIS amends the Draft 

EIS to include additional information related to maintaining the natural washes 

in their present location and natural form as practicable and feasible. See 

Section 3.8.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision. 

317 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Remove the following statement, "Many of the washes in the study area do 

not meet the USACE definition of a water of the United States" (at p.3.14-

27). Once the delineation of the extent of waters, including wetlands, on the 

Project site has been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), FRA should update the information regarding estimated impacts 

to waters and provide this information in the Final EIS. A jurisdictional 

determination by USACE is needed prior to publication of the Final EIS in 

order to provide a determination of potential significant impacts and identify 

mitigation and avoidance measures in the design of the Project.

Delineation reports have been prepared for project and submitted to the 

USACE - please see Appendix F-I. Estimated acreages of waters of the US 

are included in the analysis contained within Final EIS Section 3.8, Hydrology.

318 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Update the information provided in the Final EIS so that estimated impacts 

are provided in acreage estimates. The Final EIS should include estimates of 

acreages of direct and indirect impacts to waters.

Final EIS Section 3.8.2.3 has been updated accordingly. 

319 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Differentiate between permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic 

resources.

Section 3.8.2.1 of this Final EIS distinguishes between permanent and 

temporary impacts. 

320 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Update Tables 3.14-2 to 3.14-8 to provide the row referred to as "Sensitive 

Plant Communities and Wetlands" and include sensitive vernal pool species, 

as appropriate.

No vernal pools inhabited by sensitive biological resources are known to occur 

in the project area (see Section 3.14, Biological Resources, of this Final EIS).

321 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA The Final EIS should include an evaluation of the project alternatives in order 

to demonstrate the project's compliance with the 404(b) (1) Guidelines and 

authorization of LEDPA. The alternatives analysis should include a 

reasonable range of alternatives that meet the Project purpose while 

avoiding and minimizing damage to waters. If, under the proposed project, 

dredged or fill material would be discharged into waters of the U.S., the Final 

EIS should discuss alternatives to avoid those discharges.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.8.1 which specifically addresses required 

permitting. Appendix F-I contains the delineation reports prepared for the 

project and submitted to the USACE - all of which will be used in the permitting 

under the CWA. 

322 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA If a discharge is permitted, the Final EIS should discuss how potential 

impacts would be minimized and mitigated, this discussion should include (a) 

Acreage and habitat type of waters of the U.S. that would be created, 

restored, or preserved; (b) water sources to maintain the mitigation area; (c) 

a revegetation plan utilizing native plants; (d) maintenance and monitoring 

plans, including performance standards to determine mitigation success; 9e) 

an Adaptive Management Plan; 9f) the parties that would be ultimately 

responsible for the plan's success; and (g) contingency plans that would be 

enacted if the original plan fails. Mitigations should be implemented in 

advance of the impacts to avoid habitat losses due to the lag time between 

the occurrence of the impact and successful mitigation.

Section 1.4.1 of the Draft EIS states that the Project Applicant will be 

responsible for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. The NEPA process 

also requires analysis of water resources that are not under the jurisdiction of 

the USACE. The Project Applicant submitted a formal jurisdictional 

determination request to USACE in July 2010. Section 3.8.2.3 of the Final EIS 

reflects information developed in this effort. Appendix F-I contains the 

delineation reports prepared for the project and submitted to the USACE.

323 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Address the potential for tunneling to affect stream flows, riparian habitat, the 

direction of lateral movement of water through the soil profile, and the 

recharge of shallow, unconfined aquifers. Identify specific design features to 

reduce these impacts.

The potential impacts associated with tunneling are discussed in Chapter 3, 

Introduction of this Final EIS, and reflects additional information regarding 

design features to minimize impacts. 

March 2011 4-59 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

324 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Commit to the use of natural washes, in their present location and natural 

form, to the maximum extent practicable with the placement of adequate 

natural buffers for flood control.

The project rail alignment will bridge over the drainages and waterways that 

would be crossed. Based on preliminary design information from the Project 

Applicant, the crossings of these water resources would not permanently alter 

the course or flows of these water resources. This Final EIS amends the Draft 

EIS to include additional information related to maintaining the natural washes 

in their present location and natural form as practicable and feasible. See 

Section 3.8.1.3 of this Final EIS for specific locations of this revision. 

325 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Provide adequate hydrological modeling to demonstrate that downstream 

flows will not be disrupted due to proposed change to any natural washes, 

the creation of wetlands, or the excavation of large amounts of sediment.

See response to comment 324. Crossings of water resources would not 

permanently alter the course or flows. 

326 Hydrology and Water 

Quality

EPA Identify where construction of the Project may provide for an opportunity to 

improve obstructed natural flows resulting from I-15 construction.

Water from several ephemeral drainages flows perpendicular into the roadway 

right-of-way and then is funneled down-slope collecting other small drainages 

and eventually a culvert transfers the water across to the other side of the I-15 

right-of-way. The project will match I-15 drainage locations and sizes (see 

Section 3.8.2.3 of this Final EIS).

327 Irretrievable and 

Irreversible 

Commitments of 

Public Resources

SANBAG DesertXpress proposes the use of right-of-way either to the west or within 

the median of I-15 for significant portions of the project. The Draft EIS rightly 

refers to the use of right-of-way as an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of public resources. Approval of the DesertXpress project will 

foreclose other technological options for high speed rail within the I-15 

corridor and, depending on the option selected, could impact the cost or 

feasibility of options Caltrans will have in the future for expanding the 

highway. It is important that commitments to the DesertXpress not foreclose 

or significantly increase the cost of future highway options, and it must be 

understood that this would represent a final decision on technology choice 

for high speed rail in this corridor. The compatibility of DesertXpress with the 

State high-speed rail technology leave options open for future connections 

with a State system.

Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS, as well as the Executive Summary, 

include a discussion of agency considerations in the selection of a Preferred 

Alternative. FRA has consulted extensively with Caltrans, NDOT, and FHWA 

in developing the Preferred Alternative. These agencies expressed concern 

that median alignment options would be more problematic in terms of potential 

future freeway expansions than side-running options. Side running options 

preserve the option to expand the freeway by using portions of the median and 

do not foreclose at all on freeway expansions on those sides of the freeway 

opposite the proposed rail alignment. 

328 Land Use CCDOA The preferred alignment in Segment 5 (alignment 5B) would penetrate into 

the runway protection zone (RPZ) for the western-most runway at the SNSA. 

CCDOA recommends that the project Applicant seek to avoid any 

construction within the RPZ for the SNSA.

Segment 5B would run on the east side of the I-15 freeway but is proposed to 

be located within the freeway right-of-way area (the fenced area of the 

freeway). In a review of Exhibit 1 provided by Clark County Department of 

Aviation (CCDOA), the southwestern corner of the runway protection zone 

(RPZ) appears to extend to about as close as 70 feet from the outer (eastern) 

edge of Northbound I-15. Section drawings within the Draft EIS (see Figure 2-

3) show that the anticipated footprint of DXE would be 52 feet, inclusive of a 

10 foot wide maintenance road. Without a maintenance road, the rail footprint 

width is 42 feet. Therefore, it is not entirely clear that Segment 5B would 

penetrate the RPZ. Finally, the RPZ for the Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport (SNSA) is currently understood to be provisional pending Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) preparation and review for the EIS for the 

SNSA.

March 2011 4-60 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

329 Land Use CCDOA Under AC150/5300-13 criteria, DesertXpress Alignment 5A would not 

penetrate the OEI surfaces. Alignment 5B would penetrate the OEI surface 

for Runway 18R. The CCDOA raises this issue here to alert the project 

Applicant to this potential conflict and recommends that the Applicant 

disclose any adverse effects that the project would have on OEI surfaces, to 

the extent that they are known or reasonably calculable. However, under 

different criteria (FAA Advisory Circular 120/91, ICOA Annex 6), neither 

Segment 5 alignment would penetrate OEI surfaces. 

See response to comment 328. 

330 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

BLM Barstow Change MUC I to unclassified. None of the project is in MUC I. From map 

provided it appears that some of the project crosses unclassified land in 

addition to MUC L and MUC M land.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS to reflect the correct Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Multiple Use Class designated lands. See Final EIS 

Figure F-3.1-13 and Final EIS Section 3.1.1.1.

331 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

BLM Barstow Remove reference to HCP. The West Mojave Plan amendment to the 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan analyzes included an HCP 

alternative. However, this alternative has not been adopted as an HCP by 

any entity. The alternative BLM adopted for the West Mojave Plan was 

Alternative B, which does not include the HCP components. 

The EIS text has been revised to reflect this comment. See Section 3.1.1.1 of 

this Final EIS.

332 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

BLM Barstow Change from BLM owned to BLM managed. BLM manages land held in title 

to the United States of America. The BLM does not own land. 

Final EIS Figures F-3.1-8 through F-3.1-12 reflect this distinction. 

333 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

CCDOA Federal and state laws related to land ownership need to be addressed as 

relevant regulatory considerations.

This Final EIS amends the Draft EIS text to include a discussion of the Ivanpah 

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

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

South County Land Use Plan. See Section 3.1.1.2 of this Final EIS for specific 

locations of this revision.

334 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

City of Barstow Land use policy data pertaining to Barstow and adjacent areas used in the 

EIS is grossly out of date, with resultant potentially significant land use 

compatibility issues not being address in the EIS. Key areas completely 

ignored in the EIS include the Barstow Industrial Park in Lenwood and 

potential urban expansion south of Barstow. EIS land use policy information, 

see Figure 3-1.13 (and discussed in Section 3.1.1) appears to originate from 

2005 data based on the sources for Figure 3-1.13. Therefore, it appears that 

the subject document was essentially completed in 2006, based on 2005 

data. Basic land use policy information, including a copy of the Barstow 

Zoning Map is available for download from the City‘s Web Site; and has 

been available in this form for several years. In addition there seems to have 

been no effort to check on pending development projects subject to CEQA 

as posted on the California Office of Planning and Research Website < 

http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/>, see in particular the Barstow Industrial Park 

mentioned below. Submission of a document for public review with clearly 

outdated information that has a substantial and potentially significant 

negative impact on future land use is not appropriate, and calls into question 

the adequacy the entire land use section of the draft EIS, see comments that 

follow.

The comment is noted. Based on this comment, land use information was 

updated. Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.1.1 for specific revisions in 

response to this comment. 

335 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

Cogan, Karen If the rail line is to be constructed down the median of the highway - or 

alongside it - it really wouldn't impact the desert floor that much either since 

the highway is already in place.

Please see Section 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of this Final EIS for a discussion of agency 

considerations regarding the Preferred Alternative. The median alternative 

was not selected as part of the Preferred Alternative, but was identified in Final 

EIS Section 2.5.4 as a component of the environmentally preferable 

alternative, for some of the same reasons articulated by the commenter. 

March 2011 4-61 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

336 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

Dale, Lawrence E. The route through Barstow is presently the same as it was in 2006 and it 

cuts through the middle of Barstow's industrial park

See response to comments 277 and 288. 

337 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

DesertXpress Enterprises Please consider clarifying that a 75-foot wide rail alignment, including both 

tracks, the overhead electrification support poles for the EMU option, and a 

parallel maintenance and inspection roadway) is a conservative assumption 

being used for the analysis, because for the most part the actual right of way 

will be less.

Chapter 2, Alternatives, of this Final EIS identifies all facilities and lands 

necessary to construct and operate the proposed project. In addition, the 

study area for most environmental topics includes additional buffer areas to 

ensure that all potential impacts have been considered. 

338 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

Frodsham, Gene M. We must have a high speed rail. We should have had one twenty years ago. 

The impact on the land along the existing corridor and the land impacted by 

the deviations from that corridor is minor, small as to be insignificant. It 

amounts to merely slivers of land at the edges of the existing 

uses/designation and is inconsequential. Build the system now, fast.

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

339 Land Use & 

Community Impacts

Rocha, Dolores Do you see the need to add the last 3 home that will remain as of now that 

are along the 15 fwy in Victorville. 

The only components of the project in Victorville (OMSF 2 and Station Site 3) 

are located well outside of any residentially developed areas. 

340 Land Use and 

Community Impact

EPA If a potential environmental justice issue is identified, the Final EIS should 

clearly state whether, in light of all of the facts and circumstances, a 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact 

on minority or low-income populations is likely to result from the Project 

alternative, or from constructing any other alternatives proposed for analysis. 

This statement should be supported by sufficient information for the public to 

understand the rationale for the conclusion.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.2.3, which examines the potential for 

environmental justice impacts. 

341 Land Use and 

Community Impact

EPA Briefly summarize the findings, discuss whether or not there are 

environmental justice implications associated with any of the potential 

impacts of the Project, and provide references to other relevant sections of 

the document that describe the specific impacts in greater detail(such as the 

noise and air quality sections).

See response to comment 340

342 Land Use and 

Community Impact

EPA Propose appropriate mitigation if disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental impacts on minority populations or low-income 

populations are likely to result from the proposed action or any of the 

alternatives.

See response to comment 340

343 Land Use and 

Community Impact

EPA While noise, traffic and air quality impacts are identified(at p 3.1-61), the 

Environmental Justice analysis does not evaluate localized impacts from 

diesel emissions to minority or low-income communities in the immediate 

vicinity of the Project railway that could result from construction of the 

Project.

As the Preferred Alternative incorporates electric (EMU) locomotive 

technology, localized diesel impacts are minimized along the entire alignment, 

not merely in environmental justice communities. See Section 3.1.2.3 of this 

Final EIS. 

344 Traffic DesertXpress Enterprises The statement that reductions in traffic volumes due to the project would be 

minor is qualitative and not substantiated, and is inconsistent with the 

findings of other portions of the document, which show approximately a 25% 

diversion of auto passengers to the EMU trains – which is not ―minor‖. We 

request this statement be removed or accurately stated.

Please see Table F-3.5-6, which states that by the year 2030, the expected 

level of passenger ridership diverted from the I-15 freeway would be roughly 

equivalent to up to 1400 vehicles per hour during peak hours.

345 Noise and Vibration, 

Traffic

DesertXpress Enterprises The discussion of traffic noise refers to a ―small percentage‖ of the projected 

increase in traffic. Please see the above comment.

The majority of the roadways in the project corridor, including I-15 and major 

arterials in Las Vegas, have significant volumes of traffic, and as a result, 

significant existing traffic noise. While the project is anticipated to reduce 

traffic volumes on I-15, at locations outside of the metropolitan areas along the 

I-15 freeway, the associated reduction in traffic noise would be less than 1 dB 

and would have no effect on the existing noise levels. 

March 2011 4-62 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

346 Noise and Vibration DesertXpress Enterprises The reported noise impacts in the Mojave Preserve for segments 3 and 4 

are ―equal to 60 semi-trucks daily, audible from 1⁄2 mile away;‖ however, page 

3.15-8 states that the hiking trails in the Preserve are 10 to 20 miles from 

segment 4A. It is therefore unclear who receptors would be. Further, this 

should be stated within the context of the impacts of noise from hundreds if 

not thousands of semi-trucks daily that operate on nearby I-15, which is 

within less than one-half mile away throughout almost all of Segment 4A and 

immediately adjacent to the Preserve throughout Segment 3.

Please see Final EIS Sections 3.12.1.3 and 3.15.5.1, which address the issue 

of potential noise effects in the Mojave National Preserve. 

347 Noise/Visual San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

The projections in the EIS should include when it should be necessary to 

install sound barriers or visual impact mitigations along the high-speed rail 

lines when existing and future developments make such installations 

necessary.

Section 3.6.3 and Section 3.12.3 in this Final EIS include noise and visual 

mitigation measures related to the project as proposed including NV-1 which 

describes the use of noise barriers where appropriate. 

348 Purpose and Need American Magline Group The draft EIS states numerous times that the DesertXpress is privately 

funded yet the proponents of the project are actively seeking federal funding 

through the ARRA program and are requesting federal lands and no cost. 

These types of statements are contradictory.

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As 

described in Final EIS Section 1.5.1 DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may 

become eligible to for apply for financing from the federal government through 

a federal loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing (RRIF) program. 

349 Purpose and Need American Magline Group The draft EIS relies on a Surface Transportation Board ruling to claim that 

the DesertXpress project is exempt from state and local regulations including 

CEQA without noting that this ruling has been appealed and is without 

precedent for a passenger only railroad that does not connect to the 

interstate freight system.

It should be noted that the referenced appeal was denied by the Surface 

Transportation Board in a Decision issued May 7, 2010 (Docket No. FD 

34914). 

350 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Chapter One (Section 1.5) should indicate the major public issues raised 

during scoping and the conflicts with other rights-of-way or existing uses, 

including the context of issues and conflicts. Integrating the design, routing, 

or mitigation elements from various alternatives into the Alternatives chapter 

should address or avoid these issues and conflicts.

Section 1.7, Issues Raised During Scoping, of this Final EIS includes the 

information requested. Also see Appendix P of the Draft EIS, which includes 

all comments received during the scoping process, including FRA's responses. 

351 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow In summary, known conflicts or issues raised during scoping should be 

adequately addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final 

EIS) in such a manner that it is clear to the public how FRA proposes to 

address those issues. If those issues are not going to be addressed, then 

rationale should be provided as to why not. Not all of the scoping information 

should be relegated to an Appendix. The Table in Section 1.2 of Appendix P 

which currently summarizes issues from public scoping and how they are 

being addressed, is not sufficiently clear such that someone reading it would 

know where to look in the Draft EIS to see how it is being addressed. 

Please see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, Section 1.7 of the Final EIS: "Issues 

Raised During Scoping."

352 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Scoping comments and areas of controversy should be summarized and 

referenced in Chapter 1 and should be reviewed for accuracy. In addition, 

any changes to the Mojave National Preserve that would be required for the 

approval of a specific alternative needs to be clearly identified.

See response to Comment 350 above.

353 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Table 1.4-1 It is unclear what permit or approval is issued by STB. Section 1.5.3 of this Final EIS describes that the Surface Transportation 

Board's permit is to "construct and operate" the proposed new railroad. 

March 2011 4-63 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

354 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow The National Park Service section is unclear. The last line states legislative 

and land exchange options are being considered by the NPS, BLM, and 

other key agencies. The BLM does not currently have any legislative or land 

exchange options under consideration. Clarify and specify which agencies 

are considering the connected actions and specify those connected actions. 

This alternative does not have a legal basis for approval nor is there any 

information provided that indicates that there is an expectation for a legal 

basis for review or permitting either prior to ROD or in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. 

Section 1.5.5 of this Final EIS addresses this comment. Subsection 1.5.5 was 

the best available information at the time the Draft EIS was published. NPS is 

a cooperating agency in preparing the EIS and had reviewed this section prior 

to publishing the Draft EIS. The Agency Preferred Alternative has been 

incorporated into the Final EIS. The Agency Preferred Alternative includes 

Segment 4C which avoids any incursion into the Mojave National Preserve. 

355 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Needs larger scale map (11 x 17 minimum) with land ownership status and 

resources areas indicated.

A number of maps included in the Draft EIS are at a larger scale and show 

requested information. Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIS included maps showing 

the project on seven 24 x 36 inch sheets. 

356 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow The Purpose and Need as identified in the Draft EIS restates the Applicant‘s 

Purpose and Need. If the EIS would identify each federal agency‘s Purpose 

and Need, it would help focus roles and responsibilities, as well as expected 

outcomes after the NEPA process is completed. Without this focus, it is 

probable that some federal agencies would not be able to make appropriate 

decisions after the Final EIS is complete.

FRA believes the Purpose and Need is framed and written appropriately. 

While the project requires several federal actions for approval, focusing the 

Purpose and Need exclusively on specific federal agency purposes and needs 

would too narrowly define the project and thus possibly understate 

environmental impacts. In this case, the need identified reflects broader social 

conditions to which the project is responding and thus explains to the public 

and decision makers why or why not the project is worthwhile. See Section 

1.2, Purpose of the Proposed Project, and Section 1.3, Need for the Proposed 

Project, in this Final EIS. 

357 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow The Purpose and Need for the federal agencies should be added to the 

document. For example, the BLM‘s need is to consider a right-of-way 

application, consistent with Section 501 et seq. of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act.

Please see response to Comment 356 above. 

358 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Table 1.4-1 Remove National Park Service from permit Table. There is no 

legal basis for National Park Service to issue a Right-of-Way Easement.

 Reference to the National Park Service has been removed from Table 1.4-1. 

359 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow With respect to other conflicts with route alternatives (such as the 

overlapping right-of-way applications for the solar facility in eastern San 

Bernardino County, utility rights-of-way, and existing highway rights-of-way), 

these issues should be addressed specifically in the EIS. Bringing these 

conflicts to light will undoubtedly provide the basis for additional public and 

agency comments as well as information necessary for the BLM Authorized 

Officer to determine which alternative will be in the public interest.

Draft EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, identified all of the projects 

referenced in the comment, in addition to other planned projects. Final EIS 

Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts updated the list of planned projects and 

revised the analyses accordingly. 

360 Purpose and Need BLM Barstow Is the declaratory order the STB‘s sole action? Section 1.4.1.1 of this Final EIS describes STB's role in the project. 

DesertXpress must seek authority from STB under 49 U.S.C 10901 to 

construct and operate the rail line. 

March 2011 4-64 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

361 Purpose and Need Breuer, Mark Victorville CA is not a central hub and it should not terminate there. A much 

better plan was the other consideration from Anaheim CA. People are going 

to say if I'm going to drive from Anaheim to Victorville I might as well drive 

the rest of the way or fly. They will not want to drive 1/3 the way from LA and 

leave their expensive Mercedes etc. in a parking lot when it could be sitting 

in valet. Please build the train, but build it right. 

The Ridership Study, included as Appendix B to the Draft EIS, supports the 

viability of the DesertXpress project. Page 1-2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

describes an estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to 

DesertXpress in the opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by 

URS Corporation in 2005, reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and 

independently reviewed by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both 

reviews found that the URS study used appropriate methods. SDG at 6; 

Cambridge at 2. The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the forecast and 

concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent lower 

than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the Desert 

Xpress ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information 

is obtained." Cambridge at 25. The Ridership Study reflects that trips would 

originate in California with Las Vegas as the destination. 

362 Purpose and Need Carder, D. Ross The Abstract (in two places), and the Executive Summary in two places, ES1 and ES-2, all state that the project is to be privately funded. Then under 

 ̳Alternatives‘, 2.3 (―Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further 

Analysis‖), the Draft EIS states that the ―Applicant found that steel-wheel 

train systems with distributed propulsion the only viable technology [clearly 

patently false] and rejected other technologies including magnetic levitation - - 

- (and) also found magnetic levitation to be cost-prohibitive within a privatelyfunded project‖

This comment takes exception with the Applicant's determination that 

magnetic levitation is cost prohibitive within a privately funded project. 

Magnetic levitation technology is considerably more costly than the technology 

options considered for DesertXpress. Section 2.2.3.3 in this Final EIS 

compares route-mile costs of these technologies ($48 million per route mile 

for maglev; $21 million per route mile for DesertXpress). The FRA believes it 

was reasonable for the Applicant to conclude that magnetic levitation 

technology would be cost prohibitive within a privately funded project. 

363 Purpose and Need City of Barstow In addition, it contradicts prior statements in EIS Section 1.7.1 pertaining to 

the lack of information needed to address the location of a station in 

Barstow. Despite that fact that base data was available, no further 

consideration was given to this important local issue during the last 30-

months. 

The Applicant met several times with various officials in the City of Barstow. 

These results of these discussions did not conclude in consensus regarding 

the need or location of a Barstow station. Ridership estimates do not support 

a station in Barstow. Please see Final EIS Section 1.7.1 for further discussion 

of this matter. The alternative of a Barstow-area station was specifically 

considered in Section 1.7.1 of the Draft EIS, however the ridership studies did 

not project significant ridership generation from the Barstow area to warrant 

construction of a separate station. In addition, the agency Preferred 

Alternative includes a passenger station at the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

located off of the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway interchange. This passenger 

station is located approximately 20 miles south of Barstow which is close 

enough to provide convenient access for Barstow area residents. Please refer 

to Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, of this Final EIS for a discussion 

regarding the selection of the Preferred Alternative segment and facilities. 

364 Purpose and Need DesertXpress Enterprises Section 1.2.2 states that the FRA adjusted downward by a factor of 10% the 

passenger forecast in the Applicant‘s ridership study. Please explain further 

that this was the result of the FRA‘s independent evaluation of the 

Applicant‘s study that identified a potential plus or minus 10% level of 

uncertainty in the forecast and that the 10% reduction factor was chosen as 

a conservative basis for the EIS – noting that this information is contained in 

Appendix B.

The comment is noted. See Draft EIS Section 2.2.1 for a discussion of why 

ridership projections were calibrated as stated in the comment. Also please 

see Appendix F-D, which includes all ridership study materials. 

365 Purpose and Need DesertXpress Enterprises Section 1.2.1 discusses the possible travel speeds and travel time, and 

indicates both are dependent upon ―the selected technology.‖ Although the 

technologies are discussed later in the EIS, it would be helpful here to 

summarize the two candidate technologies and highlight the top-level 

differences and similarities.

Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIS outlined key differences 

between the two technology options. 

March 2011 4-65 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

366 Purpose and Need DesertXpress Enterprises 1-16 to 1-21 +The EIS addresses a number of other transportation projects 

and plans in the study area, and discusses their relationship to 

DesertXpress. In some instances the EIS states whether certain projects will 

be included in the cumulative analysis, and in some instances the EIS is 

silent on this issue. Although the cumulative context is identified later in the 

EIS, if the EIS is going to address the cumulative relationship of some of the 

projects, we suggest that the EIS should include a sentence explaining the 

cumulative nature of each of the projects referenced.

Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS has been expanded and 

revised to better clarify the relationship of various projects to the Preferred 

Alternative. 

367 Purpose and Need DesertXpress Enterprises An ―alignment option C‖ is referenced; however, this option has not yet been 

discussed with the exception of a visual depiction on Figure ES-1. Option C 

should be explained or a reference to a future explanation should be 

included.

This option was not included within the Preferred Alternative. See Final EIS 

Section 2.4.1

368 Purpose and Need DesertXpress Enterprises 1-14 Section 1.5.1 states that the project‘s inconsistency with FRA safety 

regulations would be made consistent through promulgation of a new rule or 

a waiver. The EIS should briefly explain that because the project is designed 

with no interaction with freight trains, has no at-grade crossings, is double 

tracked for its length with a fenced ROW and positive train control, FRA is 

working with the Applicant under its standard process to achieve such 

consistency.

The comment is noted. 

369 Purpose and Need EPA Clearly demonstrate the independent utility of the Project within its current 

geographic limits as it relates to the need for the Project. If the Project need 

cannot be met without future planned improvements, the scope of the 

Project should be expanded accordingly, such as including an analysis of 

future improvements to connect the railway system to the Los Angeles 

Basin, since these would be considered connected and similar actions 

(40CFR 1508.25)

The Ridership Study in Draft EIS Appendix B supports the viability of DXE. 

Page 1-2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS describes an estimated 2.7 million 

automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DXE in the opening year. The 

Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, reviewed by 

Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used 

appropriate methods. SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2. Cambridge at 25. The 

Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California with Las Vegas 

as the destination. Ridership estimates are based on Victorville to Las Vegas, 

and indicate substantial demand. Although the DesertXpress project has 

independent utility from the California High Speed Rail project, the two projects 

are potentially complementary, as described further in Section 1.6.2 of this 

Final EIS. 

370 Purpose and Need EPA The environmental impacts of this associated infrastructure should also be 

considered in comparing the various alternatives.

The comment is noted. The environmental documents examine the needed 

electrical utility corridors, autotransformers, and substations that are required 

to operate the project. These have been analyzed in all phases of the 

environmental review process (Draft EIS through Final EIS). 

March 2011 4-66 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

371 Purpose and Need EPA Include additional analysis and justification to sufficiently demonstrate the 

independent utility and logical termini of the proposed Southern California 

hub in Victorville as opposed to other locations west of Victorville that are 

closer to larger population centers and existing transit connections.

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing 

transportation facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville 

terminus. For example, the Cambridge Systematics report states that "the 

location of the Victorville terminal would be passed by virtually every auto 

traveler going between Southern California and Las Vegas." Ridership 

Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by Steer 

Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown 

Los Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and 

Las Vegas. All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must 

pass Victorville" DXE Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical 

Memorandum: FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

372 Purpose and Need EPA FRA should revise the Draft EIS to reflect a broader purpose than I-15 

capacity enhancements and should capture the need to facilitate 

transportation of travelers to and from their ultimate destinations in the Las 

Vegas Metropolitan Area.

FRA believes this Final EIS is focused appropriately on bringing travelers from 

the Southern California area to metropolitan Las Vegas. Section 2.3.2.2 of this 

Final EIS discusses how project passengers would transfer between the Las 

Vegas passenger station and ultimate destinations in the Las Vegas area. 

373 Purpose and Need Fitzsimmons, Laura The project will have fewer environmental consequences that adding 

additional lanes to the existing highway.

This comment indicates support for the project. The comment is noted.

374 Purpose and Need Frodsham, Gene M. The use of the high speed rail as a freight line is not compatible. The height 

of the freight car is two containers high. This is far higher that the passenger 

cars. Also, the weight of a freight train is far in excess of that of a passenger 

train; freight trains will be slower. The extra weight and the profile or freight 

trains would make the building of the train more expensive and the slow 

running of the freight train will make the track speed slow, negating the use 

for high speed transport. Rail cars for the high speed train can be modified to 

carry limited amounts of high value freight, the existing freight lines are 

already meeting the need for freight shipment. 

The comment is noted, but the train as proposed is designed only for 

passengers and will not support freight service as described in more detail in 

Final EIS Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need), Section 1.2.1. 

375 Purpose and Need Nevada DOT Provide clear detail as to the coordination efforts that need to occur during 

construction with NDOT improvement projects to minimize utility impacts, 

traffic control, safety and other construction impacts. Right-of-way mitigation 

due to acquisition, relocation, or other construction needs must be discussed 

within this document. 

FRA and the Project Applicant have coordinated with the Nevada Department 

of Transportation (NDOT) to minimize impacts on planned NDOT facilities. 

This coordination resulted in the revised Segment 6B design studied in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS.

376 Purpose and Need Nevada DOT Maglev must to be addressed as a viable option. The Maglev project has 

congressional support with federal funding and the required 20% matching 

funds. 

Section 1.6.1 of this Final EIS discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA 

process. Please also refer to Section 2.2.3.3 of this Final EIS, which notes 

that magnetic levitation technology was considered but rejected as a 

technology option for the DesertXpress project due to prohibitive cost and 

uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

March 2011 4-67 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

377 Purpose and Need Stewart, Thomas I must express my regret that I cannot support this project as long as 

Victorville is the destination endpoint in southern California. My opinion is 

that it is not a high priority destination location for Las Vegans traveling to 

California. It is not even a convenient transport location for other destinations 

of high interest. Its low population count and lack of proximity to any other 

major California city population makes me doubt the viability of any 

substantial business model for this project. I believe that when it does not 

succeed, it will become a financial burden on both the state of California and 

the state of Nevada as well as the Federal government if it backs this plan.

Please see the responses to comments 371 and 372 above. 

378 Purpose and 

Need/Cumulative

American Magline Group By failing to address the maglev alternative, the draft EIS has failed to 

address a significant congestion relieving alternative. Due to maglev‘s 

superior performance on steep grades it is able to serve a much greater 

ridership thus providing true congestion relief on I-15 as opposed to a limited 

increase in capacity for the corridor (that likely will not be fully utilized).

The DesertXpress project would result in substantial congestion relief. The 

Draft EIS notes that both technology alternatives would provide for substantial 

peak hour congestion relief on freeway mainlines. The reduction was 

estimated at a minimum of 1100 cars per hour at peak periods -- and a 

maximum of 1600 cars per hour. Section 1.6.1 of this Final EIS discusses the 

California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the 

DesertXpress project NEPA process. Please also refer to Section 2.2.3.3 of 

this Final EIS, which notes that magnetic levitation technology was considered 

but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress project due to 

prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

379 Purpose and 

Need/Cumulative

American Magline Group The draft EIS dismisses the CNSST maglev project as being financially 

infeasible and therefore is not a viable alternative. The maglev project 

however is moving forward with a federally funded (partial) EIS; is a part of 

the regional transportation plan for both southern California and Las Vegas 

and is a commercially viable technology that can be constructed within FRA‘s 

published cost range for high speed rail projects.

Please refer to Section 1.6.1 of this Final EIS, which discusses the CaliforniaNevada Interstate Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the 

DesertXpress project NEPA process. Please also refer to Section 2.2.3.3 of 

this Final EIS, which notes that magnetic levitation technology was considered 

but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress project due to 

prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

March 2011 4-68 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

380 Section 4(f) 

Evaluation

DesertXpress Enterprises Table 3.15-2 identifies the Direct Use of a number of cultural resources; but 

with the footnote that FRA will continue to work with DXE to identify and act 

on opportunities to avoid impacts. We believe that most of the impacts are 

―de minimus‖ since they can be avoided, mitigated or minimized. The EIS 

should acknowledge that section 4(f) leaves the determination of whether the 

impacts are de minimus to the Secretary of Transportation. Under section 

4(f) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 138 and 49 U.S.C. § 303), the Secretary shall 

not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or 

parkway under section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly 

owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge of national, State, or local significance unless (1) there is no feasible 

and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program 

includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational 

area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. 

Under subdivision (3), the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis 

impact if: (A) the Secretary has determined, after public notice and 

opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation program 

or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of 

the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection 

under this section; and (B) the finding of the Secretary has received 

concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, 

or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. We request that the EIS acknowledge this 

process. We also request the FRA and Cooperating Agencies state that they 

are prepared to aid the Secretary of Interior in making a de minimus finding 

on the project.

A Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is contained in Chapter 3.15 of the Final EIS. 

381 Traffic Nevada DOT Due to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, 

adopting a new Regional Transportation Plan December 8, 2008, we 

recommend an updated traffic model.

The Nevada Department of Transportation submitted a subsequent comment 

letter to FRA on August 17, 2009, specifically revoking this comment. 

382 Traffic Nevada DOT The Applicant projects that the railroad will increase the capacity of the 

current available facility by 500 cars per hour in each direction or the 

equivalent of one full lane of traffic in each direction (two lanes). This is 

done by using sixty feet of ROW. Given existing facilities with improved 

shoulders, the same 60 feet of ROW would provide 2.5 times (five lanes) the 

capacity over the proposed railroad. 

The Draft EIS notes that both technology alternatives would result in 

substantial peak hour congestion relief on freeway mainlines. The reduction 

was estimated at a minimum of 1100 cars per hour at peak periods -- and a 

maximum of 1600 cars per hour at project buildout. 

383 Transportation CCDOA The Draft EIS projects significantly worse road conditions than traffic 

forecasts by Carter & Burgess for the NDOT. Specifically, it predicts that the 

same segment of road would operate at LOS F by 2013. (Draft EIS Table 3.5-

4). CCDOA believes the discrepancy between the forecasts is due to Draft 

EIS forecasts prepared during straight peak hour vehicle estimates from the 

RTC Travel Demand Forecast model, which has been shown to 

overestimate traffic volumes.

FRA acknowledges that the traffic forecasts used in the Draft EIS may vary 

from those developed by Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) for 

the airport project. FRA developed the traffic forecast and analysis in close 

consultation with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). NDOT 

reviewed and approved the traffic forecasts used in FRA's analysis and EIS.

March 2011 4-69 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

384 Transportation CCDOA FAA has jurisdiction to determine whether projects present hazards to air 

navigation. It is not appropriate to assume, as the Draft EIS does on page 

3.1-54, that 'since runways of the existing public airport in Jean are parallel 

to the proposed alignment, DesertXpress structures (such as tall catenary 

structures) would not interfere with existing flight paths and the action 

alternatives would be compatible with the airport. CCDOA recommends that 

DesertXpress file FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or 

Alteration, for each structure proposed to be located near any of the CCDOA 

aviation facilities as soon as possible to get a formal Part 77 determination 

for each structure.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the 

compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and established Runway 

Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires 

the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm that 

the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

385 Transportation CCDOA Based on the initial analysis by CCDOA, it appears that the DesertXpress 

Alternative A and Alternative B alignments for Segment 5 would not 

penetrate the OEI surfaces specified by either FAA AC 20-91 or ICAO Annex 

6.

The comment is noted. 

386 Transportation CCDOA CCDOA's preliminary analysis suggests that an alignment in the western 

right-of-way for Interstate 15, would reduce potential conflicts with SNSA not 

just with respect to Part 77 surfaces, but also other aviation safety measures 

discussed below (avoid interference with RPZ and one engine inoperative 

protective surfaces). The Draft EIS, however, does not examine an 

alignment on the west side of I-15. FRA should explain, in the Final EIS, why 

this alignment was not included as a reasonable alternative.

Please see the response to comment 328 above. Also please note that as 

shown in Final EIS Figure F-3.14-4, the area immediately west of the I-15 

freeway between Primm and Jean has been designated as a large-scale 

tortoise translocation site. 

387 Transportation City of Barstow Note that the trip evaluation information discussed below, and mentioned 

somewhat obliquely on page 3.2-6, is found in an Appendix; but it is not 

adequately discussed is the body of the EIS. This is a disservice to the 

Barstow community and calls into question the EIS efforts to adequately 

disclosed project impacts.

Please see the response to comment 308 above. Please also see Appendix FE, which fully analyzes potential economic impacts to the City of Barstow. 

March 2011 4-70 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

388 Transportation City of Barstow Why was ridership for a possible Barstow station not included in the 

discussion presented in the EIS? The inclusion of quantifiable data, that was 

available, establishes that adequate data was available to undertake at least 

a limited assessment.

Final EIS Section 3.2 includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of 

the possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. Appendix F-E 

includes FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local economic expert 

John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. The alternative of a Barstow-area 

station was specifically considered in Section 1.7.1 of the Draft EIS, however 

the ridership studies did not project significant ridership generation from the 

Barstow area to warrant construction of a separate station. As discussed in 

Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS, FRA conducted a extensive independent review 

of the ridership study conducted by the project Applicant. The independent 

review of the ridership study is included as Appendix B to the Draft EIS. FRA's 

review concluded that the ridership estimates should be adjusted downwards 

by a factor of 10 percent overall to represent a conservative estimate of 

potential ridership. These estimate indicate that the anticipated number of 

passengers boarding a potential Barstow station would be insufficient to 

support a station. In addition, the agency Preferred Alternative includes a 

passenger station at the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) located off of the I15/Dale Evans Parkway interchange. This passenger station is located 

approximately 20 miles south of Barstow which is close enough to provide 

convenient access for Barstow area residents. Please refer to Section 2.4, 

Preferred Alternative, of this Final EIS for a discussion regarding the selection 

of the Preferred Alternative segment and facilities. Given the low projected 

numbers of passengers that would use a Barstow station, it is not reasonable 

to conclude that a station would substantially offset identified negative growth 

impacts. 

389 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises In the specific case of the Traffic Impact Assessment portion of the 

document, the following general observation and recommendation. We 

observe that the methodology described in Section 3.5.4.1 requires the 

document to evaluate the impacts of ―... an increase in traffic that is 

substantial in relation to existing traffic‖. This is interpreted to mean any 

reduction in the traffic Level of Service (LOS) to a level lower than LOS D. 

Our observation is that this criterion can mean that a relatively small volume 

of additional traffic destined to or coming from the DXE stations, as 

compared to the baseline traffic volume, can trigger this criterion. While we 

believe that the analysis has been performed correctly, we request that a 

concise summary be provided to more clearly explain the following key 

overall points:

1. Both the Las Vegas and Victorville areas (and the High Desert region in 

general), have experienced extremely high population growth rates for at 

least the past decade, and the forecasts show a continuation of this trend.

2. The cumulative effect of this rapid growth generates large increases in 

traffic volumes in these areas, whether or not the DXE Project is 

implemented.

3. Many of the identified mitigation measures required to address these 

impacts in the areas of the two DXE stations would be required regardless of 

whether the Project is implemented.

4. Those additional mitigation measures identified to occur as a result of the 

Project may not necessarily be required if the total forecasted cumulative 

growth were not to occur.

Comment noted. The traffic analyses in the Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft 

EIS, and Final EIS take these factors into account. 

390 [Comment number not used] NA

March 2011 4-71 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

391 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises Please add the underlined phrase to the sentence in the fourth paragraph to 

clarify that the two Stoddard Wells interchanges would be operating at 

unacceptable levels of service regardless of whether the DXE project is 

implemented. ―Due to cumulative growth in the region that is projected 

regardless of whether the Project is implemented, the two Stoddard Wells 

Road interchanges would...‖

The comment is in reference to impacts related to Victorville Station 1. The 

Preferred Alternative includes Victorville Station Site 3. The comment is noted 

and has been addressed appropriately in Final EIS Section 2.4.2.

392 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises Under the section entitled ―I-15 Mainline‖, it is important to revise the first 

sentence to make it clear that I-15 is not just ―currently‖ ... ―the only 

significant transportation route" between LV and Victorville - but only such 

foreseeable route for future. 

The comment is noted. 

393 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises Please add a sentence in the paragraph regarding improvements that would 

be needed by 2013, to make it clear that the traffic study found that these 

improvements are not the result of the DXE Project, so the improvements 

would be needed regardless of whether the Project is implemented. In the 

following paragraph regarding the improvements required in the year 2030, 

please note the same as above (that these improvements would be required.

The comment notes that projected future baseline traffic levels will degrade, 

even without any addition of traffic related to DesertXpress. This is confirmed 

in the Final EIS. Tables F-3.5-3 and F-3.5-4 each show that for several 

intersections in the vicinity of the Southern and Central Station B areas, 

intersection level of service will degrade at 2030 baseline (i.e. no project) 

conditions. However, for certain intersections, the addition of project traffic is 

shown to contribute to degradation of intersection level of service. Mitigation 

is provided in Final EIS Section 3.5.3 that would result in the successful 

mitigation of all project-related traffic impacts. No change to the Draft EIS is 

thus warranted by this comment. 

394 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises Please add the same clarifying language as per the above comment for the 

Las Vegas station sites.

Please see response to comment 393.

395 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises Under the first paragraph of section 3.5.4.3, it is correctly stated that 

operation of DesertXpress would improve traffic conditions on I-15 and the 

data contained within the traffic report demonstrates that this is a significant 

benefit of the project. However, the first sentence of the following paragraph 

appears to be in direct conflict with this statement and with the supporting 

data and analysis.

The comment related to an editing error is noted; no analytical conclusions 

were based on this editorial error. No substantive change to the Draft EIS is 

thus warranted. 

396 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises In the first sentence of the first paragraph, please add the words ―station 

area‖ before the words ―ramp junctions‖ to make it clearer that only the 

station area junctions would be affected.

The commenter suggests adding labeling to clarify. However, all of the cited 

ramp junctions are within the station areas studied. No substantive change to 

the Draft EIS is thus warranted. 

397 Transportation DesertXpress Enterprises The last sentence of the second paragraph states that with respect to the rail 

ridership study, ―no trips to Southern California originating in Las Vegas were 

contemplated." Clarify that modeling didn't include such trips but that they 

are clearly anticipated. 

The comment is noted. Please also see Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS for 

further discussion of ridership projection assumptions. 

398 Transportation EPA Final EIS should describe whether the Project is included in the most 

recently conforming SCAG 2008 RTP and Southern Nevada RTC RTP.

DesertXpress is a privately funded project and as such, may not be 

appropriate for inclusion in regional transportation plans; however, FRA has 

consulted extensively with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 

state transportation agencies in the development of this Final EIS (see Section 

4.0, Comments and Coordination). . 

399 Transportation Fagg, Darrell This project is long over due. Number one, it will lessen traffic on I-15 and 

save lives.

The comment expressing support for the project is noted. 

400 Transportation FHWA - CA The traffic model should be updated to match the RTC of Southern Nevada's 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted December 8, 2008.

Since the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was not adopted at the time the 

analysis was done, the Nevada Department of Transportation agreed by letter 

(with Federal Highway Administration concurrence) to use the 2030 RTP.

401 Transportation FHWA - CA This project should be well coordinated with other projects on 1-15. The Draft 

EIS should fully describe all impacts on the future widening of l-15. The Draft 

EIS should fully describe all environmental impacts in addition to all current 

and future projects on 1-15.

Final EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, has been extensively updated and 

revised since the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and has been tailored 

to address the potential cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

March 2011 4-72 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

402 Transportation FHWA - CA Generally a conceptual Access Justification Report is in place before the EIS 

is completed if there will be additional access points to the Interstate System. 

There is a risk in advancing the project without FHWA conceptual approval 

for modifications to interstate engineering and operations. FHWA has 

approval of all new and modified interstate access points. Is there an Access 

Justification Request (AJR) in place for any planned or future or planned 

Interstate modifications? If so, where are the proposed locations that pertain 

the AJR(s) that are in place? Any information on this would greatly assist in 

coordinating Interstate Access Requests within the 1-15 corridor in Nevada 

and California.

There are no new proposed access points to the I-15, therefore no such 

reporting is anticipated. Since publication of the Draft EIS, FRA has facilitated 

extensive coordination has been done with the Cooperating Agencies, the 

State DOTs, and the Applicant to ensure the Preferred Alternative will not 

adversely impact the safe and efficient operation of the I-15. Coordination will 

continue after the RODs during the design process to ensure any necessary 

approvals by Caltrans and NDOT. 

403 Transportation FHWA - CA It is not clear how the DesertXpress Project will modify interchanges to 

eliminate grade crossings, especially when running to the side of the I-15 

travel lanes. The standard should be designed so that safety and operations 

of the interstate roadway are not affected. This should be verified through 

the AJR approval process.

Please see the response to comment 402 above. 

404 Transportation FHWA - CA DesertXpress should be in the RTP and state rail plans prior to the signing of 

the Record of Decision.

DesertXpress is not currently listed in the referenced Regional Transportation 

Plan, but will be incorporated into the Nevada and California State Rail Plans, 

which are currently in development.

405 Transportation Rocha, Dolores How will this elevate traffic from the 15 near Corona Norco area coming up 

the hill. 

The project is expected to have an overall effect of reducing vehicle traffic in 

the I-15 corridor between Southern California and Las Vegas. This benefit will 

occur because most of the rail trips will be diverted from the auto mode. In 

terms of trip-making behavior, rail customers who would otherwise drive from 

their homes in Southern California through Cajon Pass to Victorville and 

beyond would be intercepted at the Victorville station, thereby reducing traffic 

on I-15 northeast of Victorville. However, a small portion of the trips forecast 

for DesertXpress will be diverted from air travel. Ridership studies prepared 

for the rail project indicate that about 12% of total rail trips would otherwise be 

made by air if the train is not built. With the train, these customers will now be 

driving from their homes in Southern California through Cajon Pass to 

Victorville where they will park at the rail station. Without the train, these 

customers would have driven from home to the most convenient airport where 

they would have parked and boarded an airplane to Las Vegas. Therefore, 

while the project will substantially reduces traffic on I-15 north of Victorville, it 

will have the effect of very slightly increasing traffic on I-15 just south of 

Victorville. Though the traffic volumes vary somewhat depending on rail 

technology type (DEMU vs. EMU) and horizon year (2013 vs. 2030), the traffic 

study shows that approximately 800 vehicles would be travelling northbound 

through Cajon Pass to access DesertXpress in the PM peak hour. Applying a 

nominal diversion rate of 12%, about 100 of these vehicles would be the result 

of trips diverting from air to rail. The other 700 would have been on the 

freeway anyway, traveling through Victorville and on to Las Vegas via I-15. To 

put these numbers in perspective, northbound I-15 through Cajon Pass is 4 

lanes with a nominal throughput of 8000 vehicles per hour when operating at 

near-capacity conditions (4 lanes times 2000 vehicles per lane). The 100 

vehicles of rail customers diverted from air represent slightly more than 1% of 

the near-capacity freeway volume.

March 2011 4-73 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

406 Transportation Rocha, Dolores What about the congestion here off of Mojave when the pick up location is 

over on Dale Evens / Stoddard wells exit. 

Final EIS Section 3.5.2.3 addresses potential intersection and freeway 

segment impacts related to the DesertXpress project in Victorville and 

mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative in Victorville are identified in 

Table F-3.5-5.

407 Transportation San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

A ridership study prepared for the project (URS, 2005) estimates along the I15 freeway from Las Vegas to Southern California projected a travel time of 

1.25 hours in the summer 2002 and 5.78 hours in 2032, even with planned 

improvement of the freeway in place. These studies did not take into account 

the recent changes in travel patterns, which seem to have declined 

noticeably because of the combined impacts of changes in higher gas 

prices, housing and job situations in recent years.

The comment incorrectly cites the ridership study's conclusions, which present 

1.25 hours and 5.78 hours as estimates of traffic-related delay, not travel time. 

Notwithstanding, FRA acknowledges that the Ridership Study from which 

these specific estimates were drawn was developed in 2005, prior to the onset 

of the recession of 2007-2009. While events of 2007-2009 may have led to 

some of the changes cited by the commenter, FRA has seen no evidence that 

the changes are at such a level such that traffic congestion on the I-15 freeway 

has been relieved to such an extent that alternative forms of transportation are 

not warranted. 

408 Transportation SANBAG The Draft EIS does not quantify the traffic impact to highways south of 

Victorville, including the Cajon Pass and the capacity-constrained I-15/I-215 

(Devore) interchange. Traffic volumes at the Devore interchange will 

increase by virtue of the diversion to the DesertXpress from trips to Las 

Vegas currently being made by air from Southern California. Current air 

travelers to Las Vegas diverting to DesertXpress would need to drive 

through the Cajon Pass and congested freeways south of Victorville during 

times that are already the most congested. Airline passenger trips diverted 

to HSR are forecast to be in the range of 2500 to 2800 on a typical Friday in 

2012 (tables 2 through 6 from the DesertXpress Updated Ridership and 

Revenue Study, December 2005). This would result in an estimated 1000 

additional vehicles proceeding northbound on I-15 through the Devore 

interchange on Fridays. Many of these would occur during the congested 

evening peak period. The increase in volume is a relatively small 1-2% of the 

total northbound volume, but the increase in vehicle hours of delay could be 

several times that percentage, given the current and projected congestion 

levels. The Draft EIS also points out the potential significant traffic benefit on 

I-15 north of Victorville. The total traffic benefit north of Victorville likely 

significantly outweighs the negative traffic impact south of Victorville, but the 

Draft EIS overlooks the traffic impact to the south and offers no mitigation for 

this impact.

See response to comment 405 above.

409 Transportation Nevada DOT While the right-of way of the I-15 corridor is not the only issue the 

department has with the Draft EIS, it does not have the potential to cause 

the negative impact to future transportation needs. Placing the DesertXpress 

within the I-15 right-of-way as depicted in this environmental document, it is 

in conflict with projects contained in the recently adopted Regional 

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada's (RTC) 2030 Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP). Segments of the I-15 corridor cannot 

accommodate DesertXpress due to conflicts with these projects listed in the 

approved RTP.

FRA and the Project Applicant have coordinated with the Nevada Department 

of Transportation (NDOT) to minimize impacts on planned NDOT facilities. 

This coordination resulted in the revised Segment 6B design studied in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS.

410 Transportation Nevada DOT NDOT is supportive of any project that will provide increased passenger or 

freight movements within the I-15 corridor. 

The comment is noted; the comment does not address the analysis within the 

Draft EIS. 

March 2011 4-74 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

411 Transportation Nevada DOT The attached list of projects currently listed in the Regional Transportation 

Commission of Southern Nevada's Regional Transportation Plan must be 

considered as reasonable and foreseeable projects and those impacts 

evaluated and mitigated relative to DesertXpress. Coordination for projects 

within the I-15 right-of-way throughout the design and construction must be 

described within this Draft EIS.

The list of reasonable and foreseeable projects was updated in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS and further updated in the Final EIS, concurrent with 

updates to the Cumulative Impact analysis. Please see Section 3.16, 

Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS. 

412 Transportation Councilmember Terry Caldwell, 

Victorville

Project would relieve congestion on I-15 and ease mobility in Victorville 

community

The comment is noted. 

413 Transportation Donovan, Kelly Need to eliminate congestion the Cajon Pass. Maglev project would do this. See response to comment 405. 

414 Transportation Hernandez, Carmen Project would worsen traffic on Cajon Pass and on local freeways. See response to comment 405. 

415 Transportation Miranda, Edwardo Unclear how project would improve traffic conditions in Las Vegas and near 

stations.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.5.2.3, which summarizes traffic impacts along 

freeway segments and in station areas, including those in Las Vegas.

416 Transportation Shenberger, Richard Train is needed to improve mobility for Las Vegas residents to travel to 

Southern California.

The comment is noted. 

417 Transportation Trowbridge, Glen Bonneville Station (Downtown) is preferable for Las Vegas end point as it 

connects to existing public transportation.

As stated in Section 2.5.1 of the Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas 

Station includes two options, the Southern Station and Central Station B; only 

one of these will ultimately be selected. The station site will be designed to 

accommodate buses and shuttles to facilitate passenger movement within Las 

Vegas. 

March 2011 4-75 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

418 Transportation 

(unavoidable Adverse 

Effects)

DesertXpress Enterprises Section 3.19.1 indicates that unavoidable adverse effects would remain at a 

few intersections after mitigation measures. This appears to refer to the 

2030 conditions at two intersections (#7 and #8) at the South Stoddard Road 

interchange that were analyzed for Victorville station site option 1. As stated 

in Tables 3.5-28 and 3.5-29 of the Draft EIS, and explained on page 6-41 of 

the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, under the 2030 background condition 

(without the project), these two intersections operate at levels of service 

(LOS) below acceptable standards (LOS D). Though the Traffic Report 

proposed mitigations, the mitigations did not improve the LOS to acceptable 

conditions. The Traffic Report did not propose mitigations for the with project 

alternatives, as additional traffic under the with-project conditions would only 

worsen the LOS at these intersections. We request this section be revised to 

explain the situation more clearly. Specifically, the consultant‘s traffic study 

made it clear that the two Stoddard Wells intersections: • Intersection 7 -- 

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 SB Ramps • Intersection 8 -- Stoddard Wells 

Road at I-15 NB Ramps could not be feasibly mitigated under the 2030 

baseline ―without-project‖ conditions. This means that without DesertXpress, 

the background traffic volume due to regional population growth is 

forecasted to create the underlying problem – thus, it essentially is not an 

unavoidable adverse impact of the DesertXpress project. As a result of this, 

following publication of the Draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises asked our 

traffic consultant to reexamine the 2030 operating conditions with the 

DesertXpress project at the two intersections in question. A memo 

describing the results of their analysis is attached. This memo identifies 

mitigation measures and analyzes their effect. It was found that alternative 

mitigation measures would successfully mitigate the previously unavoidable 

impact under the without-project condition. Furthermore, the memo identifies 

mitigations for the with-project conditions that also achieve an acceptable 

level of service. Therefore, there is not an unavoidable 

Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, of this Final EIS provides additional 

comparative discussions of the various Action Alternatives and the No Action 

Alternative. The comment relates to conclusions in the Draft EIS regarding 

Victorville Station Site 1 (VV1), at which the Draft EIS concluded that certain 

traffic effects of the project would be adverse and could not be mitigated. FRA 

stands by these earlier conclusions. Notwithstanding, VV3B was subsequently 

identified by the Applicant-Commenter as the Applicant's Proposed Alternative; 

this same station option is included as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

418, 

continued.

adverse effect of the project at the Victorville intersections – and in any case, 

the impact discussed in the Draft EIS largely is not a result of the DXE 

project. Any potential cost-sharing of these potential mitigation measures 

should not be the subject of the Draft EIS. DesertXpress Enterprises 

requests that Section 3.19.1 and its reference to unavoidable adverse traffic 

effects be deleted from the EIS. In addition, we request that Tables 3.5-28 

and 3.5-29 be revised to reflect the findings described in the attached memo 

from AECOM Transportation, and delete any statements that adverse effects 

cannot be feasibly mitigated, while making it clearer that the traffic added by 

the DXE project is not the fundamental cause of the need for mitigation. 

Finally, we suggest that it would be appropriate for AECOM Transportation to 

revise the Traffic Report to incorporate the findings of their memo contained 

in Exhibit 3. As stated in our general comments above, because of the 

underlying without project congestion of the Stoddard Wells Rd. 

Interchanges, DesertXpress believes it would be prudent to add a third 

Victorville Station Alternative at the Dale Evans Interchange as depicted in 

Exhibit 1. 

March 2011 4-76 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

419 Transportation, 

Significant 

Unavoidable

DesertXpress Enterprises Please note that in subsequent comments here in regarding the traffic 

impact assessment we have addressed the fact that the apparent inability to 

mitigate the traffic impacts at Intersections 7 and 8 is not the result of the 

DXE Project, but rather, due to forecasted growth in the baseline traffic 

volumes without the DXE Project, it would have been the case whether the 

DXE Project is implemented or not. Please further note that we have 

identified additional mitigation measures later in these comments that could 

mitigate those impacts both with and without the Project, and we recommend 

that this section be revised accordingly (see comment regarding page 3.19-

1).

The comment from the project Applicant is noted. 

420 Transportation/AQ American Magline Group The draft EIS does not adequately address the implications of the 

DesertXpress on the freeway congestion and related air quality impacts on I15 through the Cajon Pass and National Forest land.

See response to comments 28 and 407. 

421 Utilities FHWA - CA Utilities will need to be addressed at several locations. FHWA and Caltrans 

should be held harmless for actions related to utilities.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this 

Final EIS has been revised to clarify that the Applicant shall be responsible for 

all such costs. 

422 Utilities FHWA - CA Utilities should be moved at the expense of the Project. Existing pipelines 

should not be disturbed or impaired during construction, or subsequent 

project-related adjustments. If the adjustment or relocation of any existing 

utility or pipeline or any permitted encroachment is unavoidable, the Project 

should be responsible for all costs to the utility facility.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 in Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this 

Final EIS has been revised to clarify that the Applicant shall be responsible for 

all such costs. 

423 Utilities Southern California Edison The project as described has the potential to impact numerous existing and 

planned SCE facilities, and we have not had sufficient dialogue with the 

Federal Railroad Administration or the project proponents to address many 

project related issues. We request an extension of time to comment on the 

project due to its regional significance, and feel an extension of the comment 

period for the Draft EIS may assist the environmental review process as a 

whole.

Following publication of the Draft EIS, DXE executed agreements with SCE 

regarding conflict mitigation studies. The Supplemental Draft EIS afforded SCE 

and other commenters additional time to comment on the proposed action as a 

whole. 

424 Utilities/Cumulative Southern California Edison Discuss how this project will impact SCE current/future renewable energy 

projects.

FRA is unaware of any conflicts with Southern California Edison current/future 

renewable energy projects. The one conflict identified during the Draft EIS 

review with the now approved solar project in the Ivanpah Lake area has been 

addressed with the development of Segment 4C. 

425 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

BLM Barstow Add analysis of available power at Baker substation. With the Kinder Morgan 

pipeline, activation of a new pumping station in Baker will there available 

power for both projects? Is an upgrade required at the substation? 

The project includes construction of new electrical substations and utility 

corridors to convey and provide electrical power to the EMU Alternative. 

Upgrades to existing substations may be necessary, however the details of 

such upgrades are not known at this time and would be worked out in detail 

between the electrical provider and DesertXpress during the detailed design 

phase. If additional or upgrades to existing electrical services are needed that 

would occur outside those areas identified in the EIS for such facilities, 

supplemental environmental review may be necessary.

426 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

BLM Barstow General: Alignment 4(c) is in a utilities corridor not addressed in the 

document.

Segment 4C is located parallel to but outside existing utility lines. See also 

response to comment 144 above.

427 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

BLM Barstow Alternative 4C/General: T16N, R14E Section 31: There are seven east-west 

utility ROW‘s (elect, telephone, pipelines, including water, natural gas, fuels) 

below in area identified for the route. The possible impacts to the utilities and 

access to them for maintenance should be addresses in the EIS.

Final EIS Section 3.4.2.3 includes analysis of potential project conflicts with 

utilities. Final EIS Section 3.5 includes mitigation to address identified effects. 

March 2011 4-77 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

428 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

BLM Barstow Analyze upgrade to substations. Upgrades to SCE facilities required to 

provide power for the EMU would be a connected action. 

The project includes construction of new electrical substations and utility 

corridors to convey and provide electrical power to the EMU Alternative. 

Upgrades to existing substations may be necessary, however the details of 

such upgrades are not known at this time and would be worked out in detail 

between the electrical provider and DesertXpress during the detailed design 

phase. If additional or upgrades to existing electrical services are needed that 

would occur outside those areas identified in the EIS for such facilities, 

supplemental environmental review may be necessary.

429 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

 The studies for the high-speed rail system notes that police, fire and 

emergency services will not be impacted by the train operations. When there 

are accidents (e.g. as with Metrolink), the local emergency systems are often 

taxed to manage the situations. The potential burden of such demands 

should be addressed in the EIS and may need mitigation.

The comment is not entirely accurate. Impacts related to intensified 

emergency service needs are acknowledged and mitigation is provided to 

address such impacts in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of this Final EIS. 

430 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

The EIS states that the rails and trains may be of different sizes than the 

existing passenger and goods trains. The EIS should consider how 

emergency vehicles or response systems will respond to high-speed or 

freeway vehicular or other train accidents without special equipment that will 

be exclusively for the special sizes of the high-speed trains.

Final EIS Section 3.4.3 identifies Mitigation Measure UTIL-7 which requires 

coordination between the Applicant, local emergency service providers, and 

the FRA Office of Safety to ensure that a comprehensive Emergency 

Operations Plan and related protocols are formulated in the event of 

catastrophic events. Also see Section 2.3.2.5 of the Final EIS regarding other 

safety considerations.

431 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

Since the high-speed rail system is proposed to run along the median or 

parallel to the I-15 freeway right-of-way, any accident or emergency 

situations such as high wind gusts, earthquakes, flooding or acts of terrorism 

which affect the freeway may also disable the train system and compound 

evacuation or emergency response problems. The EIS should address these 

possibilities.

Please see the response to comment 430 above. 

432 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

San Bernardino County - Land 

Use Services

The EIS stated that there will be no demand for water sewage and solid 

waste disposal for the operation of the trains. The EIS should state if there 

will be restroom facilities in the trains and at the passenger station, 

newspapers and other waste from the passengers, how much of this waste 

is expected to be generated monthly or annually and where such wastes will 

be disposed of. 

Section 3.4.1.3 of this Final EIS has been revised to clarify assumptions about 

solid waste and wastewater from trains. 

433 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

Southern California Edison Who will be providing the North Mojave area electrical service? As discussed in Draft EIS Section 3.4.4.2, SCE had reported sufficient 

equipment and facilities to serve existing and future needs of 17762 Kwh per 

round trip per train.

434 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

Southern California Edison Please note if development plans result in the need to build new or relocate 

existing SCE electrical facilities that operate at or above 50 kV, the SCE 

construction may have environmental consequences subject to CEQA 

review as required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). If 

those environmental consequences are identified and addressed by the local 

agency in the CEQA process for the larger project, SCE may not be required 

to pursue a later, separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC‘s 

General Order 131-D (GO 131-D) process. If the SCE facilities are not 

adequately addressed in the CEQA review for the larger project, and the new 

facilities could result in significant environmental impacts, the required 

additional CEQA review at the CPUC could delay approval of the SCE power 

line portion of the project for up to two years or longer.

In response to a declaratory order filed by DesertXpress, STB issued a 

decision in DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC- Petition for Declaratory Order, 

STB Finance Docket 34914 (STB served Jun 27, 2007) in which it determined 

that the proposed construction project is not subject to sate and local 

environmental review and land use and other permitting requirements because 

of the Federal preemption in 49 U.S.C. 10501(b). This means that Federal 

environmental statutes, such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water 

Act, and the regulation of railroad safety under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 

will apply to this proposal. See, e.g., City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 1031-33; 

Friends of the Aquifer, et al., STB Finance Docket No. 33966, slip op. at 4-6 

(STB served Aug. 15, 2001). 

March 2011 4-78 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

435 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

Southern California Edison The Draft EIS indicates there may be potential conflicts with SCE facilities in 

Segment 1, 2A/2B and 3A/3B of the proposed train alignment. Based on this 

information, the proposed project has the potential to impact SCE‘s rights-ofway, which may also affect SCE‘s transmission facilities. The potential 

project-related impacts will need to be reviewed by SCE‘s Operating 

Department to ensure the proposal is compatible with SCE‘s operational 

requirements and associated rights prior to finalizing the plan of 

development. Please forward five (5) sets of project plans depicting SCE‘s 

facilities and its associated land rights to the following location for review as 

noted above:

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

potential conflicts. The FRA expects that the Applicant and Southern 

California Edison will address conflicts during the design-build phase and prior 

to construction. Please see Mitigation Measure 8 in Section 3.4.3 of this Final 

EIS. 

436 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

Southern California Edison Please discuss specifically route crossings with SCE facilities and indicate 

potential impacts to planned SCE infrastructure.

Please see the response to comment 435 above.

437 Utilities/Emergency 

Services

Southern Nevada Water 

Authority

In reviewing the segment 6 alignment alternatives A, B and C, SNWA has 

the following facilities which may be impacted. 

1. Pittman Lateral (DC7332) 90‖ WSP Concrete lined from station 1224+81 

east to station 1229+90 west Lateral crosses I-15 from northwest to 

southeast at a 45 degree angle about 1000 feet south of the Tropicana Ave 

overpass and runs approximately 10 feet deep under the traffic lanes 

2. South Valley Lateral (110-K) 84‖ MLCP pipe Station 82+48 to station 

86+18.09. MLCP is encased in a 120‖ casing that runs perpendicular to the 

interstate just north of the Silverado Ranch Road overpass at a depth over 

the casing at approximately 9 feet. 

3. McCullough Lateral – South Corridor (proposed). Currently have a 

proposed crossing approximately 2500 feet south of the Silverado Ranch 

Road overpass in Pyle Road alignment running east and west. This project is 

currently in the Environmental Evaluation Phase SNWA does not allow any 

structures to be built on the top of our pipelines and appurtenances. 

Encroachment within SNWA right-of-way would require an Easement 

Occupancy Permit (EOP). Plans for work done within our easement and 

adjacent to our facilities have to be reviewed and approved prior to 

construction. 

This Final EIS discloses these potential conflicts in Section 3.4, 

Utilities/Emergency Services. The FRA expects that the Applicant and 

Southern California Edison will address conflicts during the design-build 

process and prior to construction. Please see Mitigation Measure 8 in Section 

3.4.3 of the Final EIS. 

438 Utilities/Emergency 

Services; General - 

Consultation Process

BLM Barstow General: The document does not identify that coordination with power supply 

companies has taken place.

Please see response to comment 449. The Applicant has commenced 

coordination with the potential power supply companies (Southern California 

Edison and Nevada Power) will continue coordination throughout the designbuild phase of the project. 

439 Utilities/Energy Southern California Edison Please clarify electrical service to the proposed project facilities. Please see responses to comments 438 and 449. 

440 Visual Resources BLM Barstow Delete (the preferred action alternative within segment 2) A preferred action 

alternative has not been identified by the Federal agency. Delete or put in 

context as the Applicant‘s proposed action. 

This Final EIS, with identification of the agency Preferred Alternative, 

supersedes the Applicant proposed alternative identified in the Draft EIS. 

441 Visual Resources DesertXpress Enterprises We are confident that the potential visual impacts of the overhead power 

wires will not be significant, based in part upon the fact that they are not 

perceived as such in the many countries where high speed trains now have 

been implemented. High voltage power lines are typically seen along 

roadways throughout the country, and in this particular corridor, there are 

numerous high voltage power lines that are much larger and far more visible 

than the overhead catenary system for the trains.

The comment is noted. 

March 2011 4-79 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

442 Visual Resources DesertXpress Enterprises The discussion of visual and aesthetic impacts does not include a discussion 

of significance criteria. Significance criteria should be included so that the 

potential impacts can be assessed against an identified standard.

The visual assessment contained in this Final EIS follows BLM and FHWA 

visual analysis criteria and procedures.

443 General Southern California Edison The Draft EIS states that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a 

decision in "DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC-Petition for Declaratory Order," 

STB Finance Docket No. 34914 (June 2007 Dec. Order) stating that the 

project is not subject to state and local land use and environmental review 

and other permitting requirements because of the Federal preemption 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 10501(b). In addition, the Draft EIS further states 

the "CPUC's authority over interstate passenger carriers, such as the 

proposed DesertXpress project, is limited to registration of operations and 

filing evidence of liability insurance (page 3.1-44)."

SCE respectfully requests clarification in this regard due to the fact SCE is 

subject to the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) General Order 

131-D (GO 131-D), which sets forth the requirements and the CPUC's 

authority for, among other things, the construction and relocation of facilities 

above 50 kilovolts (kV). SCE recommends the FRA contact the CPUC 

Energy Division to ensure an appropriate approach to understanding the 

CPUC requirements SCE must adhere to and to ensure the CPUC can 

provide adequate input into the Draft EIS.

See response to comment 434 on the Draft EIS and comment S-323 on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS.

444 General - Project 

Attributes

Southern California Edison To support the EMU technology alternative, the Draft EIS indicates three 

new substations and associated transmission lines will be required. The 

electric infrastructure necessary to support the EMU technology alternative 

should be included in the Draft EIS description and analyzed in accordance 

with the NEPA guidelines.

Final EIS Section 2.3.2.2 defines utility corridors as part of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

445 Cumulative Southern California Edison Also, the cumulative impacts discussion in the Draft EIS concludes that other 

transportation, development and utility projects in the subject area would 

require separate environmental review similar to DesertXpress thus 

cumulative impacts in San Bernardino County and Clark County would be 

negligible. The cumulative impacts discussion should include an analysis of 

the other transportation, development and utility projects in the subject 

project area.

The cumulative discussion within Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, in this 

Final EIS does not make the claim asserted by the commenter. Rather, the 

cumulative analysis specifically identifies known and reasonably foreseeable 

transportation, utility, and development projects in the region and analysis 

potential cumulative effects, when also considering the DesertXpress project. 

446 Cumulative Southern California Edison In further addressing cumulative impacts, we note the Draft EIS lists all of the 

proposed solar and wind energy projects on BLM land. Please bear in mind, 

transmission lines are necessary to connect renewable energy to the electric 

grid and the project proponents must work closely with SCE to ensure 

current SCE transmission line projects planned and/or underway conveying 

renewable energy are considered during project planning and construction.

The comment is noted. Final EIS Section 3.16.2 includes descriptions of these 

projects and has been expanded to note the need in many locations for 

transmission lines to connect projects to the electric grid. 

March 2011 4-80 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

447 Cumulative Southern California Edison We strongly suggest the project proponents assess the RETI Competitive 

Renewable Energy Zones (CREZs with their renewable generation capacity 

of greater than 30,000 MW in southern California alone, as identified in RETI 

Phase 1B Report and also the RETI Phase 2A Draft Conceptual 

Transmission Plan report, currently available on the CEC Website for their 

impact on the subject project infrastructure, and maintain dialogue with the 

CEC, SCE and other utility purveyors regarding planned transmission 

infrastructure and transmission corridors conveying renewable energy.

The comment is noted. The Applicant has apprised FRA of its willingness to 

consider renewable energy for the project. The Applicant is duly encouraged 

to consider such an assessment of the RETI CREZs during the design-build 

phase of the project.

448 Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources

Southern California Edison Any alterations or modification to the towers and the alignment of the route 

could have an adverse effect to the resource, and may require mitigation 

measures. If adverse effects are anticipated and unavoidable, then a formal 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be 

required regarding the project effects on the resource. A qualified 

archaeologist must assess the scope of work within and near the 

transmission line to determine if the existing resource, as well as other 

unknown or unrecorded resources will be affected by the proposed project. 

Section 106 compliance will be conducted through the Programmatic 

Agreement (PA), described further in Section 3.7.2 of this Final EIS; a copy of 

the executed PA is included in the Final EIS as Appendix F-H. 

449 Utilities Southern California Edison The Draft EIS includes a statement requiring the project proponents to 

"Continue to coordinate closely with all electric utilities as design moves 

forward to ensure that final design meets any design requirements that may 

be set forth for development beneath electrical transmission lines." We feel 

the Draft EIS overstates the degree to which the project proponents have 

coordinated with SCE regarding the proposed project. In a similar manner, 

personal communications references in this report with myself regarding 

providing electricity service to the project as well as other electric 

infrastructure matters does not accurately communicate that despite our 

ability to serve this project, further inquiry and coordination, including formal 

submittals, would be necessary to determine the electrical needs for this 

project in addition to identifying all the potential impacts on electric 

infrastructure associated with this project.

The comment is noted. The project Applicant has apprised FRA of its 

willingness and of the necessity to further coordinate with Southern California 

Edison and other electrical service providers to develop appropriate 

arrangements to procure electrical service. This coordination has commenced 

during the environmental review phase of the project and will continue into the 

design-build phase. This coordination is particularly necessary given the 

selection of the EMU technology as part of the Preferred Alternative.

450 Utilities Southern California Edison SCE urges the FRA to ensure that the project proponent coordinates closely 

with SCE during all stages of project development and construction to 

address potential project related impacts of existing and proposed SCE lines 

and corridors, to address the relocation of lines, and to assist with the 

identification and siting of new substation and transmission lines necessary 

to support the project.

See response to comment 449 on the Draft EIS and the response to comment 

S-316 on the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

451 General - Project 

Attributes

Southern California Edison In addition to the above requested information, SCE requires more detailed 

information and scaled drawing of rail alignments relative to SCE's 

transmission lines and towers as well as information regarding temporary 

construction areas and all foreseeable construction activities adjacent to our 

right-of-ways. For all rail alignments adjacent to our lines, we will require 

conductor elevations, plans and profiles, grading and drainage plans, and 

access information. Similarly, for each line crossing, we will need to look in 

detail at access, conductor heights, grading and drainage, and proximity to 

towers. Area distribution facilities will also need to be taken into 

consideration.

The Applicant has advised FRA of its ongoing and future coordination with 

SCE. The Applicant will continue its coordination with SCE throughout the 

design phase of the project and will provide the requested detailed design 

information as it is produced in order to facilitate any right-of-way issues, 

conductor clearances, and issues relative to the SCE right of way as well as 

other distribution facilities.

March 2011 4-81 Final EIS
Table F-4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Draft EIS 

Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

452 General Southern California Edison In order to determine the electrical service needs of this project, engineering 

fees will be required to perform studies to determine the scope of work for 

this project. A meeting to discuss the project scope, project costs, ownership 

and responsibility of involved parties will be necessary. 

Comment noted. This will be the Applicant's responsibility after project 

approval.

453 Nevada Division of Water 

Resources

Any water used for the proposed project on the described lands in Nevada 

should be provided by an established

utility or under permit issued by the State Engineer‘s Office. All waters of the 

State belong to the public and

may be appropriated for beneficial use pursuant to the provisions of 

Chapters 533 and 534 of the Nevada

Revised Statutes (NRS), and not otherwise. Any water or monitor wells, or 

boreholes that may be located on

either acquired or transferred lands are the ultimate responsibility of the 

owner of the property at the time of the

transfer and must be plugged and abandoned as required in Chapter 534 of 

the Nevada Administrative Code. If

artesian water is encountered in any well or borehole it shall be controlled as 

required in NRS § 534.060(3).

Please see Section 3.4.3 of this Final EIS, specifically Mitigation Measure 3, 

which involves a requirement for the project to obtain a formal water 

commitment from the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) for facilities 

within its boundaries (the Preferred Alternative Las Vegas station options and 

the Wigwam MSF). The Preferred Alternative does not contain any plans for 

wells and no facilities that would require water are located outside LVVWD 

service area boundaries. 

March 2011 4-82 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-1 Air Quality EPA Include in the Final EIS detailed information on the distance between the alignment and 

sensitive receptors and an analysis of potential localized impacts to those areas, such 

as air quality. 

Overall, project construction would lead to a substantial reduction in freeway mainline 

traffic, which would translate to a substantial reduction in localized diesel emissions 

along the project corridor. The Preferred Alternative incorporates the electric multiple 

unit (EMU) technology option, which will not result in diesel emissions along the 

alignment or in station areas. Final EIS Section 3.11.2.3 updates construction period air 

quality impacts with a focus on populated areas proximate to the stations. Final EIS 

Section 3.11.2.3 also notes that the Preferred Alternative would improve air quality 

conditions in the respective air basins but would nonetheless result in some localized 

impacts at station areas related to automobile traffic in and out of the stations. 

S-2 Air Quality/GCC Brown, Charles You are talking about using diesel train possibly. That will not help the environment 

none. You are going to be putting more pollution back in the air than you are with cars.

The Preferred Alternative includes the EMU technology option. The EMU technology 

option was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative because of its substantial 

environmental benefits. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.3.2.4 for a discussion of 

EMU technology and Final EIS Section 2.4.4 for a discussion regarding the selection of 

EMU technology as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

S-3 Air Quality/GCC Clark County 

Dept. of Air 

Quality & 

Environmental 

Management

Replace sentence on page 3.11-1 "The Clark County Air Basin .... and PM10" with 

"Parts of Clark County are currently designated by EPA as nonattainment areas for PM 

10 and ozone."

Final EIS Section 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, includes this revised 

text.

S-4 Air Quality/GCC Clark County 

Dept. of Air 

Quality & 

Environmental 

Management

The annual average N02 concentrations presented in Table S-3.11-2 for the JD Smith 

monitoring site are incorrect - 2005 through 2007 - and indicate annual NAAQS 

exceedances. For example, the 0.224 ppm concentration for 2007 represents the 

maximum 1-hour concentration, not the annual average which is below the NAAQS, 

(i.e., 0.019 ppm).

Final EIS Section 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, has been revised 

accordingly.

S-5 Air Quality/GCC Clark County 

Dept. of Air 

Quality & 

Environmental 

Management

The location and status of a future project - Ivanpah Energy Center - on page 3.16-3 

and Figure S-3.16-5 are incorrect. The project, located near Goodsprings, NY has not 

commenced construction and currently does not have an active air permit.

Final EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, has been revised accordingly. This change 

does not alter the cumulative impact analysis. 

S-6 Air Quality/GCC Clark County 

Dept. of Air 

Quality & 

Environmental 

Management

Regional emission calculations are not located in Appendix J as Table 3.11-4 suggests. Final EIS Appendix F-L (Regional Emission Calculation Worksheets) includes complete 

and updated information. 

S-7 Air Quality/GCC Clark County 

Dept. of Air 

Quality & 

Environmental 

Management

The PM 10 construction emissions in Appendix J may be significantly underestimated - 

3.2 tons per year and 11.5 tons total - for a construction project of this size, (i.e., rail 

construction spanning 180 miles in an arid region such as the desert southwest).

All construction-period emissions, including PM10, have been recalculated (as described 

in Final EIS Section 3.11.2.3). All emissions calculations, and underlying assumptions, 

have been used in calculating the emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative 

(see Final EIS Section 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change). Mitigation 

monitoring during construction will provide data to confirm estimated impacts and ensure 

that all feasible measures to reduce emissions and fugitive dust are taken. See 

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in Final EIS Section 3.11.3.

S-8 Air Quality/GCC Vasseur, Robert 

A.

And saying that this train, with its adverse affect on the land masses in the eastern 

Mojave, is environmentally beneficial because of the number of vehicles that it 

purportedly takes off the road, is at the very least paradoxical if not patently ridiculous.

Please see the Final EIS Project Background and Executive Summary chapter and 

Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, for a discussion of the various factors and 

tradeoffs evaluated and considered in developing the Preferred Alternative.

S-9 Air Quality/GCC Velma, Brya I am not certain of how this train is powered or whether it uses any fossil fuel but if it 

does use fossil fuel, I am dead set against it. How can we in good

faith trade fossil fuel burning cars for a fossil fuel burning train when the proposed 

maglev system moves us away from Mideast oil?

The Preferred Alternative includes the EMU technology option. The EMU technology 

option was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative because of its substantial 

environmental benefits. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.3.2.4 for a discussion of 

EMU technology and Final EIS Section 2.4.4 for a discussion regarding the selection of 

EMU technology as part of the Preferred Alternative.

March 2011 4-83 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-10 Alternatives Atilano, Lucy 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

There has been a lot of talk in Las Vegas about why this train is being "railroaded" 

through the process while the in-every-way-superior competing project, the Maglev, 

has been stonewalled. This is no time to mess around with politics when there are 

literally people starving for work in Las Vegas. For God's sake put both projects on 

equal footing and evaluate them fairly. That is supposed to be the purpose of the EIS 

process, is it not?

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-11 Alternatives Atilano, Lucy 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

No environmental impact is acceptable unless the system is financially feasible. As the 

gentleman who commented at the public hearing in Las Vegas has said: No one has 

ever defended the DesertXpress' plan to make only one stop in Victorville. Make the 

private investors liable for the cost of removing the system when it fails ... so that we 

can build a Maglev in its place. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.5.2, which addresses conditions that may be 

included in an agreement granting the Applicant use of the right of way, which may 

include financial responsibility for removal of infrastructure in the event of financial 

default. In addition, please see the ridership study in Final EIS Appendix F-D, which has 

been independently reviewed by FRA and substantiates the economic feasibility of the 

project as summarized in Final EIS Section 2.2.1.

S-12 Alternatives Atilano, Lucy 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

Since your EIS barely mentions Maglev as an alternative and goes into no details 

about its advantages, environmental, economically or otherwise; it is imperative that, if 

built, your plan for the DesertXpress not encroach on the right of way that the Maglev 

would require. If the DesertXpress is built it should not use any public lands that would 

preclude a REAL transportation system that serves ACTUAL DESTINATIONS. Let 

them compete side by side and let the market decide which is a better idea. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-13 Alternatives Brown, Charles I really hope this Desert Xpress train is not truly going to be built using public land. The 

mainstream media keeps reporting that the DesertXpress is a privately funded train. 

But according to their website, they are expecting federal loans because of the frozen 

Wall St. credit markets. Since when is a federal loan the same as "privately funded"!?

While some segments are proposed to cross public lands (as shown in Supplemental 

Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-1 through S-3.1-5), the Applicant remains a private entity 

(DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in Final EIS Section 1.5.1, DesertXpress 

Enterprises LLC may be eligible to for apply for financing from the federal government 

through a federal loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

(RRIF) program. 

S-14 Alternatives California State 

Lands 

Commission

State agencies are encouraged to use National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents to replace CEQA documents if the NEPA document complies with CEQA 

(CCR section 15221), but we cannot rely solely on the NEPA document where it fails to 

meet the requirements of CEQA. While the Supplemental Draft EIS has' addressed 

most of the issues that are required by CEOA but not required by NEPA, it lacks a 

program for reporting or monitoring the implementation of all mitigation measures that 

were adopted or made a condition of project approval in accordance with Public 

Resources Code section 21081.6(a). While such a mitigation monitoring program is not 

required until findings are made, it is prudent to disclose this program early in the 

process and it is often included as part of the draft environmental document under 

CEQA.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.4.1.2 for discussion of the STB's preemption 

authority and how such authority has exempted the DesertXpress project from state and 

local land use and environmental regulations, including CEQA. Notwithstanding, the 

NEPA process has been consistent with the CEQA regulations including publication of a 

Notice of Preparation in the California State Clearinghouse and notification of both the 

Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS. In addition, the technical analysis in both the 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS covered all of the environmental topic areas within 

the CEQA Checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Record of Decision for 

the project would summarize all project mitigation measures and all federal agency 

licensing requirements, thereby serving much the same purpose as a CEQA mitigation 

monitoring and reporting program. 

S-15 Alternatives Center for 

Biological 

Diversity

Because of the significant impact to the west side of the Ivanpah Valley and the plants 

and animals including the desert tortoise that currently reside there, we request that 

Segment 4C be rejected from further consideration and an alternative be developed 

that further minimizes the impacts to the fully-functioning ecosystems in the Ivanpah 

Valley by engineering a route that takes full advantage of the existing I-15 corridor.

Please see Draft EIS Section 2.3, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further 

Analysis, and Table 2-4, which includes a discussion and rationale of rail alignments that 

were considered but rejected. Draft EIS Table 2-4 specifically notes that an alignment in 

the freeway median of the Mountain Pass area was evaluated, but was rejected due to 

excessively steep grades in this corridor. These grades would require construction of 

tunnels and/or deep retained cuts in order to allow for adequate train operations. These 

potentialities were considered to have significant environmental and cost impacts and 

therefore, further study of any alignment within the immediate I-15 freeway corridor was 

rejected from further consideration. Moreover, it should be noted that portions of 

Segment 4C will be on elevated structures, allowing animal passage beneath. The 

biological resources discussion in Final EIS Section 3.14, Biological Resources, provides 

further discussion of impacts and mitigation measures associated with Segment 4C (see 

Mitigation Measure BIO-11). 

March 2011 4-84 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-16 Alternatives Chavez, Remijio 

A.

...are most concerned about the proposed track segment displayed on Sheet C129C 

that would be constructed for train ingress through the City of Barstow. We live 

adjacent I-15 just off Roberta Street. Living this close to I-15 is bad enough but when 

we saw that this proposed track segment is proposed just 50 feet from our homes we 

have become very concerned. There are two alternatives form this segment. One 

places the proposed elevated track just over our heads and the other proposes that 

the elevated track be within the I-15 median as it ingress through the City of Barstow. It 

was stated at the public meeting that there is no anticipated need to condemn any 

private property in Barstow. We strongly oppose the alternative that would place the 

proposed segment adjacent to I-15 as it travels through Barstow and will only accept 

the I-15 median proposal! 

The opposition to Segment 2C is noted. Segment 2C that has been included in the 

Preferred Alternative would run along the side of the I-15 freeway through central 

Barstow with the existing I-15 freeway. The project would include appropriate noise 

mitigation (in the form of sound barriers) to reduce noise impacts on adjacent residences 

and sensitive land uses. See Mitigation Measure NV-1 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. 

Furthermore, no residential displacement or private property is proposed to be acquired 

or condemned to construct and operate the project in the central Barstow area as part of 

this evaluation. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a discussion regarding the 

selection of Segment 2C Side Running as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

S-17 Alternatives City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS does not identify any environmental advantage to stripping 

the Segment 2C routing option of a Barstow-area station; rather it simply defers to the 

applicant's failure to propose such as station, on the grounds that the applicant's 

ridership survey indicated that the number of passengers boarding there would be 

"insufficient to support a station." The Supplemental Draft EIS does not independently 

weigh the ridership survey results to determine whether the applicant is correct in 

discounting demand for a Barstow-area station. 

The possibility of a Barstow-area station was specifically considered in Section 1.7.1 of 

the Draft EIS, however the ridership studies did not project significant ridership 

generation from the Barstow area to warrant construction of a separate station. As 

noted in Appendix F-D, the Ridership Study developed for the project and independently 

reviewed by FRA, the Greater Barstow area was projected to generate below 3 percent 

of estimated total train ridership. Moreover, as noted in the response to Draft EIS 

comment 363, the Applicant met several times with officials at the City of Barstow. 

These meetings resulted in no consensus regarding the need for or any specific location 

of a Barstow station. In addition, the agency Preferred Alternative includes a 

passenger station at the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) located off of the I-15/Dale 

Evans Parkway interchange. This passenger station is located approximately 20 miles 

south of Barstow which is close enough to provide convenient access for Barstow area 

residents. The comment appears directed at Segment 2A/2B from Lenwood to Yermo, 

which has not been incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. Segment 2C, 

included as part of the Preferred Alternative, was proposed within the Supplemental 

Draft EIS in specific response to concerns expressed by the City of Barstow regarding 

potential land use conflicts. The Segment 2C alignment included in the Preferred 

Alternative requires no condemnation of any type of building. 

S-18 Alternatives City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

It is obvious, therefore, that the maglev project and the DesertXpress project are two 

alternative means of providing the same benefit (a high-speed rail connection between 

southern California and Las Vegas) to the public. Both these projects are currently 

proposed, and planning for both has reached an advanced and detailed level. Yet the 

EIS deliberately excludes comparison of the maglev project and the DesertXpress 

project as alternatives, and furthermore deliberately excludes any discussion of the 

environmental impacts and/ or benefits of the maglev project.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-19 Alternatives City of Barstow 

(Richard D. 

Rowe)

The DesertXpress is also going to be costly for the federal government, contrary to the 

representation that the project will be privately funded. The total cost of funding the 

project is $5 billion, and $4 billion of that cost will come from federal loans.

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in 

Final EIS Section 1.5.1, DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may become eligible to for apply 

for financing from the federal government through a federal loan program, the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. 

S-20 Alternatives CCDOA CCDOA is pleased to report that the alternate location for the Sloan MSF, as identified 

in the Supplemental Draft EIS, would eliminate CCDOA's concerns.

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-21 Alternatives Coco-weld, 

Amber A.

The Maglev would be so amazing to have here in Nevada! It would benefit so many 

people, especially those who like living here but cant find work. 

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

March 2011 4-85 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-22 Alternatives Conway, Robert 

A. (Ironworkers 

Local 433)

I'm convinced that what ever train is built it needs to go to the lower basin of Southern 

California. . . In regards to the ridership claims of DesertXpress I strongly believe 

someone should investigate the numbers regarding their projections. 10 million riders 

per year would be needed in order in order to make this projection, which is 

coincidentally almost exactly the number the DesertXpress would need to make an 

operating profit, they would have to run 80% full 16 hours a day 7 days a week. That is 

more than 3 times the number of people who ride the Acela high speed train between 

New York City, Boston and Washington D.C. so how is this possible??? 

The Ridership Study, included as Final EIS Appendix F-D, supports the viability of the 

DesertXpress project. Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes an 

estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DesertXpress in the 

opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, 

reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used appropriate 

methods. (SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2.) The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the 

forecast and concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent 

lower than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the DesertXpress 

ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information is obtained." 

(Cambridge at 25.) The Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California 

with Las Vegas as the destination. 

S-23 Alternatives Dieleman, Bob ...there is an alternate route “B” for the Desert Express High Speed Rail Train that will 

run through the center of Dean Martin Drive and by the east side of our property. We 

are opposed to this option as it will substantially reduce the value of our land as well as 

limit its potential for development. Further, the noise, vibration and diminished visibility 

that would occur from the motion and multiple daily trips will make this route a potential 

safety hazard and certainly discourage daily business. We ask that the project undergo 

due process, wherein more viable alternatives such as the option exploring the use of 

the long-established UPRR corridor for exactly this purpose be considered. This would 

allow the transition of the train from the center of the I-15 freeway to the railroad at the 

Sloan junction, using the existing UPRR‟s right-of-way and offering direct access to 

their final destination at the terminal site. The UPRR‟s new found willingness to work 

with groups such as Desert Express (provided it makes economic sense) could ensure 

this option‟s success. 

The comment is noted. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a discussion regarding 

the selection of Segment 6B as part of the Preferred Alternative. The proposed Segment 

6B alignment would be fully grade separated from Dean Martin Drive and would thus not 

contribute to a safety hazard on Dean Martin Drive. The presence of the elevated tracks 

in the median of Dean Martin Drive could potentially calm traffic on this street, resulting 

in improved safety. Noise and vibration impacts of the Segment are fully analyzed in 

the Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.3. Through this area, given the proximity of the 

Las Vegas passenger station (either Central Station B or the Southern Station), trains 

would be operating below top speed. With Central Station B, top speeds would be about 

80 miles per hour at Tropicana Avenue. With the Southern Station, top speeds would be 

reduced to about 80 mph a comparable distance south of the station, further dropping to 

as low as 40 mph by West Oquendo Avenue. An alignment following the existing 

UPPR ROW, the Option C alignment, was considered for Segments 6 and 7 but for a 

number of reasons, was not included in the Preferred Alternative. See Final EIS Section 

2.3.2.1 for a discussion of alternatives considered. 

S-24 Alternatives EPA Include additional analysis and justification in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) to sufficiently demonstrate the independent utility and logical

termini of the proposed Southern California hub in Victorville as opposed to other 

locations west of Victorville that are closer to larger population centers and existing 

transit connections. EPA's additional comments regarding recommendation are 

incorporated by reference and provided in the attachment (May 2009 EPA Comment 

Letter on the Draft EIS).

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

S-25 Alternatives EPA Include in the Final EIS a discussion of why the Victorville Station Site has expanded, if 

one of the VV3 options is chosen.

The commenter is correct that the relative size of the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

options is greater than those of VV1 or VV2. Final EIS Section 2.3.2.2 has been 

updated to address the relative difference in size between the various station site 

options. 

S-28 Alternatives Hall, Rich ...in the area immediately to the West adjacent to the “Las Vegas Valley MSF Option 3, 

Robindale Ave” maintenance facility for the proposed DesertXpress. Currently this area 

is zoned AND master planned as “Office Professional”. This would exclude this area 

being used as a RAILROAD MAINTENANCE YARD! In addition, the noise, odors, etc. 

would restrict any use of this type next to a residential area. We are not talking across 

the street or down the road. The proposed maintenance facility runs right to the back 

yard fence of the residents of this area. 

As outlined in Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, the Robindale Avenue MSF 

site option is not part of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, none of the impacts 

identified by the commenter would occur at the location noted.

March 2011 4-86 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-29 Alternatives Handelman This is the most ridiculous idea. Does anyone honestly believe that anyone will drive 

from LA to Victorville to get on a train to come to Las Vegas.

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High-Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

S-30 Alternatives Hansen, David No one is mentioning the fact that EVERY road crossing has to be a bridge or tunnel. 

[...] What is going to happen when a truck stall on the tracks??? [...] why would 

anybody park their car, take a train, then walk miles, perhaps carrying packages and 

other products that need to go where they go??

As discussed in Final EIS Section 2.2, Development of Alternatives, all proposed rail 

alignments would be fully grade separated from existing roadways. Therefore, there is 

no realistic potential for the DesertXpress train to be blocked by stalled vehicles, as 

suggested by the commenter. As discussed in Final EIS Section 2.2.2, FRA conducted 

an extensive independent review of the ridership study conducted by the Applicant. 

FRA's review concluded that the ridership estimates should be adjusted downwards by 

a factor of 10 percent overall to represent a conservative estimate of potential ridership. 

Please see the ridership study in Final EIS Appendix F-D, which has been independently 

reviewed by FRA and substantiates the economic feasibility of the project as 

summarized in Final EIS Section 2.2.2. 

S-31 Alternatives Harrison Hopefully there will be a time that people will be asked which system they support, this 

desert express train or the maglev system. This train would have been great to ride 

between Los Angeles and Las Vegas years ago but the newer technology makes the 

desert express look like a joke.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-32 Alternatives Jenkins, Howard 

and Lynda

Approving the Desert Express will be the political burden of the century, from which no 

supporting politician will escape. Please do the right thing! Reject this folly.

The comment in opposition to the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-33 Alternatives Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Vehicle parking on the transmission line Rights-of-Way may not be used to satisfy any 

zoning demands, zoning variances, conditional use permits, open

space, or parking requirements for building plans and permits, or governmental 

requirements. Vehicle parking under IPA & LADWP 500kV AC or DC

Transmission Lines is not currently authorized. 

The comment is noted and the parking prohibition was noted in Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 2.2.1. As parking beneath the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

(LADWP) transmission line ROW could not be ascertained, station site option VV3B was 

proposed, which would not entail any parking or structures to be located in this ROW. 

S-34 Alternatives Makar, Steve If I cannot stop this waste of tax dollars at least move it to the center of the Interstate 15 

the only reasonable place to put such a commercial project. 

The preference for a median alignment is noted and was identified in Final EIS Section 

2.5 as an environmentally preferable alternative. However, as further described in Final 

EIS Section 2.5, numerous technical and operational factors led the Federal cooperating 

agencies to identify side-running segments as the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

S-35 Alternatives Marks, Philip H. Since you are going to elevate the railway why not run it down the center of Interstate 

15 and avoid all of the dust, noise, health issues and reduction in home values.

The preference for a median alignment is noted and was identified in Final EIS Section 

2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, as an environmentally preferable alternative. 

However, as further described in Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative, numerous technical and operational factors led the Federal cooperating 

agencies to identify side-running segments as the Preferred Alternative rail alignment. 

S-36 Alternatives Martin, Rod We are concerned that the alternative routes described potentially impact the 

commercial facilities we own located at 3165 – 3455 W. Sunset Road and 3301 W. 

Martin Avenue in Las Vegas. As these facilities have significant value, any physical 

appropriation will need to be addressed as well as any impairment on the remaining 

facilities.

The commenter refers to Segment 6B. This Final EIS includes an updated appendix 

showing detailed plan and profile drawings of this alignment. Please refer to Sheets SK98/SK-99 within Final EIS Appendix F-C, which shows the location of the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment in the vicinity of the properties described. In this location, the 

rail alignment remains within a transportation ROW area and would not encroach on 

private property. 

March 2011 4-87 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-37 Alternatives McEachron, 

Ryan

As a city council member for the city of Victorville I am very supportive of the 

DesertXpress high speed rail project. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-38 Alternatives National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

We oppose proposed routes that negatively impact National Park resources, such as 

4A, which encroaches within the designated boundary of the federally protected 

Mojave National Preserve.

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, which describes the 

components of the Preferred Alternative. Segment 4A is not identified as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. Please note, however, Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative, which identifies Segment 4A as the environmentally preferable 

alternative, insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation impacts associated with 

Segment 4C and because its shorter length and its relatively close adherence to the I-15 

and/or Nipton Road corridors. Notwithstanding, Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative, notes that FRA and Cooperating Agencies could not choose 

Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as there is presently no mechanism in place for 

the National Park Service to grant such a ROW through the Mojave National Preserve. 

S-39 Alternatives National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

[Re Segment 4C] Develop an environmentally preferred alternative that follows the I-15 

Corridor. Despite having to negotiate the steep grade of Mountain Pass, less damage 

would be done to public land, listed species, and cumulative impacts to the Ivanpah 

Valley and Mojave National Preserve would be reduced. The need to build costly 

tunnels through BLM land would also be avoided should an alternative be developed 

and adopted. Should the train be unable to climb Mountain Pass fully, we recommend 

that an environmentally preferred alternative be identified for full consideration.

Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, describes that Segment 

4A is the environmentally preferred alignment for Segment 4, but is infeasible due to no 

legal mechanism allowing the placement of a railroad right of way within the Mojave 

National Preserve. The alternative suggested by the commenter, developing an 

alignment within the I-15 corridor over Mountain Pass, was considered but rejected, as 

further described in Draft EIS Section 2.3, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From 

Further Review. Draft EIS Table 2-4 specifically notes that an alignment in the freeway 

median of the Mountain Pass area was evaluated, but was rejected due to excessively 

steep grades in this corridor. These grades would require construction of tunnels and/or 

deep retained cuts in order to allow for adequate train operations. These potentialities 

were considered to have significant environmental and cost impacts and therefore, 

further study of any alignment within the immediate I-15 corridor was rejected from 

further consideration. Moreover, it should be noted that portions of Segment 4C will be 

on elevated structures, allowing animal passage beneath (see Final EIS Section 

2.3.2.1). The biological resources discussion in Final EIS Section 3.14, Biological 

Resources, provides further discussion of impacts and mitigation measures associated 

with Segment 4C. 

S-40 Alternatives NDOT Table S-2-1 should add to the description of Alternative 6B the phrase "and outside of 

the I-15 right-of-way"

Please see Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-2-2 which makes this distinction (AAA 8, 

Segment 6B).

S-41 Alternatives NDOT If alternatives A, C, and others are to remain in the Final EIS they must be described, 

presented, and enough engineering provided for the proper evaluation of these 

alternatives. Example: Downtown alternatives must be clearly described, advance 

engineering wise, and/or clearly removed from the Final EIS as the impacts to the I-15 

right-of-way usage is large and significant. If the intent is not to go downtown remove 

alternatives 7 A, 7B, 7C from the Final EIS. It seems that they were not studied at the 

same level of detail as the other alternatives. 

This Final EIS Section 2.2.3 provides a robust alternatives analysis, which includes an 

analysis of Alternatives A, C, 7A, 7B, 7C and others. These alternatives have been 

described and any potential impacts resulting from these alternatives have been 

analyzed. The alternatives remain part of the alternatives analysis however, please see 

Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, which describes the components of the 

Preferred Alternative. In Nevada, none of the "A" or "C" alignments are part of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

S-42 Alternatives NDOT Descriptions of the 6B rail alignment diverging from NDOT right-of-way Section 2.2.7 

page 2-8 does not match descriptions from section 3.1 page 3.1.5.

Final EIS Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, includes revisions to address this comment. Due to 

a typographical error, the cited portion of Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Supplemental 

Draft EIS listed locations where the alignment would be on elevated structures, not 

necessarily where the alignment would diverge from the NDOT ROW. 

March 2011 4-88 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-43 Alternatives NDOT The new Segment 4C alignment shows two tunnels in Nevada. One of them is within 

the NDOT I-15 right-of-way. That short tunnel could be replaced by a bigger cut on the 

side of the hill.

Comment noted. Engineering details such as this would be worked out during the 

detailed design phase after the Record of Decision. At present, the Applicant believes 

that a tunnel is the appropriate engineering solution; therefore a tunnel is part of project 

plans. In the event that a different solution is identified as detailed design and 

construction move forward, any such modifications will be reviewed for consistency with 

the foregoing analysis. 

S-44 Alternatives NDOT Table S-2-2 summary of alignment modifications describe a 5 mile portion of this 

alignment will be shifted from Wigwam Maintenance Station Facility (MSF) to Las 

Vegas Central Station. These 5 miles do not match with written description and/or 

design build segment between Blue Diamond and I-215. Please clarify if there will be 

an alignment modification between Wigwam MSF and I-215. 

Final EIS Section 2.3.2.1 includes revisions to address this comment.

S-45 Alternatives [[Unknown]] If the use of I-15's publicly owned right of way is approved, what will become of the 

other very good proposed systems that will go all the way to the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area? I am specifically concerned that the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Project would be "derailed" if you approve the DesertXpress' request. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-46 Alternatives Ross, Carl Did you consider stopping the train at Jean Nevada where the new Las Vegas Airport 

is going to go in next 2 or 3 years and have your customers get a bus from airport to 

Las Vegas. You would save a lot of money building expensive structures along Dean 

Martin Drive to downtown Las Vegas and won't have to fight with all the land owners. 

Stopping the train at Jean, Nevada, would not accomplish the project's purpose which 

involves providing high-speed rail transportation between Southern California 

(Victorville) and Las Vegas (See Supplemental Draft EIS page 1-1). In addition, please 

see Final EIS Section 1.6.8, which discusses the relationship between the DesertXpress 

project and the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA). In southern 

Clark County, the DesertXpress rail alignment would be on the east side of the I-15 

corridor, in close proximity to the site proposed for the SNSA, allowing for a potential 

future connection to occur. 

S-47 Alternatives San Manuel 

Band of Mission 

Indians

The San Manuel Band believes that segment 2C (median alternative) is preferable to 

2A/2B alignment. In general the median alignment is preferable in all segments to non 

median alignment. The non median alignment will result in unacceptable impacts to 

cultural resources and the desert tortoise, an animal important in Native American 

culture.

The comment is noted; please see Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, for a 

discussion of the Preferred Alternative (which includes Segment 2C) and Section 2.5, 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative, for a discussion of the Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative. Please see also Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-3.14-2 of the 

which identifies the potential for impacts to desert tortoises to occur in the Segment 2C 

Side Running alignment but not in the Segment 2C Median alignment. 

S-48 Alternatives Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

[Re Segment 4C] We are disappointed that DesertXpress did not develop an 

alternative route that would remain within or along the I-15 corridor where potentially 

much less damage would be done to public land and listed species, and the cumulative 

impacts to the Ivanpah Valley and Mojave National Preserve would be decreased. The 

need to build costly tunnels through BLM land would also be avoided should this 

alternative be developed and adopted.

Please see Final EIS Section 2.2.3.1, specifically Table F-2-5, which notes that an 

alternative within the I-15 freeway through Mountain Pass (Alternative 4-JA) was 

considered but rejected due to substantial operational challenges, primarily relating to an 

excessively steep grade within the immediate freeway corridor. Please also see 

response to comment S-39 above. 

S-49 Alternatives Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

We do not support an incursion into the Mojave National Preserve. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment is located outside of the Mojave National 

Preserve. Please see Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a related discussion. Please also see 

the response to comment S-39 above. 

S-50 Alternatives Vasseur, Robert 

A.

A train originating on the West side of the San Bernardino Mountains, and preferably in 

the Los Angeles basin would have a far less damaging/draining effect on resources in 

a desert that can't support the kind of development that this train will generate.

Please see Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.4, Utilities/Emergency 

Services, which evaluated effects of the Victorville station and OMSF in relation to 

utilities and service systems, including water, waste water, police, fire, and emergency 

services. All impacts to these services would be minimized through the incorporation of 

mitigation measures, as listed in Final EIS Section 3.4.3. 

S-51 Alternatives Velma, Brya [of Maglev and DesertXpress] Why has there been no side-by-side comparison of the 

two systems?

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

Please also refer to Final EIS Section 2.2.3.3, which notes that magnetic levitation 

technology was considered but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress 

project due to prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

March 2011 4-89 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-52 Alternatives Watts, Billy Someone should investigate the validity of the DesertXpress ridership projections. In 

my opinion they must have had to pay dearly to get a reputable 3 rd party to sign off on 

such a blatant lie as 10 million riders per year. [...] Please do the right thing and order 

the DesertXpress to provide an audit or a second opinion from an independent 

researcher of the government's choosing.

The commenter is incorrect in asserting that FRA assumed a projection of 10 million 

riders per year. Please see Final EIS Table F-2-4, which shows opening year and 

buildout year projections for the two technology options evaluated. The highest estimate 

of ridership is about 6.5 million annual passengers by the year 2027. Please also see 

the response to comment S-17 above, which summarizes FRA's independent review 

and resultant (downward) adjustment of the ridership study. 

S-54 Alternatives - 

Planned and 

Programmed 

Projects

NDOT The Supplemental Draft EIS does not identify the FAST ITS design/build project 

currently underway that will extend coverage down 1-15 to the CA line. That project is 

in the RFP phase with the contract expected to be underway in the Spring of 2011.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.16.1.2, which includes this project as part of the 

cumulative context. 

S-55 Alternatives; Growth City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS further does not undertake any analysis of whether 

inclusion in the Segment 2C routing option of a Barstow area station would reduce or 

avoid negative growth impacts of the project to the Barstow area economy, or to the 

built environment in and around the City of Barstow. Stripping the Segment 2C routing 

option of a Barstow-area station further renders the range of alternatives inadequate, 

by failing to include any option which might avoid the negative growth impacts to the 

Barstow area.

Final EIS Section 3.2, Growth, includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of 

the possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-E 

includes FRA's economic impact study for Barstow (Barstow Study), completed in 

December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. 

The possibility of a Barstow-area station was specifically considered in Draft EIS Section 

1.7.1; however the ridership studies did not project significant ridership generation from 

the Barstow area to warrant construction of a separate station. Given the low projected 

numbers of passengers that would use a Barstow station, it is not reasonable to 

conclude that a station would substantially offset identified negative growth impacts. 

S-56 Alternatives; 

Purpose and Need

City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS compounds this problem of insufficient alternatives by 

proposing slight variations to certain route segments identified in the EIS and making 

minor changes to the location, size or orientation of certain facilities, making it 

abundantly clear that the EIS is simply an exercise to justify a pre-ordained decision to 

develop a specific project in a specific location. For these reasons, the statement of 

purpose and need in the DesertXpress EIS is too narrow and the alternatives analysis 

is wholly inadequate under NEPA.

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS evaluate the full range of reasonable 

alternatives that will achieve the project's purpose and need. For more information on 

the process to select alternatives, please see Draft EIS, Section 2.2, Development of 

Action Alternatives, which describes the process to evaluate the reasonable range of 

alternatives, including alignment and routing alternatives. The Final EIS Chapter 1.0, 

Purpose and Need, statement a number of issues suggesting the need for a new 

alternative mode of transportation between Southern California and Las Vegas.

S-57 Biological Resources Brown, Charles If it runs ground level between here and California, you got all kinds of wildlife that is 

going to cross the track. Are you going to put fences and barricades up to keep them 

out?

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which sets forth measures 

regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife crossings. Where the rail alignment is 

in the I-15 freeway ROW, the Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad 

line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to serve 

as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals to allow for 

wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and other wildlife to pass 

under the proposed rail alignment. The project shall not obstruct or block any natural 

drainages during project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. 

The culverts and fencing would be designed and spacing would be determined through 

coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, NDOW, and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct desert tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. The impact to 

the Mojave Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters 

including the narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, 

and maintenance. 

March 2011 4-90 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-58 Biological Resources Center for 

Biological 

Diversity

Unfortunately, ISEGS translocation sites include parts of the DesertXpress‟ proposed 

Segment 4C. While translocation of desert tortoises is expected to cause significant 

mortality in itself, further disruption of habitat and potential additional translocation of 

desert tortoises by DesertXpress will cause additional direct mortality to this imperiled 

species.

Segment 4C crosses the ISEGS relocation area but does not directly impact 

translocation site N4. The DesertXpress project is not proposing translocation. The 

project is proposing to relocate desert tortoises within the limits of disturbance onto 

adjacent tortoise habitat as a measure to reduce harm. Please see Mitigation Measure 

BIO-15 in Final EIS Section 3.14.3. Substantial portions of Segment 4C would be on 

elevated structures, including spans of all existing drainage areas greater than four feet 

in width, thereby allowing for ongoing movement of desert tortoises during project 

operations. The DesertXpress project would directly and indirectly impact desert tortoise 

habitat within the Ivanpah Valley, permanently converting habitat to transportation use 

within the permanent ROW for the DesertXpress project. It is not anticipated that the 

DesertXpress project would result in direct mortality of any desert tortoise.

S-59 Biological Resources Center for 

Biological 

Diversity

We are also concerned about the fragmentation that the DesertXpress project 

(including Segments 4 a, b and c) will cause to the integrity of the existing desert 

tortoise population in the Ivanpah Valley. It appears that the density of tortoises in the 

Ivanpah Valley far exceed (USFWS 2010a at pg. 35 and USFWS 2010b at pg. 56) the 

average densities in the Northeastern Recovery unit (USFWS 2009). Therefore the 

Ivanpah Valley is a “hotspot” for healthy desert tortoise populations in the Northeastern 

Recovery Unit. It makes no biological or recovery sense to directly impact and 

fragment one of the only areas in the recovery unit where the tortoise numbers are 

better than average. Instead the Ivanpah Valley should be protected from further 

degradation as a crucial step in desert tortoise recovery.

Segments 4B and 4C would result in additional fragmentation of the desert tortoise and 

other wildlife species, such as desert bighorn sheep, habitat within the Ivanpah Valley 

north and west of the existing I-15 roadway facility. Substantial portions of Segment 4C 

(part of the Preferred Alternative) would be on elevated structures, including spans of all 

existing drainage areas greater than four feet in width, thereby allowing for ongoing 

movement of tortoises during project operations. While the DesertXpress project 

proposes to construct USFWS-, BLM-, and CDFG-approved culverts within these 

alignments, additional fragmentation of the habitat will result from implementation of the 

proposed project. The DesertXpress Segment 4A rail alignment will cause some habitat 

fragmentation of the desert tortoise habitat south and east of the existing I-15 roadway. 

The fragmentation from this segment is expected to be minimal given the close proximity 

to the I-15 freeway ROW. The desert tortoise habitat within Segment 4A is subject to 

historical and ongoing focused Raven predation along and adjacent to the I-15 corridor. 

A draft Biological Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a 

final submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which 

will detail all mitigation requirements for the project, including mitigation for desert 

tortoise. The December 2010 Biological Assessment is included as Final EIS Appendix 

F-M. Please also see response to comment S-58 above. 

S-60 Biological Resources City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

First, the project study area for biological impacts is the project footprint. [...] There is 

no assessment of impacts on the ecosystem or on the biodiversity of the region. This 

myopic review does not provide an assessment of the impacts on biological resources 

and fails to comply with the mandates of NEPA.

As required by 43 FR 55994 Section 1502.16, 1508.7, 1508.8, the analysis of direct, 

indirect and cumulative impacts to biological resources associated with project 

implementation is included in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Please refer to 

Draft EIS Section 3.14.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14.1 for a discussion 

regarding the direct and indirect impacts to biological resources within the vicinity of the 

project. Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, 

discuss the cumulative impacts to biological resources. The impact to the Mojave 

Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters including the 

narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited indirect 

impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, and 

maintenance. In addition the project alignment is primarily within or adjacent to the 

existing I-15 roadway ROW. The I-15 roadway facility previously impacted the 

ecosystem by creating a barrier to wildlife movement and fragmenting the habitat. The 

proposed project alignment is not anticipated to created additional significant impacts to 

biodiversity or the ecosystem except within Segment 4, where the alignment deviates 

from the I-15 alignment. Within the Segment 4, alignments 4B and 4C would further 

impact the wildlife of the Ivanpah Valley by further fragmenting the habitat and creating a 

new barrier to wildlife movement. Please see Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 and Final EIS 

Section 3.16.3.17 for additional discussion and analysis of the Preferred Alternative 

project and cumulative effects to biological resources, respectively. 

March 2011 4-91 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-61 Biological Resources City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

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

obtained prior to the issuance of the Draft EIS (pp. 3.14-16 and 3.14-53) or the 

Supplemental Draft EIS (p.3.14-16) due to the prolonged drought in the region. Both 

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

on the project. (Id.) Even if such studies are completed prior to breaking ground, the 

information obtained will not be available to inform the public or the decision-makers in 

assessing the environmental impacts of the different alternatives before the decision on 

the project as mandated by NEPA. 

Please see Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5, which explains that multiple year drought 

conditions led to a determination to conduct limited botanical surveys, given anticipated 

scarcity of resources. The botanical surveys for Segment 4C were conducted during the 

spring of 2010 to determine the presence of any sensitive species within or adjacent to 

the proposed alignment. The proposed alignment in Nevada was previously surveyed 

for sensitive botanicals. The remainder of the alignment is within or immediately 

adjacent to the I-15 roadway or within an urbanized area and not supporting sensitive 

species habitat. The California and Nevada Natural Heritage Program databases were 

reviewed for existing information regarding the location of previously observed sensitive 

botanical resources. In addition, the BLM resource specialist in the Barstow, Needles 

and Las Vegas field offices reviewed the project alignment for potential sensitive 

botanical resource habitat. Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1 for a discussion 

regarding the methodology used to evaluate biological impact to the affected 

environment. Final EIS Section 3.14.3 includes mitigation measures for the Preferred 

Alternative which includes preconstruction surveys for special-status species (refer to 

Mitigation Measure BIO-2). 

S-62 Biological Resources City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

Neither document analyzes the loss of habitat, changes to habitat, loss of individuals, 

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

There is no assessment of the impact on the multi-species habitat conservation plans 

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

than conclusory statements that impacts will be minimal. [...] There is no explanation of 

the scope of the impacts or how they relate the thresholds of significance.

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS analyze the temporary and permanent direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources within the study area. Please 

see Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.14, Biological Resources, and 

Sections 3.16, Cumulative Impacts. The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS describe 

acres of direct and indirect impacts to desert tortoise critical habitat units, BLM areas of 

critical environmental concern and desert wildlife management areas. This includes the 

loss of habitat, modification to habitat and habitat function, and potential impacts to 

individual wildlife species. The DesertXpress project is in compliance with the Clark 

County Multispecies Conservation Plan, the California Desert Conservation Plan, 

Proposed Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Plan amendment to the California 

Desert Conservation Area Plan, West Mojave Plan amendment to the California Desert 

Conservation Area Plan. The conservations plans cited above were consulted to identify 

special-status plants and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities that may 

potentially occur near the project. Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1 for a 

discussion regarding the methodology used to evaluate biological impact to the affected 

environment. Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 for a discussion regarding the 

Preferred Alternative's impacts on biological resources in the vicinity. 

March 2011 4-92 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-63 Biological Resources City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The biological impacts discussion in the Supplemental Draft EIS (and the Draft EIS 

which is incorporated by reference) utterly fails to provide a meaningful analysis of the 

impacts on biological resources, biodiversity and/or the ecosystem from the proposed 

action or the alternatives. This chapter does not comply with NEPA and must be 

revised. 

Please see response to comment S-62. The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

analyze the temporary and permanent direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to 

biological resources within the study area. Please see Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS Sections 3.14, Biological Resources, and Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts. he 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS describe acres of direct and indirect impacts to 

desert tortoise critical habitat units, BLM areas of critical environmental concern and 

desert wildlife management areas. This includes the loss of habitat, modification to 

habitat and habitat function, and potential impacts to individual wildlife species. The 

DesertXpress project is in compliance with the Clark County Multispecies Conservation 

Plan, the California Desert Conservation Plan, Proposed Northern and Eastern Mojave 

Desert Plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, West Mojave 

Plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The conservations 

plans cited above were consulted to identify special-status plants and wildlife species 

and sensitive natural communities that may potentially occur near the project. Please 

refer to Final EIS Section 3.14.2.1 for a discussion regarding the methodology used to 

evaluate biological impact to the affected environment. Please refer to Final EIS 

Section 3.14.2.3 for a discussion regarding the Preferred Alternative's impacts on 

biological resources in the vicinity. 

S-64 Biological Resources Desert 

Conservation 

Program

Map S-3.14-4 displays the LSTS in light blue but is not identified in the map legend. The legend for Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.14-4 has been revised. This revised 

figure is included as Final EIS Figure F-3.14-1. The revised figure clarifies the location of 

the Large Scale (Tortoise) Translocation Site. This change does not entail any 

additional physical environmental effect that was not previously described in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS. 

S-65 Biological Resources Desert 

Conservation 

Program

Map S-3.14-4 displays the Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) in the legend but 

is not shown in the map.

There are no DWMAs within the area depicted on Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.14-

4. The legends for the biological resource Figures S-3.14-1 through S-3.14-5 of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS are identical. Not every resource type listed in the legend is 

found on every figure in this series. Please also see response to comment S-64 

regarding edits to Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.14-4.

S-67 Biological Resources Desert 

Conservation 

Program

The DCP has concerns about any impacts to existing desert tortoise proof fencing 

along either sides of Interstate 15 (I-15) from Primm, Nevada to Sloan, Nevada. Any 

disturbance of existing tortoise fencing would need immediate temporary approved 

tortoise fencing installed and at project completion permanent tortoise proof fencing 

reinstalled. This is of special concern for rail alignment Alternative A along the west side 

of I-15 from Jean, Nevada to two miles north of Primm, Nevada (see Maps 5-3.14.4, 

and 5-3.16-6 in the Supplemental Draft EIS).

Along portions of the proposed alignment requiring removal of existing permanent desert 

tortoise fencing, USFWS and BLM approved temporary fencing that would be installed 

prior to initiation of construction, and permanent desert tortoise fencing that would be 

installed upon completion of the project construction. Please see Mitigation Measure 

BIO-2 in Final EIS Section 3.14.3. 

March 2011 4-93 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-69 Biological Resources Jenkins, Howard [...] that a ground-level train going through our desert does inhibit the movement of 

wildlife [...]

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which sets forth measures 

regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife crossings. Where the rail alignment is 

in the I-15 freeway ROW, the Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad 

line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to serve 

as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals to allow for 

wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and other wildlife to pass 

under the proposed rail alignment. The project shall not obstruct or block any natural 

drainages during project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. 

The culverts and fencing would be designed and spacing would be determined through 

coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, NDOW, and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct desert tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. The impact to 

the Mojave Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters 

including the narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, 

and maintenance.

S-70 Biological Resources Mougala, Tarig 1) Protect wild animal 2) ...to protect this wild animals in mountain arias. I need to now 

how you gone protect out wild life 4m this train [sic]

Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 details the potential adverse effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on biological resources. Final EIS Section 3.14.3 also includes a number of 

mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize the identified effects. 

S-71 Biological Resources National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

Provide additional data on impacts to Mojave National Preserve and state and federally 

listed species caused by Alternative 4C. These should include noise impact to user 

experience and Desert Bighorn sheep within the Clark Mountain exclave of Mojave 

National Preserve, impacts to rare and endangered species of plants and animals, and 

fragmentation of existing permitted grazing allotments as they relate to the degradation 

of Preserve resources.

Potential impacts to desert bighorn sheep and anticipated wildlife fragmentation 

associated with the Preferred Alternative, which includes Segment 4C, are described in 

Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3. Final EIS Section 3.3.2.3 evaluates the Preferred 

Alternative's effects to grazing land and grazing allotments, including as to how they 

relate to the degradation of the Mojave National Preserve resources.

S-72 Biological Resources National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

Revisit the assertion that the DesertXpress will not further fragment wildlife crossing the 

Interstate 15 corridor. This busy Interstate is not an ideal wildlife corridor, but wildlife 

does cross the highway. With the large fences shielding the Desert press in the 

Interstate median, any wildlife crossing that currently occurs would significantly 

decrease. NPCA recommends that DesertXpress look at connecting wildlife corridors 

using wildlife overpasses and wildlife underpasses as one method of mitigating this 

impact of construction.

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which sets forth measures 

regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife crossings. Where the rail alignment is 

in the I-15 freeway ROW, the Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad 

line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to serve 

as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals to allow for 

wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and other wildlife to pass 

under the proposed rail alignment. The project shall not obstruct or block any natural 

drainages during project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. 

The culverts and fencing would be designed and spacing would be determined through 

coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, NDOW, and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct desert tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. The impact to 

the Mojave Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters 

including the narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, 

and maintenance.

March 2011 4-94 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-73 Biological Resources NDOT Wildlife barriers are noted, with I-15 and DXE alignments both affecting their 

movement. Wildlife crossings can be constructed for both the highway and rail 

alignments with good justification. Currently some deer overcrossings are being 

retrofitted on other routes in rural Nevada. If specific locations are recommended to reestablish natural migratory paths, NDOT will consider participation in retrofitting 

additional crossings on I-15, if DXE constructs similar facilities on their alignment.

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which sets forth measures 

regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife crossings. Where the rail alignment is 

in the I-15 freeway ROW, the Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad 

line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to serve 

as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals to allow for 

wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and other wildlife to pass 

under the proposed rail alignment. The project shall not obstruct or block any natural 

drainages during project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. 

The culverts and fencing would be designed and spacing would be determined through 

coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, NDOW, and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct desert tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. The impact to 

the Mojave Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters 

including the narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, 

and maintenance.

S-74 Biological Resources San Bernardino 

County 

Department of 

Public Works

Page 3.14-1, regarding the Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3), table S-3.14-1 states that 

there are no special status plant species known or with potential to occur within the 

vicinity of the site. Since the site is near both the Turtle Valley Quad and the Victorville 

Quad, CNDDB data should be considered for both. According to the CNDDB there are 

several special status plant species that occur within the adjacent Victorville quad. It is 

recommended that focused plant surveys occur within the W3 site, since there is both 

suitable habitat present, and nearby records for several special status plant species 

known in that region.

The commenter is correct that the literature review indicated that there are no specialstatus plant species known to occur in the immediate site of VV3. Notwithstanding, the 

Supplemental Draft EIS (please see Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.14.3) 

acknowledges the possibility that prior to construction, such special status species may 

develop on the site. To this end, Mitigation Measure BIO-2, identified in Final EIS 

Section 3.14.3 requires preconstruction surveys for all project areas for sensitive 

botanicals. These surveys will follow appropriate protocols established by the pertinent 

authority. Please also see the response to comment S-61 above. 

S-75 Biological Resources Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

As proposed, DesertXpress will have negative impacts on the Mojave Desert Tortoise 

in the Ivanpah Valley. Segment 4A will fragment habitat and disrupt connectivity for the 

Northeastern Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Unit. There are populations of this Unit 

in both the southern and northern portions of the Ivanpah Valley. The entire California 

population of the Recovery Unit resides in the Ivanpah Valley. Segment 4B would 

severely fragment what desert tortoise habitat will remain on the northeastern slopes of 

the Clark Mountains after BrightSource completes construction of ISEGS. Without the 

DesertXpress line running north and south, desert tortoises south of ISEGS and west 

of I-15 will be able to connect with the higher elevation habitat on the bajada east of the 

Clark Mountains. This habitat could be especially important as a refuge for tortoises 

given global climate change.

All alignment options through the Mountain Pass area - Segments 4A, 4B and 4C - 

would result in impacts to desert tortoise habitat. These impacts have been disclosed in 

the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.14, Biological Resources. 

Segment 4C is identified in Final EIS Section 2.4.1 as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 discusses the impacts of the Preferred Alternative on 

biological resources, including desert tortoise. Final EIS Section 3.14.3 provides 

mitigation measures that would be required to reduce impacts to these biological 

resources. Concurrently with the NEPA process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 consultation process, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14. A draft Biological 

Assessment was submitted to the USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on 

December 16, 2010. Prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

project, the USFWS is expected to issue a Biological Opinion (BO), which will detail all 

mitigation requirements for the project. The December 2010 Biological Assessment is 

included as Final EIS Appendix F-M.

March 2011 4-95 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-76 Biological Resources Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

Segment 3B will take acreage from three desert tortoise critical habitats in violation of 

the intent of the Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (1994) to protect recovery 

areas.

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.14, Biological Resources, include 

acreages of direct temporary and permanent impacts to desert tortoise critical habitat. 

This Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 includes an analysis of the Preferred Alternative 

(including Segment 3B) direct permanent and temporary effects to desert tortoise, which 

would considerably reduce the capability of designated Mojave desert tortoise critical 

habitat to satisfy requirements essential to both the survival and recovery of the species. 

The adverse modification of critical habitat is a direct alteration that appreciably 

diminishes the value of the critical habitat. While Segment 3B does directly impact 

desert tortoise critical habitat adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway, implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative is not expected to adversely modify the critical habitat. Segment 3B 

will be constructed within the I-15 freeway ROW and will provide culverts and 

undercrossing to match existing crossings, allowing for continued movement of tortoises 

as is possible under current conditions. Mitigation Measure BIO-19, identified in Final 

EIS Section 3.14.3, would require the Applicant to install culverts under the proposed 

railroad line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Concurrently with the NEPA 

process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process, 

pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14. A draft Biological Assessment was submitted to the 

USFWS on August 17, 2010 and a final submitted on December 16, 2010. Prior to the 

issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the project, the USFWS is expected to issue 

a Biological Opinion (BO), which will detail all mitigation requirements for the project. 

The December 2010 Biological Assessment is included as Final EIS Appendix F-M.

S-77 Biological Resources Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

Efforts need to be made to enhance wildlife crossings. DesertXpress as proposed will 

further constrain wildlife crossings of the I-15 corridor and should be mitigated.

Barriers to wildlife movement are discussed at length in Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.14.3, Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which sets forth measures 

regarding culverts and fencing in terms of wildlife crossings. Where the rail alignment is 

in the I-15 freeway ROW, the Applicant shall install culverts under the proposed railroad 

line that match existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. Where the project deviates from existing 

transportation facilities, the Applicant shall install culverts adequately designed to serve 

as wildlife crossings at natural drainage features and at appropriate intervals to allow for 

wildlife passage, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and other wildlife to pass 

under the proposed rail alignment. The project shall not obstruct or block any natural 

drainages during project construction or operation in order to reduce potential effects to 

wildlife movement, including, but not limited to, desert tortoise and desert bighorn sheep. 

The culverts and fencing would be designed and spacing would be determined through 

coordination with USFWS, NPS, BLM, CDFG, NDOW, and EPA to ensure they meet 

agency wildlife standards. Exclusion fencing would be constructed parallel to the rail line 

and would direct desert tortoises and other wildlife species to the culverts. The impact to 

the Mojave Desert ecosystem as a whole is very small given the project parameters 

including the narrow width of the temporary and permanent disturbance and the limited 

indirect impacts to biological resources associated the project construction, operation, 

and maintenance.

S-78 Biological 

Resources; Visual; 

Cumulative Impacts

National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

Route 4C would destroy and/or fragment the habitat of desert tortoise and other state 

and federally listed plants and animals, and would bring noise pollution, habitat loss, 

negatively impact listed species, and degrade viewsheds that may be significant when 

considered cumulatively with Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System which is likely 

to soon begin construction.

Final EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, provides a discussion of cumulative 

impacts related to noise, habitat loss, viewsheds, and state and federally listed plants 

and animals. This analysis considers the impact of the Preferred Alternative in 

combination with multiple related projects, including the Ivanpah Solar Energy 

Generating System. Final EIS Section 3.14.2.3 describes other impacts to biological 

resources as a result of the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative, 

including impacts to desert tortoise.

March 2011 4-96 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-79 Cultural & Paleo NDOT The Archaeological Section of NDOT requires the submission of site forms for every 

property surveyed and recorded during a section 106 survey for the National Historic 

Preservation Act. NDOT requires these site forms along with a report or reports by 

Secretary of Interior Standards and properties surveyed. Site forms, reports and 

context are required topics to be covered. Site forms, reports and context are required 

to evaluate the eligibility of each site determine the eligibility of the sites and determine 

the effects of the project on those sites. (Reference letters and comments submitted 

May 14,2009, February II, 2009 and July 14, 2008 (Attachment B))

As described in Final EIS Section 3.7.2, the DesertXpress project is utilizing a 

Programmatic Agreement approach in fulfillment of requirements under Section 106 of 

NHPA. As a condition of cultural survey permits from the BLM, the Applicant is obligated 

to prepare site records of all cultural resources identified within the Area of Potential 

Effect (APE). For further discussion, please see Final EIS Appendix F-H, containing the 

executed Programmatic Agreement for the DesertXpress project. 

S-80 Cultural Resources CALTRANS Please clarify the statement in the last sentence on page 3.7-1 states that “This 

process for deferring the PA until after the ROD...” Should it state “This process for 

deferring the formal determinations of eligibility...”? How do the agencies plan to 

proceed if the PA is not executed by the time the Final EIS is approved? It is not clear 

how NEPA can be adequately complied with if the determinations of eligibility are 

deferred until after the Record of Decision (ROD).

This Final EIS has been revised to clarify that consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), the 

Programmatic Agreement is using a phased identification and evaluation approach to 

fulfill Agency responsibilities under Section 106. This was a typographical error. The 

Programmatic Agreement for the project has been executed and is included as Final 

EIS Appendix F-H. For the purposes of the NEPA evaluation, all cultural resources are 

assumed eligible for the NRHP unless: a) they were previously determined ineligible or 

b) they are of a type (e.g., an isolated artifact or an unassociated, undateable trash 

scatter) that has been programmatically determined ineligible. Please see Final EIS 

Section 3.7.2 which fully details the methodology employed in the detailed review of 

cultural resources. 

S-81 Cultural Resources CALTRANS Also as previously noted on our comments dated 12/8/08, on the Administrative Draft 

EIS: “Mitigation Measure CR-1: Avoidance of Archaeological Resources” on page 3.7-

62, discusses conducting test excavations to determine the vertical and horizontal 

extent of resources. This type of testing (Extended Phase I) is usually conducted as 

part of the identification efforts, not as a mitigation measure. 

The Programmatic Agreement spells out agency requirements for test excavation prior 

to construction, and measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to resources, 

consistent with Section 106 guidance. See Final EIS Section 3.7.3. Subsurface testing 

is part of the Programmatic Agreement, which goes on to describe what needs to 

happen if resources are discovered. Monitoring is also included during construction. 

The executed Programmatic Agreement is included as Final EIS Appendix F-H. 

S-82 Cultural Resources CALTRANS Also as previously noted on our comments dated 12/8/08, on the Administrative Draft 

EIS: “Mitigation Measure CR-2: Evaluation and Data Recovery” on page 3.7-62 

indicates that the resources that cannot be avoided will be subject to test excavations 

to determine their significance. However, evaluation is not a mitigation measure, but a 

requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Please see response to comment S-81. 

S-83 Cultural Resources Soboba Band of 

Luiseno Indians

The FRA Must Identify, Evaluate, and Mitigate Each Historic Property in the Area of 

Potential Effects Prior to Issuing the Final EIS and ROD [...] The Programmatic 

Agreement cited in the Supplemental Draft EIS proposes to delay the phased 

identification and evaluation process of the cultural resources studies until after the 

environmental document is completed. Delaying the Section 106 identification of 

potentially eligible sites is not in accordance with the plain language of Section 4(f) and 

the implementing regulations that require officials to identify all eligible properties early 

in the development and plan for the avoidance or mitigation of impacts to those 

properties. [...] Accordingly, the evaluation of sites under the NHPA within the APE 

must be done before section 4(f) requirements are met. All sites that are eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP are eligible sites under Section 4(f) so long as those sites are 

located in the Area of Potential Effects.

For purposes of the NEPA evaluation, and for identification of potential Section 4(f) 

resources, all cultural resources are assumed eligible for the NRHP unless: a) they 

have already been determined ineligible, or b) they are of a type (e.g., an isolated 

artifact or an unassociated, undateable trash scatter) that has been programmatically 

determined ineligible. FRA's third party archeological consultants underwent a thorough 

process to identify potentially eligible resources in order to meet FRA's obligations under 

Section 4(f). Further, detailed data tables and resource location maps were provided to 

the BLM and consulting Tribes to identify sites that might be Section 4(f) properties. Only 

one site was identified by BLM as a Section 4(f) resource, and design modifications were 

made as an avoidance alternative to avoid a 4(f) use. Please see Final EIS Section 

3.15, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. 

S-66 Cumulative Impacts Desert 

Conservation 

Program

Map S-3.16-6 displays a red circle identified as Mixed Use Development within the 

LSTS area. This appears to be a mapping error.

The commenter is correct; Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.16-6 has been revised to 

relocate the "Mixed Use Development" to Jean. The revision is shown in Final EIS 

Figure F-3.16-6. 

March 2011 4-97 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-84 Cumulative Impacts City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

...the EIS contains absolutely no discussion of whether the project, in combination with 

other projects, would drive business away from cities in the region in a manner that 

could produce adverse physical impacts to the urban environment. This treatment is 

not adequate under NEPA.

Final EIS Section 3.2, Growth, describes the growth effects of the Preferred Alternative, 

including those related to population, household, employment, and economic growth. 

Final EIS Section 3.16.3.3 describes the cumulative growth effects of the Preferred 

Alternative in combination with the related projects. The Preferred Alternative in 

combination with transportation improvements and development projects would 

contribute to growth in the urbanized areas along the I-15 corridor, including Victorville, 

Barstow, Baker, and Las Vegas. The Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 also includes a detailed 

growth discussion based on an economic impact study specific to the City of Barstow 

(Appendix F-E). 

S-85 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA Fig. S-3.16-6 incorrectly depicts the potential for future I-15 capacity improvements 

extending into the 6,000 acre Airport Site (i.e., outside of the existing Nevada 

Department of Transportation right-of-way).

Final EIS Figures F-3.16-5 and F-3.16-6 reflect revisions to the location of this site. 

S-86 Cumulative Impacts CCDOA CCDOA is continuing planning efforts for the SNSA, albeit at a slower pace. This delay 

does not affect FRA's obligation to include the SNSA as a reasonably foreseeable 

project, and for that reason, FRA is correct to continue to include the SNSA in its 

discussions of reasonably foreseeable projects (e.g., Supplemental Draft EIS at p. 3.16-

2).

The comment is noted. Final EIS Section 1.6.8 and Section 3.16.2.2 discuss the 

relationship between the DesertXpress project and the proposed Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport (SNSA). In southern Clark County, the DesertXpress rail 

alignment would be on the east side of the I-15 corridor, in close proximity to the site 

proposed for the SNSA, allowing for a potential future connection to occur. 

S-87 Cumulative Impacts EPA Consider the proposed High Desert Corridor project and the resulting potential 

connection to California High Speed Rail in this analysis.

Final EIS Section 1.6.6 discusses the High Desert Corridor project and its potential 

relationship to the DesertXpress project. Final EIS Section 3.16.2.2 clarifies that the 

location of the proposed corridor is several miles to the south of the Preferred 

Alternative's southern terminus for the DesertXpress project. Final EIS Figure F-3.16-1 

shows the location of the proposed High Desert Corridor project.

S-88 Cumulative Impacts NDOT The noise generated from DXE will have a cumulative impact to the existing and future 

I-15 traffic noise levels. Noise levels will need to be mitigated with barriers on both 

sides of the tracks.

The FRA noise impact criteria are based on the existing noise levels from I-15 and the 

project noise from DesertXpress, which accounts for the cumulative effect of the two 

noise sources. Draft EIS Section 3.12.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.1 

describe in detail the existing noise levels of the project's affected environment. Noise 

mitigation, in the form of noise barriers on the elevated structure, for the DesertXpress 

project has been identified at noise sensitive locations where impact occurs from the 

project. The parapet walls on the elevated structure will help to reduce the noise 

somewhat from the DesertXpress project at all locations, even where no sensitive 

receptors exist. See Mitigation Measure NV-1, included in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. 

S-89 Cumulative Impacts Southern 

California Edison

Also, the EITP should be included in the list of area projects for the cumulative impacts 

discussion.

Both the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS identified this project (referred to as the 

"Ivanpah Substation"). Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.16.3.5 and Supplemental 

Draft EIS Section 3.16.1. Final EIS Section 3.16.2.2 clarifies the title for this project and 

considers it in the cumulative analysis of the Preferred Alternative. 

S-90 Cumulative Impacts: 

Biology, Noise, 

Visual

National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

Provide additional data on cumulative impacts to Ivanpah Valley, sensitive and listed 

species, and Mojave National Preserve. This data should consider cumulative noise, 

light, dust, and viewshed impacts. It should consider the impact of Ivanpah Solar 

Energy Generating System, the proposed Cal Trans Agricultural Station, and the 

multiple proposed solar projects on the southeast side of Interstate 15.

Final EIS Section 3.16.3.3 provides a discussion of cumulative impacts related to noise, 

dust, light, habitat disturbance on threatened and endangered species, and disturbance 

to visitors to the Mojave National Preserve. This analysis considers the impact of the 

multiple proposed projects in the area of the Ivanpah Valley, in combination with the 

Preferred Alternative.

S-91 Cumulative Impacts: 

Biology, Noise, 

Visual

Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

We believe that further analysis needs to be undertaken and presented on the 

cumulative impact of the multiple proposed projects in the area of the Ivanpah Valley. 

This analysis needs to include the cumulative impacts of noise, dust, light, and habitat 

disturbance on threatened and endangered species and on human visitors to the 

Mojave National Preserve and other adjacent areas.

Final EIS Section 3.16.3.3 provides a discussion of cumulative impacts related to noise, 

dust, light, habitat disturbance on threatened and endangered species, and disturbance 

to visitors to the Mojave National Preserve. This analysis considers the impact of the 

multiple proposed projects in the area of the Ivanpah Valley, in combination with the 

Preferred Alternative.

March 2011 4-98 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-92 Energy NDOT Page 3.13-2 says 2007 is the most recent year for VMT data. The Final EIS should 

have at least 2009 numbers from NDOT and Caltrans. A link to updated traffic counts 

was provided to DXE on September 7, 2010.

To maintain consistency with Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.13, 

Energy, Final EIS Section 3.13, Energy, utilizes year 2007 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

data for the evaluation of energy effects. 

S-93 Executive Summary; 

Cultural Resources

CALTRANS Re Table S-ES-1 to 6: Paleontology is not discussed under the heading Cultural and 

Paleontological. Why is there numbers of resources or “unknown” entered under the 

No Action Alternative. If no construction occurs under the No Action Alternative then 

the number of resources impacted. It should be zero.

Draft EIS Section 3.7.3.3 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.7.1 evaluate the 

potential for paleontological resources by project segment. Please see Final EIS 

Section 3.7.2.3, which evaluates the potential for the Preferred Alternative to result in 

impacts to paleontological resources. Also see Final EIS Table F-3.7-2. Paleontological 

resources were evaluated by assessing the underlying geologic units in the area, which 

have varying likelihoods of harboring paleontological resources. Final EIS Section 3.7.3 

includes several mitigation measures to ensure that any impacts to paleontological 

resources are adequately mitigated. The No Action Alternative would involve no 

construction of a high speed passenger rail, but would still entail construction of various 

planned/programmed transportation improvements, as set forth in Final EIS Section 

2.1.3.1. 

S-94 Farmlands/Grazing 

Lands

National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

We also have concerns with [Segment] 4C, which fragments an existing grazing 

allotment adjacent to the Clark Mountain exclave of Mojave National Preserve. This 

action would cause cattle from this allotment to degrade resources within Mojave 

National Preserve.

Potential impacts on farmlands and grazing lands relative to Segment 4C, which is part 

of the Preferred Alternative, are discussed in Final EIS Section 3.3.2.3. Final EIS Section 

3.2.3 includes mitigation measures to mitigate impacts on grazing related as a result of 

Segment 4C.

S-100 General Lee, Brian [...] is there public transportation that is going to take people from the station in 

Victorville to southern California? It doesn't seem like there is any kind of analysis 

relative to actually transporting people once they get to Victorville [...]

Please see Final EIS Section 1.6.2, which notes a possible future opportunity to connect 

the DesertXpress system to the California High-Speed Rail project, though each project 

has utility independent of each other. 

S-101 General NDOT Coordination is needed with local agencies regarding billboards and outdoor 

advertisement that will be impacted by DXE.

The visual impacts of the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Final EIS Section 

3.6.2.3. Passing trains would momentarily block views from portions of the I-15 freeway. 

This effect is not considered to be substantial or adverse. 

S-102 General Tarango, 

McKenzie

On behalf of the office of George Runner, I respectfully ask the Federal Railroad 

Administration and my fellow community representatives to support job creation by 

supporting the DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train Project. 

The comment expressing support for the project by State Senator George Runner is 

noted and does not request nor require response through additional or modified analysis 

of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-103 General Warren, 

Elizabeth

We need a frontage road between Jean and Primm. There is no frontage road. It went 

out when they built I-15. If something happens to you on that railroad or anything else, 

there is no way, there is no access except on the freeway itself.

The comment is noted but does not pertain to any specific environmental impact of the 

project. Through Jean, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment will remain within the 

existing I-15 freeway ROW area and will not interfere with any local roadways. 

S-104 General Warren, 

Elizabeth

[...] there are people living to the west of this freeway in both Goodsprings and Sandy 

Valley who would be very happy to have access to this public transportation if you 

would build a station.

Please see Final EIS Section 1.6.8 which acknowledges the opportunity for a potential 

future connection/station in the vicinity of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport. In southern Clark County, the DesertXpress rail alignment would be on the east 

side of the I-15 corridor, in close proximity to the site proposed for the SNSA, allowing for 

a potential future connection to occur. 

S-105 General Washington, 

Stanley

[...] the DesertXpress train is the only one that has legs at this point to go ahead in any 

realistic time period. With that, it will bring the jobs that Las Vegas needs. It will go 

ahead and eliminate some of the congestion on I-15.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-106 General Zannis, Mark [...] where you are putting the track on the side of the freeway and not in the median, 

how you will be discussing those issues with the private property owners and how that 

dialogue will take place.

To the extent that any private property is required for construction or operation of the 

Preferred Alternative, the Applicant will need to enter into agreements with private 

property owners regarding use or purchase such property. If federal funding is used for 

the project, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act of 1990 will apply. Please see Final EIS Section 1.5.1 for further discussion. Final 

EIS Section 3.1.2.3 discusses the displacements associated with the Preferred 

Alternative and states that the Preferred Alternative would not displace any homes and 

no local residences would be displaced or relocated. 

March 2011 4-99 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-107 General Ziska, Alinka 

Woyton

I am here as a spokesman for my class. We have been doing a lot of studies on both 

projects and overwhelmingly, they support Maglev [...]

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-95 General Allen, Mark I think this is a good project for Las Vegas. Las Vegas has an image problem right 

now. We need investor confidence. Any project of this magnitude will bring attention to 

not only southern Nevada but to all of Las Vegas and the entire state, in fact the whole 

region.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-96 General Condon, Jill L. The DesertXpress concept does not make rational sense. [...] by the time the "Xpress" 

leaves you in Victorville - you are stranded because your destination is ultimately 

Anaheim or Los Angeles. [...] That is why my support is for MAGLEV.

The comment in opposition of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. Please refer to Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, for a 

discussion of the underlying objectives of the proposed action. 

S-97 General Kennedy, Aileen The DesertXpress [...] is a worthy project. There are thousands of people concerned 

with air quality, congestion, and good level of service traffic movement, that support 

this train. This is an air quality issue, and energy issue, and a conservation issue.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-98 General Knight, 

Assemblyman 

Steve

So We're looking at an issue that will--will help the future, will impact this community 

greatly, and we'll put people to work. 

The comment of the State Assemblyman expressing support for the project is noted and 

does not request nor require response through additional or modified analysis of a 

specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-99 General Lee, Brian First is I own a billboard on I-15 at Ford and actually own the land that the billboard sits 

on and I have some concerns if the train goes down the median of I-15 of people being 

able to view it.

The visual impacts of the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Final EIS Section 

3.6.2.3. Passing trains would momentarily block views from portions of the I-15 freeway. 

This effect is not considered to be substantial or adverse. 

S-108 General - Project 

Attributes

Abraham, Ed I am really opposed of this train running right next to my neighborhood are you guys 

crazy picking this route to run on top of Dean Martin.

The comment is noted and does not pertain to any specific environmental impact 

analyzed in the EIS documents. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.3.2 for a discussion 

regarding the project's Action Alternatives and Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a discussion 

regarding the selection of specific routings as components of the Preferred Alternative. 

S-109 General - Project 

Attributes

Air Transport 

Association

I write to express our concern about the proposed power line pole (related to the 

DesertXpress train) located approximately 3226 feet west of the threshold of Runway 

1L at McCarron International Airport (LAS). The location of this structure is in the path 

of the primary departure runway at LAS. [...] The proposed height of this structure will 

interfere with normal operations at LAS Runway 25 because the structure will interfere 

with one engine inoperative requirements, impacting takeoff weights and effectively 

reducing the usable length of this runway. [...] We would hope a compromise to lower 

the height of the power line on either side of the centerline of runway & L-25R could be 

reached, to enable the full use of Runway 25R while still allowing the project to be 

constructed.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS also amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-110 General - Project 

Attributes

Allegiant Air To ensure safe operations, we must maintain clearance from any obstacles in the 

event of one engine failure (one-engine-inoperative, or OEI, procedures). As proposed, 

the project would penetrate OEI surfaces for LAS Runway 25R, the

primary departure runway for Allegiant‟s operations. This would effectively reduce the 

useable length of Runway 25R for departures, reducing gross takeoff weight capacity, 

and restricting the number of usable seats on departing aircraft. Allegiant urges the 

DesertXpress project be lowered by 35 feet within the corridor spanning 1500 feet 

centered on the extended Runway 25R centerline (750 feet on either side of the 

extended runway centerline).

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

March 2011 4-100 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-111 General - Project 

Attributes

Allen, Mark I didn't hear any talk about putting a station in Primm, Jean, Sloan, places like that. 

There are thousands of people who are employed in those towns that would use this 

railroad if they live in Vegas going back and forth to these towns.

Please see Final EIS Section 1.6.8 which acknowledges the opportunity for a potential 

future connection/station in the vicinity of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport. In southern Clark County, the DesertXpress rail alignment would be on the east 

side of the I-15 corridor, in close proximity to the site proposed for the SNSA, allowing for 

a potential future connection to occur. 

S-112 General - Project 

Attributes

Allen, Mark The MGM has 160 acres in Jean and are planning on building a development there...If 

you had a stop at a place like that, you would increase your ridership.

Final EIS Section 3.16.2.2 acknowledges the potential Mixed Use Development that is 

being considered for the Jean area. However, no specific project has been proposed to 

date and there is no certainty any such project would be constructed. In the event such 

development occurs in the future, a possible station could be studied by the Applicant 

and would be the subject of a separate environmental review process. 

S-113 General - Project 

Attributes

Anderson, Kevin 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

There is no environmental impact that should be acceptable unless the developers 

themselves are to be responsible for tearing down this train and returning the 

environment to its original state.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.5.2, which addresses conditions that may be 

included in an agreement granting the Applicant use of the right of way, which may 

include financial responsibility for removal of infrastructure in the event of financial 

default. 

S-114 General - Project 

Attributes

Anderson, Kevin 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

Also, I see almost no mention of the Maglev train in the EIS documents. Isn't one of the 

stated purposes of an EIS to compare all alternatives? Why hasn't the DesertXpress 

been made to comply with the same rules as its competitors? [...] This is not only a 

Dangerous Precedent, it is outside the scope of the of the three-person STB's authority 

to give them the same rights as a freight carrier, or to grant them any exceptions to 

State law. There are no existing freight lines being used and there is no plan to carry 

anything but passengers ... which are not freight.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

Please also refer to Final EIS Section 2.2.3.3, which notes that magnetic levitation 

technology was considered but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress 

project due to prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

S-115 General - Project 

Attributes

Borgman, Karin ...am opposed to the installation of the Desert Express as proposed. The installation of 

the raised track down Dean Martin/Industrial is detrimental to the quality of life of 

seniors living in the area. If you are going to elevate the track, consider Frank Sinatra 

Drive or I-15. 

The comment is noted. Draft EIS Section 2.4.6 examined three alternative alignments 

for the Las Vegas Area - Segment 6A (in the median of the I-15 freeway), Segment 6B 

(on the west side of the I-15 freeway), and Segment 6C (following the Union Pacific 

Railroad Corridor from Sloan). As discussed in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 2.2.7, 

specifically Table S-2-2, Segment 6B was shifted about 40 feet further west, placing it in 

the Dean Martin Drive corridor. Segments 6A and 6B would be elevated throughout the 

Las Vegas area. The Supplemental Draft EIS examined impacts of the shift of Segment 

6B, including visual, noise, and vibration impacts. The shift in Segment 6B was 

suggested to FRA and the Applicant by the Nevada Department of Transportation as a 

means of avoiding conflicts with future planned improvements to the I-15 corridor. 

Segment 6B is included as part the Preferred Alternative, as discussed in Final EIS 

Section 2.4.1. 

S-116 General - Project 

Attributes

Brown, Charles Another thing is stopping in Primm, stopping in Jean. The airport hopefully will be in 

Jean and you have nothing, nothing there. You have nothing stopping in Primm

Please see Final EIS Section 1.6.8 which acknowledges the opportunity for a potential 

future connection/station in the vicinity of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport. In southern Clark County, the DesertXpress rail alignment would be on the east 

side of the I-15 corridor, in close proximity to the site proposed for the SNSA, allowing for 

a potential future connection to occur. 

S-117 General - Project 

Attributes

Brown, Charles [...] plus you want to burrow through mountains somewhere. I am a construction 

worker. How many lives is that going to cost getting that tunnel through that mountain? 

They can't say it is not going to cause no lives.

The Segment 4C rail alignment includes tunnels, as noted by the commenter. Safety 

issues during construction will be managed by the Applicant. The Applicant will be 

required to comply with all relevant Federal and State laws and regulations regarding 

the safety of construction workers. 

March 2011 4-101 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-118 General - Project 

Attributes

Brown, Charles Why in Victorville? Why don't your train go into Los Angeles, Anaheim, Orange County, 

somewhere in there. Why does it have to stop off in the middle of the desert and 

people have to commute to Victorville by car. That does not help the environment 

none.

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007). See also Figure D of the Final EIS Project Background 

and Executive Summary chapter.

S-119 General - Project 

Attributes

Brown, Charles Why do you want to do 120 miles an hour, that is only 40 miles an hour you are doing 

in a car coming from Vegas. That will not give you that much more time.

The Preferred Alternative EMU technology option would operate at an average speed of 

approximately 130 mph with a top speed of 150 mph. The one-way travel time would 

range from 84 to 100 minutes. This compares to the auto trip time that ranges from 3 

hours in no traffic (180 minutes) to much longer, depending on traffic and/or collision 

activity. For speed profiles of the Preferred Alternative along the corridor, see Figure E in 

the Final EIS Project Background and Executive Summary chapter. Please see Final 

EIS Section 2.3.2.4 for further discussion.

S-120 General - Project 

Attributes

Caldwell, Terry 

(City of Victorville 

Council Member)

I'm here as a councilman representing the City of Victorville. Victorville City Council 

has unanimously endorsed this project from its inception. [...] It's our view that the 

changes that were made, the modifications are appropriate. We support it we continue 

to believe that this is the right project. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-121 General - Project 

Attributes

City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

For the reasons set forth above, the City requests that the EIR [sic] be revised in 

compliance with NEPA, and recirculated for further public review prior to an agency 

decision on the DesertXpress Project.

In accordance with the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 1502.9, FRA published a 

Supplemental Draft EIS to provide information and analysis on substantial changes to 

the project in the form of modifications and additions promulgated following publication 

of the Draft EIS in response to comments and to minimize environmental impacts. All 

public comments have been fully considered in the Final EIS and comment responses 

are provided consistent with NEPA regulations. 

S-122 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Thus, FRA's NEPA process still lacks a full examination of the potential aviation 

hazards for each alternative. [...] Therefore, CCDOA recommends that FRA: (1) 

require the project applicant to complete the necessary Part 77 filings for proposed 

structures (e.g., power line poles, elevated crossings, etc.) near all potentially affected 

aviation facilities; (2) review FAA's ensuing decision on whether or not those proposed 

structures would constitute hazards to air navigation before taking any final action on 

this EIS; and (3) include appropriate discussion of any environmental impacts triggered 

by any lighting and/or marking requirements required by FAA as a condition of any 

determination.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to and the one-engine inoperative 

zones and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-123 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA The 2000 Ivanpah Valley Airport Lands Transfer Act (Public Law 106-362). In this Act, 

Congress directed the BLM to convey to Clark County approximately 6,000 acres of 

land in the Ivanpah Valley between the towns of Jean and Primm, Nevada and 

immediately east of interstate highway I-15 for the purpose of developing the SNSA 

and related infrastructure. This land was conveyed to Clark County in 2004. To that 

end, Figure 3.1-10 should be updated accordingly to reflect County ownership of the 

Airport Site.

Draft EIS Figure 3.1-10 has been updated to amend the ownership status as noted by 

the commenter. See Final EIS Figure F-3.1-5. This change does not result in any 

additional physical environmental impact. 

March 2011 4-102 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-124 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA CCDOA has learned that two of the power line poles proposed by DesertXpress in 

Segment 6B (one of the modified alignment areas in the Supplemental Draft EIS) 

would penetrate OEI surfaces at McCarran Airport. [...] The height and location of 

these poles would effectively reduce the useable length of Runway 25R for departures, 

reducing gross takeoff weight capacity or forcing aircraft to use other runways for 

departure. [...] CCDOA recommends lowering the entire DesertXpress project and 

infrastructure by 35 feet for a length of 1500 feet between S. Dean Martin Drive and I15. This would enable the full use of Runway 25R without significant adverse effect on 

domestic or international carriers.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-125 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA Re: FAA issued determinations on 8/30/10: It is not immediately apparent whether 

DesertXpress filed notices for each alternative alignment near McCarran or just for the 

preferred alignment. FRA should coordinate with DesertXpress to understand which 

alignment(s) is/are covered by FAA's

Determinations.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing 

and planned airport uses and established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation 

Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 

determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazard to air 

navigation.

S-126 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA However, even with the revised 4C alignment. the DesertXpress project would still 

intrude into the northern RPZ for SNSA. As already noted by CCDOA in its comments 

on the Draft EIS, an alignment that remains in the existing right-of-way on the western 

side of I-15 past the northern RPZ would avoid this serious conflict.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing 

and planned aviation uses and established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation 

Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 

determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazard to air 

navigation.

S-127 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA To that end, CCDOA advises the project proponent to modify its alignment to avoid 

intruding on the RPZs associated with Runway 18R- 36L. CCDOA also recommends 

that FRA actively consult with the FAA Project Manager for the SNSA, Mr. Dave 

Kessler, regarding the significant safety implications of construction within an RPZ.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing 

and planned airport uses and established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation 

Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 

determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazards to air 

navigation.

S-128 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA While DesertXpress received Determinations of No Hazard for those structures for 

which it filed notices under Part 77 (i.e., for the proposed power line poles near 

McCarran Airport), the FAA Determinations nevertheless indicate that each of the 

power line poles will still constitute "obstructions" under the Part 77 regulations and will 

require lighting and marking. The effects of these lighting requirements for these 

structures should be fully examined in the EIS.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-129 General - Project 

Attributes

CCDOA DesertXpress appears to have filed notices only for power line poles near McCarran 

Airport - but not for any of the structures that may potentially affect other CCDOA 

facilities, namely the Jean Sport Aviation Center, the Heliport, and the SNSA. It is 

critical that FRA understand that the Part 77 process applies equally to planned airports 

on file with FAA, including the SNSA and Heliport, whether or not construction has yet 

begun. The proposed DesertXpress alignments alongside the Airport Site and the 

Heliport are close enough to trigger notice obligations under Part 77. For that reason, 

DesertXpress is obligated to file notice under Part 77 and receive determinations from 

FAA as to whether the proposed power poles (and any other infrastructure) near the 

SNSA or the Heliport would be hazards to air navigation.

This Final EIS amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing 

and planned aviation uses and established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation 

Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 

determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazards to air 

navigation.

March 2011 4-103 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-130 General - Project 

Attributes

Conway, Robert But if we had a great rail system that actually got people from the lower basin up to 

here or from up here down to the lower basin or all the way to Vegas, we'd have folks 

living in Vegas working here, living in Vegas working in L.A., living in L.A. or working in 

Vegas. We need a high-speed railway.

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-131 General - Project 

Attributes

Conway, Robert And a project labor agreement in regards to this, so that it guarantees that local labor 

would be included on any of the construction for this work, whether it's on the lower 

basin, whether it's up here in the high desert, or whether it's in Vegas. 

Draft EIS Section 3.2, Growth, describes the temporary and permanent jobs expected to 

be created by the Action Alternatives in the Victorville, Baker and Las Vegas areas. Also 

see Final EIS Section 3.2, Growth, which provides updated jobs projections associated 

with the project, including jobs anticipated in the Barstow area. The employment and 

economic impact report prepared for the DesertXpress project is included as Final EIS 

Appendix F-F. The economic impact study specific to Barstow is included as Final EIS 

Appendix F-E. The NEPA analysis does not distinguish whether the jobs were created 

through collective bargaining agreements or other means. 

S-132 General - Project 

Attributes

Conway, Robert 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

[...] I am kind of wondering between the information that is provided by DesertXpress 

as being a private enterprise and then when I hear Harry today who [...] mentioned 

there is a Federal loan guarantee for the whole project.

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in 

Final EIS Section 1.5.1. DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may be eligible to apply for 

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

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. 

S-133 General - Project 

Attributes

Conway, Robert 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

I would also like to know how slow is it going to go when it has to deal with some of the 

grades.

The Preferred Alternative EMU technology option would operate at an average speed of 

approximately 130 mph with a top speed of 150 mph. For speed profiles of the 

Preferred Alternative along the corridor, see Figure E in the Final EIS Project 

Background and Executive Summary chapter.

S-134 General - Project 

Attributes

Dale, Lawrence I am specifically concerned about the California/Nevada interstate Maglev Project, 

which would be derailed if approved, the DesertXpress. [...] ...the Maglev has a 

potential of really transforming the I-15 corridor. [...] Plus the federally designated 

corridor extends all the way between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and so it should be 

occupied by a system that serves the entire route not just the easiest part. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

Please also refer to Final EIS Section 2.2.3.3 of the Draft EIS, which notes that magnetic 

levitation technology was considered but rejected as a technology option for the 

DesertXpress project due to prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the 

technology. The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing 

transportation facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. 

The ridership study (and independent review thereof) is included as Final EIS Appendix 

F- D. 

S-135 General - Project 

Attributes

Dale, Lawrence ...publically owned rights of way needs to be identified and made available for systems 

that serve the whole corridor not just an isolated segment. [...] If a transportation does 

not serve the 40 million people in the area, it shouldn't be allowed to make that space 

available. 

Final EIS Section 3.17, Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources, 

recognizes that approval of the project constitutes an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of public lands. Notwithstanding, please refer to Final EIS Section 1.5.2, 

which addresses conditions that may be included in an agreement granting the 

Applicant use of the right of way, which may include financial responsibility for removal of 

infrastructure in the event of financial default. In addition, please see the ridership study 

in Appendix F-D of this Final EIS which has been independently reviewed by FRA and 

substantiates the economic feasibility of the project as summarized in Final EIS Section 

2.2.1.

S-136 General - Project 

Attributes

Dew, Lionel A speed rail system such as DesertXpress is -- it's not something that's only wanted, 

it's not something that's only needed, in fact, it can be said that is something that's 

essential

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-137 General - Project 

Attributes

Dieleman, 

Crystal

I want to say that I am completely angered by the revised Environmental Impact 

Statement of the Desert Express group. Not only do they want to build an elevated 

guideway from Blue Diamond to Flamingo Road along Dean Martin Drive, but we only 

have three days to voice our concerns??

The comment is noted. FRA has provided numerous opportunities for public comment 

on both the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS documents. Please see Final EIS Section 

4.2, Public Involvement, for more information regarding the 45 day public review period 

for the Supplemental Draft EIS and the 56 day public review period that had been 

established for the Draft EIS. 

March 2011 4-104 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-138 General - Project 

Attributes

Elwis, Charles [...] it doesn't make any economic sense to me to build this thing. [...] To stop in 

Victorville just absolutely doesn't make any economic sense.

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007). See also Figure D of the Final EIS Project Background 

and Executive Summary chapter.

S-139 General - Project 

Attributes

Fancy, Bryan J. [supports project] The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through analysis of specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-140 General - Project 

Attributes

Farmer, Steven I wish to express strong support for the DesertXpress. The Victorville station 3A/3B 

option looks great.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through analysis of specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-143 General - Project 

Attributes

Fierro, Mark I never once heard one person stand in support [...] of the DesertXpress simply 

because it goes nowhere.

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through analysis of 

specific environmental impact of the proposed action. However, please see responses 

to comments S-97, S-98, S-120, S-136, S-139, S-140 and others from individuals and 

groups that support the project. 

S-144 General - Project 

Attributes

Guest, Jeff If this project, where it is raised parallel to the I-15 west of McCarran Airport, breaks 

through that plane, there will be a negative impact to air traffic. The higher the 

protrusion, the greater the impact. The EIS needs to capture the expected reduction in 

capacity for air carriers.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-145 General - Project 

Attributes

Hall, Charles 

(Clark County 

Dept. of Aviation)

Re: Track Section 16: [...] there are obstructions that interfere with the capacity of the 

airport because of the h eight of the structures, as well as the attached catenaries. 

There is some room to reduce the height of either structures and/or catenaries that 

would alleviate the problem.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

March 2011 4-105 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-146 General - Project 

Attributes

Jenkins, Howard [...] I cannot fathom Victorville as a termination [...] It just seems to me that Victorville is 

not going to generate any kind of revenue for a return on investment that some other 

competing systems might.

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007). See also Figure D of the Final EIS Project Background 

and Executive Summary chapter.

S-147 General - Project 

Attributes

Lee Tran Truong, 

Robert

I'm so happy about the train -- high-speed train. The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request response through 

additional or modified analysis of specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-148 General - Project 

Attributes

Lee, Brian [...] have you looked at bringing it farther in to southern California, towards Los 

Angeles? I don't understand why you are dropping everybody in Victorville.

The comment is noted. Please see response to comment S-146 above. 

S-149 General - Project 

Attributes

Lisha, Eric This is a letter of objection to the Secretary's [of Business, Transportation and Housing] 

proposed action to grant rights of way to DesertXpress.

The comment in opposition of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through analysis of specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-150 General - Project 

Attributes

Luchterhand, Al ...we have to forged ahead with full steam and get these projects underway, one to 

create jobs, another to reduce the parking lot on our highways every weekend to and 

from Las Vegas to So. Cal. Lets bring America to the future.

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through analysis of specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-151 General - Project 

Attributes

Martini, Alfred G. We oppose the approval of the EIS that will impact the viewing capacity of any billboard 

structure that fronts along Interstate 15 where DesertXpress proposes to construct a 

railway along, above or within the existing Caltrans right of way from Victorville to 

Primm.

The comment is noted. The potential for the Preferred Alternative to interfere with the 

viewing of billboards is not considered to be adverse physical environmental impact. 

S-152 General - Project 

Attributes

Martini, Alfred G. I suggest you allow a continuance on the comment period, so local residents and 

businesses can have additional time to review the full impact of this project.

The comment is noted. FRA has provided numerous opportunities for public comment 

on both the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS documents. Please see Final EIS Section 

4.2, Public Involvement, for more information regarding the 45 day public review period 

for the Supplemental Draft EIS and the 56 day public review period that had been 

established for the Draft EIS. 

S-153 General - Project 

Attributes

National Air 

Carrier 

Association

We understand two proposed power poles to support the catenary structure for 

DesertXpress, to be located in Segment 6B at McCarron, will penetrate the one- engine 

inoperative departure surface for Runway 25R. These poles, if installed, will affect the 

usable length of 25R by reducing allowable gross take-off weights for Allegiant's 

aircraft. [...] NACA urges the Federal Railway Administration to compel DesertXpress to 

lower the subject poles in Segment 6B by thirty-five feet so as to permit airlines to 

operate in compliance with applicable rules promulgated by the International civil 

Aviation Organization in Annex 6 and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 

Advisory Circular 120-91. 

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-154 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Plans contained in the Draft EIS and Supplement Draft for alternative 5B and 6B have 

not been updated since 2008 along Interstate 15, south of I-215 (C 231 - C-271), these 

drawings should be updated. NDOT will also like to see as part of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) the updates of profile changes already 

completed north of I-215 to stateline (C271 -C 278). (It is understood through meetings 

that changes have taken place, but clarification is needed. However, south of l-215 

there has been no feedback provided from the applicant. Some changes were shown 

in the June 25, 2010 plan provided to NDOT, but not shown in Supplemental Draft EIS

Final EIS Appendix F-B contains a complete set of plan and profile drawings depicting 

the Preferred Alternative.

March 2011 4-106 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-155 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C 269, profile at Blue Diamond does not account for a future interchange flyover. Please see Final EIS Appendix F-C, which includes the revised Plan and Profile 

drawings for the Preferred Alternative. The latest project design plans (see Sheet 169) 

include a future interchange flyover at the I-15/Blue Diamond Road interchange. In 

addition, FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface 

Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, 

operated, and maintained within freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-156 General - Project 

Attributes

Nevada 

Department of 

Transportation 

(NDOT)

Sheet C 264, profile at Cactus Avenue does not account for the Cactus Interchange. 

(This is part of the 1-15 South EA/FONSI document that has been completed and rightof-way is being acquired.)

Please see Final EIS Appendix F-C, which includes the revised Plan and Profile 

drawings for the Preferred Alternative. The latest project design plans (see Sheet 164) 

include a future interchange at Cactus Avenue. In addition, FRA, FHWA, and the State 

DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that sets forth a framework for 

how the project will be safely constructed, operated, and maintained within existing 

freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater compatibility between the Preferred 

Alternative and planned and programmed improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS 

Appendix F-B includes the manual, which is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-157 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C 262, profile at Starr Avenue does not account for the Starr Interchange. (This 

is part of the 1-15 South EA/FONSI document that has been completed and right-ofway is being acquired.) 

FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that 

sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, operated, and 

maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-158 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C 257 profile at Bermuda does not account for the Bermuda Interchange Please see Final EIS Appendix F-C, which includes the revised Plan and Profile 

drawings for the Preferred Alternative. The latest project design plans (see Sheet 157) 

include a future interchange flyover at the I-15/Blue Diamond Road interchange. In 

addition, FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface 

Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, 

operated, and maintained within freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-159 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Provide exhibits for the Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAA) in a scale that can be 

clearly understood. Updates Drawings C 271 - C 278.

Final EIS Appendix F-C contains a complete set of plan and profile drawings depicting 

the Preferred Alternative.

S-160 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C276: The alignment appears to go over the top of the Tropicana Wash. This is 

a major drainage facility that will be revised in the Design Build south project. The 

current alignment shown may not be feasible and an additional AAA may be required. 

FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that 

sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, operated, and 

maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-161 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT The skew over 1-15 as DXE crosses from east to west and back again is critical. Pier 

locations going over 1-15, and their relationship with travel lanes, future freeway 

widening, and other future freeway improvements must be understood and not 

preclude NDOT from its future plans.

FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that 

sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, operated, and 

maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

March 2011 4-107 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-162 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C259: It is not clear that the vertical clearance for a railroad structure is being 

maintained over the entire width of the St. Rose Single Point Urban Interchange 

(SPUI). The existing bridge profile does not appear to be correct and should be 

checked.

The design-build process for the DesertXpress project will include provision for adequate 

ventilation systems and maintenance access in all subway and tunnel structures. FRA, 

FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that sets 

forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, operated, and 

maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for greater 

compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-163 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C503: The subway box for the tunnel may need to be deeper if ventilation 

systems are needed. The box section does not allow for maintenance access or 

walkways in case of emergency.

The design-build process for the DesertXpress project will address slight distance and 

column locations to accommodate planned improvements within the I-15 freeway 

corridor. FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface 

Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, 

operated, and maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for 

greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-164 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT Sheet C502: Section D: The single column bents may be massive. Have sight 

distances, etc. been checked? The alignment is also being shown to be in direct 

conflict with the alignments of the C-D roads proposed on the Design Build Project. In 

this case outrigger piers may be necessary.

The design-build process for the DesertXpress project will include provision for adequate 

clearances at all roadway and freeway overcrossings. FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs 

have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that sets forth a framework for how 

the project will be safely constructed, operated, and maintained within existing freeway 

ROW areas and that will allow for greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative 

and planned and programmed improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix FB includes the manual, which is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-165 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT In several instances, the vertical clearances appear to be low and since the top of rail 

profile (rather than the bottom of the structure) is shown, we were unable to comment 

on the vertical clearances. Structure depth must be considered in these locations. 

Looking at the profiles, it does not appear that there will be room for false work over 

existing travel lanes and existing and/or future interchanges and ramps. Ensure that 

DXEs proposal does not increase costs or add construction challenges to future 

highway improvements.

The design-build process for the DesertXpress project will include provision for adequate 

clearances at all roadway and freeway overcrossings. FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs 

have jointly prepared a Highway Interface Manual that sets forth a framework for how 

the project will be safely constructed, operated, and maintained within existing freeway 

ROW areas and that will allow for greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative 

and planned and programmed improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix FB includes the manual, which is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-166 General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT NDOT has not seen a Conceptual Access Justification Report for the use ofI-15. 

Submit for review prior to advancing Draft EIS to a Final EIS or alternatively submit a 

letter from FHWA that such a report is not necessary. 

There are no new proposed access points to the I-15, therefore no such reporting is 

anticipated. FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway 

Interface Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely 

constructed, operated, and maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will 

allow for greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and 

programmed improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the 

manual, which is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. Coordination will continue 

after the RODs during the design process to ensure any necessary approvals by 

Caltrans and NDOT. 

March 2011 4-108 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-167 General - Project 

Attributes

Newberry 

Springs Harvard 

Real Property 

Owners 

Association

WHEREAS, we believe that the DesertXpress ridership expectations are highly inflated; 

and WHEREAS, to be profitable, we believe that a rail line operation requires a large 

ridership demand at both ends of the line; and WHEREAS, our said Association does 

not see a ridership base in Las Vegas desirous of traveling DesertXpress to Victorville; 

and 

The Ridership Study, included as Final EIS Appendix F-D, supports the viability of the 

DesertXpress project. Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes an 

estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DesertXpress in the 

opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, 

reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used appropriate 

methods. (SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2.) The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the 

forecast and concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent 

lower than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the Desert Xpress 

ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information is obtained." 

(Cambridge at 25.) The Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California 

with Las Vegas as the destination. 

S-168 General - Project 

Attributes

Newberry 

Springs Harvard 

Real Property 

Owners 

Association

WHEREAS, we believe that the operational expenses are grossly understated; and

WHEREAS, we believe that the project will be financially unprofitable to operate, 

ultimately causing a demand for costly public subsidies costing taxpayers many millions 

of dollars; and WHEREAS, the DesertXpress will consume private and state public 

land; and

The comment in opposition of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. As described in Final EIS Section 1.5.1, DesertXpress Enterprises 

LLC may become eligible to for apply for financing from the federal government through 

a federal loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

program. 

S-169 General - Project 

Attributes

Price, Michael I am just bamboozled at how people think anyone is going to want to go to Victorville. 

[...] Why Victorville?

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007). See also Figure D of the Final EIS Project Background 

and Executive Summary chapter.

S-170 General - Project 

Attributes

Randall, Carol They came out as a private project, but they have insisted that they have no interest in 

competing for $8 million in federal money. Although, recently, the backers say they 

may seek federal loans to help finance the $5 million, so it looks like the privatization for 

this project has gone right out the window. 

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in 

Final EIS Section 1.5.1, DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may become eligible to for apply 

for financing from the federal government through a federal loan program, the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. 

S-171 General - Project 

Attributes

Randall, Carol ...no one has much to lose on this project as the City of Barstow. Not only the loss of 

revenue, also, it's like dropping a stone in a pond. There is a ripple effect. We lose the 

revenue; we lose jobs; we start the disintegration of our neighborhoods. 

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the 

possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow as they relate to the Preferred 

Alternative. Final EIS Appendix F-E includes FRA's economic impact study for Barstow 

(Barstow Study), completed in December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of 

Economics and Politics, Inc.

S-172 General - Project 

Attributes

Robertson, 

James S.

Why would anyone allow a private company access to a public right away and loan 

them publicly guaranteed, low-interest loans when no one from the public would ever 

be silly enough to ride this thing?

The comment expressing concern regarding anticipated ridership projections is noted. 

As discussed in Final EIS Section 2.2.2, FRA conducted an extensive independent 

review of the ridership study conducted by the Applicant. FRA's review concluded that 

the ridership estimates should be adjusted downwards by a factor of 10 percent overall 

to represent a conservative estimate of potential ridership. Please see the ridership 

study in Final EIS Appendix F-D, which has been independently reviewed by FRA and 

substantiates the economic feasibility of the project as summarized in Final EIS Section 

2.2.2. 

March 2011 4-109 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-173 General - Project 

Attributes

Rothschild, Mike I'm here to speak on behalf of the -- support of the project. [...] ...take a 40,000 

average job, 100 jobs is worth 4 million a year over the construction period alone. [...] 

That's a significant -- a significant economic impact just from the revenue of the 

construction alone. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-174 General - Project 

Attributes

Rothschild, Mike So you talk about jobs, it's just not 50,000 or even the 500 for the permanent station, 

it's the potential that we could kick off an industry that isn't even being recognized yet 

but just barely begun in the mindset of both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. So 

what better place to do that. The first interstate transport- -- high-speed rail system in 

the entire United States from Las Vegas to Victorville... What an incredible start for the 

next decade here to get this thing going. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-175 General - Project 

Attributes

Rowe, Richard 

(City of Barstow 

City Manager)

The DesertXpress is going to be costly to the federal government, contrary to the 

representation that the project will be privately funded. The total cost of funding the 

project is $5 billion, and 4 billion of that cost will come from federal loans. 

As described in Final EIS Section 1.5.1, DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may become 

eligible to for apply for financing from the federal government through a federal loan 

program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. 

S-176 General - Project 

Attributes

Sielski, Mark So I'm trying to figure out how someone would want to drive an hour and a half from 

L.A. to Victorville to catch a train to go to Vegas, and then still not have a car, might 

end up closer to a hotel or they might have a bus that picks you up and all that stuff, 

but then you're trapped. So it sort of defeats the purpose.

The Ridership Study, included as Final EIS Appendix F-D, supports the viability of the 

DesertXpress project. Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes an 

estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DesertXpress in the 

opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, 

reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used appropriate 

methods. (SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2.) The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the 

forecast and concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent 

lower than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the Desert Xpress 

ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information is obtained." 

(Cambridge at 25.) The Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California 

with Las Vegas as the destination. 

S-177 General - Project 

Attributes

Southern 

California Edison

SCE formally requests to be included on the list of interested parties to be contacted for 

any subsequent NEPA environmental review or actions relative to the DesertXpress 

High-Speed Train Project. As indicated above, we would like the Final SEIS to address 

the two prior referenced comment letters that we are formally resubmitting along with 

this comment letter, and we request a copy of the Final SEIS be routed to SCE for 

review.

Comment noted. SCE's comments on the Draft EIS have been addressed in Final EIS 

Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination, specifically in Final EIS Table F-4-1.

S-178 General - Project 

Attributes

Southwest 

Airlines

In order to eliminate the impacts on air carrier service and airspace/airport efficiency, 

we strongly urge the FRA to lower the track and/or to move it further westward. This 

portion of the DesertXpress track (assuming an Alternative B routing for Segment 7) 

would have to be recessed by 35‟ for a length of 700‟ (350‟ either side of the Runway 

25R centerline to comply with the obstacle accountability area defined in FAA Advisory 

Circular 120-91, including a 50‟ buffer). [...] Utilizing the Alternative C routing for 

Segment 7 would completely eliminate any impact to long haul air carrier services from 

LAS and associated air traffic management issues. This would enable the continued 

full use of Runway 25R without significant impact while still allowing the DesertXpress 

line to be constructed.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to and the one-engine inoperative 

zones and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

March 2011 4-110 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-179 General - Project 

Attributes

Stimpfel, Ted 

(Newberry 

Springs/Harvard 

Real Properties 

Association)

the DesertXpress ridership expectations are highly inflated and whereas we believe the 

operational expenses are grossly understated. 

The Ridership Study, included as Final EIS Appendix F-D, supports the viability of the 

DesertXpress project. Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes an 

estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DesertXpress in the 

opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, 

reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used appropriate 

methods. (SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2.) The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the 

forecast and concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent 

lower than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the Desert Xpress 

ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information is obtained." 

(Cambridge at 25.) The Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California 

with Las Vegas as the destination. 

S-180 General - Project 

Attributes

Stimpfel, Ted 

(Newberry 

Springs/Harvard 

Real Properties 

Association)

...and whereas to be profitable, we believe that the rail line operation requires a large 

ridership demand at both ends of the line; and whereas our said association does not 

see a ridership base in Las Vegas desirous of traveling DesertXpress to Victorville

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

S-181 General - Project 

Attributes

Torres, Tamara 

(High Desert 

Hispanic 

Chamber of 

Commerce)

I'm here representing the high desert Hispanic chamber of commerce and the number 

of businesses that we represent. And I'm here in support of the project. 

The comment in support of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

S-182 General - Project 

Attributes

Von, Larry This system to Victorville is a waste of time and money The comment in opposition of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. Nonetheless, the technical reports evaluating ridership and 

connectivity to existing transportation facilities explained the selection and viability of the 

Victorville terminus. For example, the Cambridge Systematics report states that "the 

location of the Victorville terminal would be passed by virtually every auto traveler going 

between Southern California and Las Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 

2008). Similarly, the report prepared by Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The 

DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. 

Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles and located on the existing I15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. All drivers travelling from Southern 

California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" DesertXpress Ridership & Audit 

Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007).

S-183 General - Project 

Attributes

Warren, 

Elizabeth

One of them is that at Jean and at Primm, are you going west of the freeway? I don't 

have any idea where you are going to find the room at Primm at all. At Jean, we 

already have major problems with I-15 because on Sundays or the end of any holiday 

season, everybody gets off the freeway at Jean to get gas and they come out on to 

Goodsprings Road which is State Highway 161 and it is only two lanes wide. 

Through Jean, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment (Segment 5B) will remain within 

the existing I-15 freeway ROW and will not interfere with any local roadways. Please see 

Final EIS Section 2.3.2.1. 

March 2011 4-111 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-184 General - Project 

Attributes

Waybright, 

Charles

As we know, a lot of public transportation is heavily subsidized by tax payers. So are 

we going to have an ongoing tax break on this project?

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action.

S-185 General - Project 

Attributes

Waybright, 

Charles

Because there is a provision in the eminent domain laws that states, "the right of 

eminent domain may also be assigned to public or private corporations engaging in 

activities regarding benefits to the public such as the development of a port facility, 

buildings, canals or railroads." So if the DesertXpress decides to build over your house, 

they could take your house. 

As proposed, the Preferred Alternative would not involve the need to take (through 

purchase) any residence. In addition, the approval of the EIS does not convey eminent 

domain authority to DesertXpress. 

S-186 General - Project 

Attributes

Zannis, Mark Re: the track: We would like to know if it is going to be raised throughout the entire 

stretch of the route or if it actually -- if there are areas where it is at ground level. And 

where it is at ground level, how will you be protecting the track from trespassing, et 

cetera.

The project will be on a mixture of elevated structures, embankments, retained cuts, and 

at-grade tracks over the distance from Victorville to Las Vegas. Plan and profile 

drawings of the Preferred Alternative (please see Final EIS Appendix F-C) show specific 

proposed track layouts for specific locations. Also, please see Final EIS Section 2.4.9.1, 

which describes operating and safety plans in detail. The project incorporates 

numerous safety features to protect against trespass or intrusion onto the tracks. 

S-187 General - Project 

Attributes

Zannis, Mark I think that it would be helpful if you would also supply a map related to the speed of 

travel the train is being conducted in and where at certain points speed exists.

The comment is noted. Please see the plan and profile drawings included as Final EIS 

Appendix F-C, which included proposed rail speeds at various points along the 

alignment. FRA has also prepared a conceptual graphic showing this information on a 

single page. This has been included as Final EIS Figure E in the Project Background 

and Executive Summary chapter. 

S-188 General - Project 

Attributes

Ziska, Alinka 

Woyton

Maglev uses superior technology, has much less impact on the environment and the 

protected land and wildlife, will cost passengers much less per mile in ticket prices and 

they have more private funding and a stronger financial plan than DesertXpress. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

Please also refer to Final EIS Section 2.2.3.3, which notes that magnetic levitation 

technology was considered but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress 

project due to prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

S-189 General - Project 

Attributes

Ziska, Alinka 

Woyton

If the DesertXpress cannot connect to Anaheim or Los Angeles directly, we do not want 

it and do not think that it is capable of sustaining the ridership needed to 

stay in business. 

The Ridership Study, included as Final EIS Appendix F-D, supports the viability of the 

DesertXpress project. Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes an 

estimated 2.7 million automobile trips being diverted from I-15 to DesertXpress in the 

opening year. The Ridership Study was developed by URS Corporation in 2005, 

reviewed by Steer Davies Gleave in 2007, and independently reviewed by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc., in 2008. Both reviews found that the URS study used appropriate 

methods. (SDG at 6; Cambridge at 2.) The 2008 review noted uncertainties in the 

forecast and concluded that "a reasonable point estimate forecast of about 10 percent 

lower than the initial URS estimate would be a reasonable estimate of the Desert Xpress 

ridership for future analyses, at least until better forecasting information is obtained." 

(Cambridge at 25.) The Ridership Study reflects that trips would originate in California 

with Las Vegas as the destination. 

S-190 General - Project 

Attributes

Ziska, Alinka 

Woyton

I have attached statements and additional signatures from our students and their 

parents and other community members stating that we support Maglev and

would like to see it built, not the DesertXpress, because only Maglev can go to 

Disneyland in 81 minutes. 

The comment in opposition of the project is noted and does not request nor require 

response through additional or modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of 

the proposed action. 

March 2011 4-112 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-191 General - Project 

Attributes; 

Cumulative

NDOT Address Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport comments and describe 

impacts and cumulative to I-15. One of the comments by Clark County Department of 

Aviation at the public hearing on October 13, 2010 indicated that all of the aviation 

concerns had not yet been addressed. It is understood that this approval and 

coordination is with the aviation agencies.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.1.3, which includes a new mitigation measure that would 

address this identified effect. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Applicant to 

coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating at the airport to develop and 

agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the one-engine inoperative zones 

and departure conditions under FAA standards. This Final EIS also amends Draft EIS 

Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.1.4 to include an additional 

mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing and planned airport uses and 

established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 determination from the FAA to confirm 

that the project does not present a hazard to air navigation.

S-192 General/Project 

Attributes

EPA Coordinate with EPA to ensure that commitments to "green" construction practices are 

incorporated into specifications and other project development documents. For 

example, for the construction of new infrastructure, EPA recommends industrial 

materials recycling, or the reusing or recycling of byproduct materials generated from 

industrial processes. Contact Jeff Dhont, EPA Region 9, (415-972-3020 or 

dhont.jeff@epa.gov) regarding information about reuse of industrial materials. 

The comment is noted. The Applicant has apprised FRA of its willingness to consider 

green construction practices for the project. The Applicant is duly encouraged to 

consider such practices during the design-build phase of the project.

S-193 General/Project 

Attributes

EPA Include in the FEIS a discussion of how the proposed project will support the principles 

of the BUD/DOT/EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Relevant topics 

include station siting decisions, connections with other public transportation systems, 

and coordination of other federal policies and investments with the project. 

The comment is noted. The Applicant has apprised FRA of its willingness to consider 

principles of the BUD/DOT/EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities for the project. 

The Applicant is duly encouraged to consider such practices during the design-build 

phase of the project.

S-194 General; Traffic and 

Transportation

Allen, Mark The other thing is stay off the 15...We've had enough construction on the 15. If you go 

down the Strip, behind the Strip on the 15, not only is it going to be a nightmare, 

another year or two of construction for the people of Las Vegas and blocking up 

traffic...

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4.1, which describes the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment. In the metropolitan Las Vegas area, this is Segment 6B, which would be 

within the I-15 corridor from Sloan toward Blue Diamond, but would then shift to the west 

to the Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road corridor, thereby limiting the extent of further 

construction in the I-15 corridor. 

S-195 Growth City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The local and regional impact of this project in population growth, economic vitality and 

alterations in land use patterns for the area between Victorville and Las Vegas will be 

negative and immense and these impacts are not addressed at all in either the DEIS or 

the Supplemental Draft EIS. In fact, the SDEIS and DEIS both ignore these impacts in 

concluding that the proposed project "would result in beneficial environmental 

consequences on growth in the surrounding community by increasing economic vitality, 

employment opportunities, and the potential for transit oriented development." (SDEIS, 

p. 3.2-5.)

In response to comments from the City of Barstow, FRA caused an independent 

evaluation o be conducted focusing on the of the economic impacts, both positive and 

negative, to the City of Barstow as a result of the DesertXpress Project. An analysis 

these potential impacts are contained in Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 and Final EIS 

Appendix F-E includes FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local economic 

expert John Husing of Economic and Politics, Inc. 

S-196 Growth City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The City has commissioned an economic impact analysis by Ron Barbieri, Ph.D., an 

expert in real estate and urban land economics. [Report titled: Economic Impact of the 

DesertXpress Project on the City Barstow, California...attached to letter] Dr. Barbieri's 

report notes that the current economy of the City and surrounding areas is heavily 

dependent on road traffic traveling between southern California and Las Vegas. The 

report, which is based on detailed analysis and factual evidence, concludes that, if the 

DesertXpress Project were approved and constructed, the Barstow economy would 

suffer a drastic economic blow.

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the 

possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-C includes 

FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of 

Economics and Politics, Inc. In part, this study evaluates the Barbieri analysis and notes 

several problems with that report's methodology. Conclusions of the Barbieri analysis 

are specifically refuted in the Husing report (Final EIS Appendix F-E).

S-197 Growth City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

Dr. Barbieri further forecasts that the DesertXpress Project could result in a 

catastrophic rate of vacant housing in, and outmigration from, the City. These 

conditions would not only drastically reduce property tax revenues, but would also likely 

result in substantial and potentially irreversible physical deterioration of the urban 

environment in and around the City. [...] Since, at present, neither the Draft EIS nor the 

Supplemental Draft EIS devotes any detailed attention to these potentially significant 

impacts, the EIS must be revised and recirculated to provide this analysis prior to 

approval of the DesertXpress Project or any Project alternative. 

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the 

possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-E includes 

FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of 

Economics and Politics, Inc. In part, this study evaluates the Barbieri analysis and notes 

several problems with that report's methodology. Conclusions of the Barbieri analysis 

are specifically refuted in the Husing report (Final EIS Appendix F-E). Among the 

conclusions refuted include the claim that catastrophic or even substantial adverse 

economic impacts would occur in the City of Barstow as a result of DesertXpress. 

March 2011 4-113 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-198 Growth City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS does not contain any updated data on the impacts of the 

devastating recession on the areas impacted by the proposed project. [...] This 

omission renders any conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed project on 

local and regional population growth and economic vitality meaningless. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS contained updated information relevant to the impact of the 

recession. Specifically, Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.2, Growth, included, where 

available, population and employment projections that had been updated since the 

March 2009 publication of the Draft EIS. Many of these projections were updated 

specifically to address changed local and regional economic conditions in the face of the 

global economic downturn that began in 2008. Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes 

findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the possibility of economic impacts to the 

City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-E includes FRA's study, completed in December 

2010 by local economic expert John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. 

S-199 Growth City of Barstow 

(Richard D. 

Rowe)

The train will divert 33.33% of those individuals from Barstow that travel by car and bus 

to Las Vegas. [...] Consequently, DesertXpress will significantly decrease the amount 

of taxable goods and services that travelers purchase in Barstow. This decrease will 

reduce the City of Barstow's taxable sales by $143.2 million, resulting in a $1,432,342 

decrease in annual taxable sales revenue to the City. Lost tax revenue is not just a loss 

to the City of Barstow, but also to San Bernardino County, our school districts, and 

special districts.

Final EIS Section 2.2.2 evaluates the Ridership study prepared by the Applicant. This 

study had anticipated a maximum mode shift of 25 percent with the use of EMU 

technology. Final EIS Section 2.2.2 further noted that FRA's independent review of the 

Ridership study led to the conclusion that the estimated diversion rate needed to be 

adjusted downward by approximately 10 percent. The independent review of the 

ridership study is included as Final EIS Appendix F-D. Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 also 

includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the possibility of economic 

impacts to the City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-E includes FRA's study, completed 

in December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of Economics and Politics, Inc. 

S-200 Growth City of Barstow 

(Richard D. 

Rowe)

The DesertXpress will result in a combined loss of 2,295 jobs, which represents 14.4% 

of the currently employed population. The DesertXpress will reduce retail jobs by 1,275 

or 20.6% of the Barstow's taxable sales employment. [...] The loss of 1,275 retail jobs 

could cause real estate values in the City of Barstow

to decline by 50-55%, reducing the net taxable value of properties in the City by $470 

million, resulting in a $1.9 million decline in annual property tax revenue. [...] The loss of 

jobs would cause people to leave the City of Barstow to find jobs elsewhere, which will 

create more residential and commercial vacancies, thereby less tax income to fund 

essential City services, such as police, fire, and maintenance of our roads.

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes findings from FRA's independent evaluation of the 

possibility of economic impacts to the City of Barstow. Final EIS Appendix F-E includes 

FRA's study, completed in December 2010 by local economic expert John Husing of 

Economics and Politics, Inc (Barstow Study). In part, this study specifically evaluates 

the Barbieri analysis and notes several problems with that report's methodology. 

Conclusions of the Barbieri analysis are specifically refuted in the Husing report. Among 

the conclusions refuted include the claims of 2,295 jobs lost and $1.9 million annual 

decrease in property tax revenue. The Barstow Study notes that DesertXpress would 

have a negative economic impact on the City of Barstow during operation of the project, 

specifically in regards to overall economic activity, income, sales taxes, property taxes, 

and jobs. Over time, the share of Barstow‟s economy affected by the project will slowly 

grow since the high-speed passenger train ridership is expected to increase over time. 

Final EIS Table F-3.2-2 summarizes the anticipated long-term negative economic 

impacts on Barstow as a result of operation of the high-speed passenger train for Year 

1, Year 3, and Year 18 operation. The negative economic effects would not be at a level 

that would reasonably be expected to result in the urban decay/blighting impacts cited by 

the commenter.

S-201 Growth Dieleman, 

Crystal

I don't think you will find a single person who owns property along Dean Martin Drive 

that will support this proposal because it will decimate our property value (which has 

already taken a pretty large hit).

The comment expressing opposition to the Segment 6B alignment is noted. The 

placement of Segment 6B in the median of Dean Martin Drive was developed at the 

request of the NDOT such that future freeway expansion projects could be more easily 

accommodated. 

S-202 Growth Doulton, R. ...my company is developing a major parcel located on Dean Martin Drive whose 

components encompass three new industries and would produce 7400 jobs (direct, 

indirect and tertiary) within 4 years. The presence of the DesertXpress on this route is 

wholly unrealistic and would severely impact upon our projects funding potential ability 

proceed .

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes a discussion of the economic growth effects relative to 

the Preferred Alternative. Construction of the Preferred Alternative could result in 

beneficial indirect employment and economic growth effects to Clark County during the 

three- to four-year construction period (see Final EIS Appendix F-F). Additionally, the 

DesertXpress project would not alter the existing access along Dean Martin Drive.

March 2011 4-114 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-203 Growth Martini, Alfred G. I don't understand why our state officials are so anxious to bypass the generations of 

family-owned businesses that have served the millions of travelers along the highway. 

But I have a solution for you. A very simple one. It's called ridership bypass tax, $10 

per ticket. That will be a fund of $50 million the first year. It will be divided up among 

the business owners along the corridor for the loss of revenues that starts after the first 

year. 

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. Refer to 

Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 for a discussion of the economic effects of the Preferred 

Alternative to communities along the proposed rail alignment. 

S-204 Growth McIntyre, Julie 

Hackbrath 

(Mayor ProTem 

of Barstow)

The economic impact of DesertXpress will significantly take off the number of travelers 

off of the I-15 to the tune of 33 percent.

Please see the response to comment S-200. Final EIS Appendix F-D clarifies the actual 

expected diversion rate of DesertXpress in terms of ridership and is further analyzed in 

Final EIS Appendix F-E relative to economic effects.

S-205 Growth McIntyre, Julie 

Hackbrath 

(Mayor ProTem 

of Barstow)

Consequently DesertXpress will significantly decrease the amount of taxable goods 

and services that travelers purchase in Barstow. A combination loss of 2,295 jobs, 

which represents 14 percent of the currently working employment of this City. 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-206 Growth McIntyre, Julie 

Hackbrath 

(Mayor ProTem 

of Barstow)

The expected loss of retail sales and jobs will have also have a tremendous impact on 

real estate values and property tax values of Barstow's properties. The loss of 1,200 

retail jobs could cause real estate values in the City of Barstow to decline by 50 to 55 

percent resulting in a $1.9 million decline in annual property taxes.

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-207 Growth Newberry 

Springs Harvard 

Real Property 

Owners 

Association

WHEREAS, upon study, the said "Association" finds that the DesertXpress proposal 

will have a negative social and economic impact upon the city of Barstow and our rural 

communities; and WHEREAS, the before said negative social and economic impact 

will likely foster blight and urban decay upon our communities; and WHEREAS, the 

DesertXpress project is not expected contribute to an overall economic stimulus of the 

High Desert economy; and the communities of and surrounding Barstow and Baker, 

will be negatively impacted; 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-208 Growth Perez, Alejandro ...if we want to bring this train to the town, we need to bring in some more industry The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-209 Growth Perez, Alejandro And the impact that it is going to have in the local economy is devastating. If you look 

at the statistics Ms. Mayor pro-tem said that is about 17 percent unemployment in 

Barstow. I think it's probably more than that. 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-210 Growth Ross, Carl If this train goes in front of my buildings, the 140,000 automobiles a day that drive up 

the freeway will not be able to see the front of my building or companies like 

Lamborghini and companies like Bank of America and companies like Richmond 

Homes. They wouldn't be able to see their signs. These people will end up leaving 

because they don't have the frontage.

The comment is noted. No federal or state agency can guarantee in perpetuity that any 

specific building that is viewable from a freeway corridor will remain so. Freeway 

corridors are inherently dynamic; in fulfillment of their transportation purposes, various 

signs, overpasses, and - as with the present project - additional transportation modes 

are all suitable uses for a designated transportation corridor. Any potential loss of 

visibility is not considered a significant adverse environmental impact. 

S-211 Growth Rothschild, Mike Support project - jobs creation (both temp & permanent) potential to have 

manufacturing for California system. 

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-212 Growth Rowe, Richard 

(City of Barstow 

City Manager)

Travelers stop in our city and eat at all our business establishments to purchase gas, 

eat, and shop. [...] the decrease will reduce the City of Barstow's taxable sales by 

$143.2 million resulting in a 1,432,000 decrease in the City's annual taxable sales 

revenue to the City. 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-213 Growth Rowe, Richard 

(City of Barstow 

City Manager)

The DesertXpress will result in a combines loss of 2,295 jobs, which represent 14.4 

percent of the currently employed population in the Barstow area. The DesertXpress 

will reduce retail jobs by 1,275 or 20.6 percent of Barstow's taxable sales employment.

Please see the response to comment S-200.

March 2011 4-115 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-214 Growth Rowe, Richard 

(City of Barstow 

City Manager)

The loss of 1,275 retail jobs will cause real estate values in the City of Barstow to 

decline. Our economist has estimated as the Mayor ProTem has said, 50 to 55 

reducing the net taxable value of properties in the City by $470 million resulting in a 1.9 

million decline in annual property tax revenue.

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-215 Growth Seitz, Greg But if we're going to build something like this desert train here, I believe we need to 

replace what we take. And if we're going to take jobs, and if we're going to impact the 

cars that bring all the economy and the economic value to Barstow, we need to have a 

system that brings industry here. And if we're going to spend $5 billion on this train, 

why can't we take, let's say, 500 million and put it to industry in Barstow. 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-216 Growth Seitz, Greg Also, the jobs that are going to be created, I think the majority of them are actually 

going to be for the Nevada residents because that's where the station is going to be. 

[...] We need to have the jobs that are going to impact everybody and maybe more 

jobs in California, instead of Nevada. 

Please see Final EIS Table F-3.2-3, which identifies projected employment at opening 

and buildout years. DesertXpress anticipates having approximately twice as many 

permanent employees based in Victorville relative to those that would be based in Las 

Vegas. Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 includes a discussion of the construction employment. 

Please see Final EIS Section 3.2.2.3 for a discussion regarding the project's potential 

employment growth. 

S-217 Growth Stimpfel, Ted 

(Newberry 

Springs/Harvard 

Real Properties 

Association)

[A Resolution of the Newberry Springs/Harvard Real Properties Owners Association in 

Opposition to the DesertXpress Proposed Rail Service]...upon study the said 

association finds that the DesertXpress proposal will have a negative social and 

economic impact within the City of Barstow in our rural communities; and whereas 

before the said negative social and economic impact will likely foster in blight and urban 

decay upon our communities.

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-218 Growth Stimson, David 

A.

Third, in an already depressed real estate market, the proposed high speed train, in our 

opinion, will depress the market further, making it harder, if not impossible, to sell 

houses within the proposed I-15 route. Once constructed, it will be obvious, but prior to 

construction, sellers would have to disclose the possibility of the train being a few 

hundred feet away, not a good selling point.

The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-219 Growth Martini, Alfred G. There is a major economic impact that hits the community of Barstow. I can only 

imagine what it will do to Baker businesses that depend on the highway travelers to 

support their livelihood. What is being done to compensate the local communities for 

this loss of revenue? How can they participate in the development of this venture?

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-220 Growth/Socioecono

mic Impacts

Chavez, Remijio 

A.

Its going to cost 4 to 6 billion dollars! We are unsure if the funding is private or federal 

monies or some sort of combination of the two. The document is not clear about this. 

The adverse impacts to the economies of both Barstow and Baker have not been fully 

disclosed! The only communities that economically benefit from this are in Victor Valley 

where the station would be. They would provide most of the construction and station 

labor and would not be impacted by any reduction in I-15 commerce. The socioeconomic section in Chapter 3 doesn't fully reflect these facts!

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in 

Final EIS Section 1.5.1 DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may become eligible to for apply 

for financing from the federal government through a federal loan program, the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. Please also see the 

response to comment S-200. 

S-221 Growth/Socioecono

mics

Barstow 

Community 

Hospital

Barstow Community Hospital opposes the proposed DesertXpress high-speed rail line 

from Victorville to Las Vegas due to its devastating impact on the Barstow-area 

economy. This project has the potential to cause the loss of nearly 2,300 local jobs and 

millions of tax dollars which support the community's police, fire, parks, infrastructure 

and other critical services. ... DesertXpress will cause tremendous economic distress 

for the Barstow community. 

Please see the response to comment S-200.

S-222 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

We request that the final environmental document reference the Basin Plan in the 

hydrology and water quality analyses and require that the project proponent comply 

with all applicable water quality standards and prohibitions, including provisions of the 

Basin Plan.

Draft EIS Section 3.8.1.2 references the Lahontan Regional Basin Plan. Final EIS 

Section 3.8.1.1 amends Draft EIS Section 3.8.1.2 to include additional clarifying text 

regarding the Lahontan Regional Basin Plan. 

March 2011 4-116 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-223 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

A number of activities associated with project implementation may require permits 

issued by either the State Water Board or Lahontan Water Board because they appear 

to impact waters of the State. The Project proponent is urged to consult with either the 

State Water Board or Lahontan Water Board prior to project implementation. The 

required permits may include: Land disturbance of more than 1 acre may require a 

CWA, section 402(p) stormwater permits, including a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Stormwater Permit or General 

Industrial Stormwater Permit, both obtained from the State Water Board, or an 

individual stormwater permit obtained from the Lahontan Water Board; and Streambed 

alteration and/or discharge of fill material to a surface water may require a CWA, 

section 401 water quality certification (WOC) for impacts to federal waters (waters of 

the U.S.), or dredge and fill Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for impacts to nonfederal waters. [...] We request that appropriate sections of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

be revised to reflect the potential permitting requirements as outlined above.

Draft EIS Section 3.8.1.2 indicates applicable regulations: the Lahontan Water Board is 

responsible for implementing CWA, Sections 401, 402, and 303(d).

S-224 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

The Supplemental Draft EIS does not provide specific information regarding potential 

impacts to surface waters, particularly impacts to in-channel areas of the Mojave River 

(Segment C), Bell Mountain Wash (Operation and Maintenance Site Facility 2 [OMSF 

2) and Victorville Station Site 3A13B [VV3A1B)) , or other surface waters (Segment 

4C). For example, Section 3.8.3 states that construction of alterative W3A would 

permanently impact 2,257 linear feet of Bell Mountain Wash, yet the Supplemental 

Draft EIS fails to describe what those impacts would be [...] If impacts to surface 

waters are unavoidable, then we request that the project be designed such that it 

would maintain existing hydrologic features and patterns to the extent feasible.

The project has been designed to minimize impacts on water resources to the extent 

feasible. Mitigation measures have been included to minimize impacts. Mitigation 

Measures HYD-1 through HYD-11 are included in Final EIS Section 3.8.3 of this Final 

EIS. Specifically, Mitigation Measure HYD-9 is included to minimize the impacts of 

OMSF 2 on water resources. Final EIS Section 3.8.2.3 includes additional information 

related to these impacts.

S-225 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

Be advised that the project must be designed such that post-construction hydrologic 

conditions match pre-construction conditions to avoid erosion due to constrictions 

restricting the passage of peak flows or the retention of flows that may adversely affect 

downstream vegetation.

The project rail alignment will bridge over the drainages and water crossings that would 

be crossed. Based on preliminary design information from the Applicant, the crossings 

of these water resources would not permanently alter the course or flows of these water 

resources. Final EIS Section 3.8.1.3 includes text regarding maintaining the natural 

washes in their present location and natural form as practicable and feasible.

S-226 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

The Supplemental Draft EIS fails to identify the beneficial uses of surface waters within 

the project area. The Supplemental Draft EIS must evaluate the project's potential 

impacts to water quality with respect to beneficial uses and provide alterative to avoid 

those impacts or describe mitigation measures that, when implemented, will minimize 

unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level.

Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5, under the heading "Direct and Indirect Impacts to 

Wetlands/Waters of the United States" provides a discussion of project impacts to 

surface waters. The Draft EIS states that construction of the project could cause soil 

and vegetation disturbance, including permanent disturbance from the placement of 

culverts, and erosion effects. Draft EIS Section 3.14.4.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Section 3.14.3 document the number of stream crossings that would be impacted by the 

Action Alternatives. Draft EIS Section 3.8.3.3 has been revised to include a discussion 

of the beneficial uses of the waters, indicating that the waters could support habitat 

necessary for the survival of sensitive species, allow for recharge of groundwater, and 

support wildlife habitat. This change is shown in Final EIS Section 3.8.1.1.

March 2011 4-117 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-227 Hydrology California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

...the Supplemental Draft EIS does not adequately discuss post-construction 

stormwater management. Of particular concern is the collection of stormwater runoff 

from paved areas and the discharge of that stormwater to natural drainage channels. 

[...] The Supplemental Draft EIS must evaluate all potential stormwater impacts, 

particularly potential post-construction hydrologic impacts, and describe specific best 

management practices that, when implemented, will reduce those potential impacts to 

a less than significant level.

This Final EIS amends Mitigation Measure HYD-6 to include additional information 

relative to the proper design of drainage systems. Refer to Final EIS Section 3.8.1.3 for 

the specific revisions. The design of the facilities will include detailed runoff calculations 

and necessary drainage basins or capture and treatment designs will be planned 

accordingly. In regards to the rail alignment, the rail segments would not result in large 

amounts of impervious surface as they would be constructed on ballast. The Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment would also connect with and mirror the existing culverts along 

the I-15 freeway, which would channel any runoff from the alignment. Please refer to 

Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, for a discussion regarding the project 

purpose.

S-228 Hydrology City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

...implementation of measure HYD-8 does not appear feasible, since that measure, by 

its own description, would "prohibit the presence of construction equipment or 

construction materials within the designated 100-year floodplain." The Supplemental 

Draft EIS should be revised to evaluate the potential for significant impacts in the 

absence of Mitigation Measure HYD-8. 

Mitigation Measure HYD-8 within Final EIS Section 3.8.3 states that the contractor will 

not store construction equipment or materials within the limits of influence that are 

located in areas of the 100-year floodplain, so as to avoid redirecting 100-year flood 

flows that could cause structural damage or pose a safety risk to workers.

S-229 Hydrology EPA Include a discussion of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to 

hydrology, water quality, and other resources resulting from the increase in impervious 

surface at the Victorville Station Site, including consideration of structured parking. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.8.3 documents that Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3) 

would result in greater stormwater runoff than VV1 and VV2 due to the increase in 

impervious surfaces. Structured parking at VV3 has limited environmental benefit given 

the relatively low precipitation in the Victorville area. Additionally, best management 

practices would be incorporated into project design to reduce water quality impacts from 

runoff from the surface parking areas. Mitigation Measure HYD-6 in Draft EIS Section 

3.8.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.8.4 requires the proper design of station 

and maintenance facility drainage systems. The design of the facilities will include 

detailed runoff calculations and necessary drainage basins or capture and treatment 

designs will be planned accordingly. This Final EIS amends Mitigation Measure HYD-6 

to include additional clarifying text regarding the proper design of drainage facilities. 

Refer to Final EIS Section 3.8.1.3 for these specific revisions.

S-230 Hydrology EPA Once the delineation of the extent of waters, including wetlands, on the Project site has 

been verified by the USACE, FRA should update the information regarding estimated 

impacts to waters and provide this information in the Final EIS. A jurisdictional 

determination by USACE should be performed prior to publication of the Final EIS in 

order to provide a determination of potential significant impacts and identify mitigation 

and avoidance measures in the design of the Project.

Draft EIS Section 1.4.1 states that the Applicant will be responsible for a Section 404 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure compliance with the Clean 

Water Act. The NEPA process also requires analysis of water resources that are not 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The project 

proponent submitted a formal jurisdictional determination request to USACE in July 

2010. The project proponent is currently responding to USACE requests for additional 

information. No wetlands will be affected, but the Preferred Alternative is expected to 

temporarily impact an estimated 0.2 acres and permanently impact 5.96 acres of 

ephemeral drainages (other “waters of the U.S.”) subject to USACE Jurisdiction. The 

Applicant has incorporated a number of measures into the project design to avoid and 

minimize these impacts. The project proponent also will (1) either create new ephemeral 

drainage, or (2) restore, where feasible, through reestablishment of former ephemeral 

drainage, 9.10 acres of ephemeral drainage within the alluvial fan system where the 

project impact is located to compensate for unavoidable impacts to “waters of the U.S.” 

With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result 

in more than minimal adverse effects to the aquatic environment. Final EIS Section 

3.8.1.3 includes this information and Final EIS Section 3.8.2.3 also incorporates this 

information. Final EIS Section 3.8.1 also includes a description of the Section 404 

process as of publication of this Final EIS.

March 2011 4-118 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-231 Hydrology EPA Update the information provided in the Final EIS so that estimated impacts are 

provided in acreage estimates. Identify and quantify both 1) permanent and temporary 

impacts to waters, and 2) direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to waters.

As described in response to comment S-230, the Preferred Alternative is expected to 

temporarily impact 0.2 acres and permanently impact 5.96 acres of ephemeral 

drainages (other “waters of the U.S.”). The Applicant has proposed a number of 

measures to minimize these impacts. Ephemeral drainages impacted by the project are 

unvegetated and have limited habitat value, but provide important hydrologic functions 

(e.g., water conveyance and storage). Ephemeral drainages restored as part of the 

compensatory mitigation program will have similar functions and values to existing 

drainages. With the inclusion of compensatory mitigation, it is believed the proposed 

project will have minimal indirect and cumulative impacts to waters of the U.S. Any 

additional impact avoidance, minimization and compensation required to ensure that 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to waters of the U.S. are minimal will be 

incorporated into the project design during the CWA Section 404 permitting process. 

Final EIS Section 3.8.2.3 incorporates this information. 

S-232 Hydrology EPA If it is to be used to justify a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, the Final EIS should 

include an evaluation of the project alternatives in order to demonstrate the project's 

compliance with Section 404(b)(1) and authorization of LEDPA. The alternatives 

analysis should include a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the Project 

purpose while avoiding and minimizing damage to waters. If, under the proposed 

Project, dredged or fill material would be discharged into waters of the U.S., the Final 

EIS should discuss alternatives to avoid those discharges. 

As described in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 2.2, the Applicant has proposed a 

series of modifications to the alignment of the railway and siting of associated facilities to 

avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects, including impacts to “waters of the 

U.S.” Specific modifications to the original project design that have been incorporated 

into the preferred project alternative, resulting in avoidance and minimization of impacts 

to “waters of the U.S.” include the following:

• Revised location for Victorville Station, which will eliminate potential impacts to riparian 

vegetation along the Mojave River.

• Revised alignment for Segment 1, alternative B which will directly impact 0.74 acres of 

other “waters of the U.S.” compared to previous Segments 1 and 2, which would have 

directly impacted 2.57 acres of other “waters of the U.S.” Impacts to “waters of the U.S.” 

have been avoided and minimized for ephemeral drainages equal or greater than 4 feet 

in width through the use of at- or above- grade over crossings. 

• Revised alignment for Segment 4, alternative C which will directly impact 0.58 acres of 

other “waters of the U.S.” compared to previous Segment 4a, which would have directly 

impacted 1.81 acres of other “waters of the U.S.” The footprint of Segment 4, alternative 

C contains less “waters of the U.S.” than previous Segment 4a. Impacts to “waters of the 

U.S.” have been further avoided and minimized for ephemeral drainages equal or 

greater than 4 feet in width through the use of at- or above- grade over crossings and 

tunneling.

• Revised alignment for Segment 6, alternative B which will directly impact 0.38 acres of 

other “waters of the U.S.” compared to previous Segment 6 Alternative C Central A and 

B, Segment 7 Alternatives A, B and C, which would have directly impacted 2.5 acres of 

other “waters of the U.S.” Impacts to “waters of the U.S.” have been avoided and 

minimized for ephemeral drainages equal or greater than 4 feet in width through the use 

of at- or above- grade over crossings. 

March 2011 4-119 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-232, 

continued

Hydrology EPA Final EIS Section 3.8.2.4 provides a comparative discussion of the hydrology impacts 

related to the Preferred Alternative and the other Action Alternatives. As a result of the 

these modifications, the Preferred Alternative will have less impacts on “waters of the 

U.S.” than previously proposed railway alignments and facility locations and will have no 

impact on wetlands. The project proponent began consultations with USACE regarding 

CWA Section 404 authorization in May 2010. The project proponent submitted a formal 

CWA Section 404 authorization request to USACE in July 2010. The project proponent 

is currently responding to USACE requests for additional information. According to 

CWA Section 404 regulations, permitted activities must be designed and constructed to 

avoid and minimize adverse effects to “waters of the U.S.” to the maximum extent 

practicable. If an individual permit is required, the project proponent is required to 

complete a 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and demonstrate that the proposed project 

represents the least damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The Applicant already 

has adopted a significant number of measures into the project design to avoid and 

minimize adverse effects to “waters of the U.S.” Compared to previously proposed 

railway alignments and facility locations, the current preferred alternative represents the 

LEDPA and therefore complies with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. This finding will be further 

evaluated and validated during the CWA Section 404 permitting process. Final EIS 

Section 3.8.1 includes a description of the Section 404 and Section 401 process as of 

publication of this Final EIS.

S-233 Hydrology EPA The Final EIS should include mitigation commitments for impacts to waters, including 

compensation if waters will be filled.

According to CWA Section 404 regulations, permitted activities must be designed and 

constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to “waters of the U.S.” to the 

maximum extent practicable. If an individual permit is required, the project proponent is 

required to complete a 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and demonstrate that the 

proposed project represents the least damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The 

Applicant already has adopted a significant number of measures into the project design 

to avoid and minimize adverse effects to “waters of the U.S.” Compared to previously 

proposed railway alignments and facility locations, the current preferred alternative 

represents the LEDPA and therefore complies with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. This finding 

will be further evaluated and validated during the CWA Section 404 permitting process. 

Final EIS Section 3.8.1 includes a description of the Section 404 and Section 401 

process as of publication of this Final EIS.

S-234 Hydrology EPA The Final EIS should include more specific information about the design of the channel, 

stream, and wash crossings and should commit to mitigation of impacts to these water 

features, including the use of natural washes, in their present location and natural form, 

to the maximum extent practicable with the placement of adequate natural buffers for 

flood control. 

To minimize potential adverse impacts to the aquatic environment, the project will install 

clear span crossings for all ephemeral drainages equal or greater than 4 feet in width (as 

measured by the distance between the ordinary high water mark on each side of the 

drainage). These crossings will retain natural, earthen bottoms to minimize changes to 

natural flow, erosion and sedimentation patterns. Final EIS Section 3.8.1.3 amends 

Draft EIS Section 3.8.4.3 to include additional information related to maintaining the 

natural washes in their present location and natural form as practicable and feasible. 

Design of the drainage crossings would be developed as part of the design-build 

process after this Final EIS and Record of Decision. The Record of Decision will 

incorporate all mitigation measures from the Final EIS, making them conditions of 

project approval and thus conditions of the various federal permits and licenses needed 

to construct and operate the preferred alternative. This would include any mitigation 

commitments to water resources. 

March 2011 4-120 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-302 Hydrology/Utilities California 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board-Lahontan 

Region

The evaluation in Section 3.4 is vague and does not provide adequate details to 

properly evaluate the potential impacts the proposed project may have on 

environmental resources with respect to stormwater management. [...] Without having 

preliminarily designs for stormwater conveyance, systems and structures, there is no 

justification to support the findings the hydrology and water quality analyses of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, particularly with respect to "create or contribute runoff water 

that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or 

provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff." Please revise the 

Supplemental Draft EIS to address these

concerns.

Mitigation Measure HYD-6 in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS requires the 

proper design of station and maintenance facility drainage systems. The design of the 

facilities will include detailed runoff calculations and necessary drainage basins or 

capture and treatment designs will be planned accordingly. Final EIS Section 3.8.1.3 

amends Mitigation Measure HYD-6 to clarify that where necessary, the Applicant shall 

redesign and resize the existing drainage facilities to accommodate the potential 

increase in runoff along the rail alignment. In regards to the rail alignment, the rail 

segments would not result in large amounts of impervious surface as they would be 

constructed on ballast. The rail alignments would also connect with and mirror the 

existing culverts along the I-15 freeway, which would channel any runoff from the 

alignment. The Preferred Alternative rail alignment would install drainage features under 

the rail alignment that match existing I-15 freeway culverts and would integrate into the 

existing I-15 drainage system. Where the Preferred Alternative rail alignment would 

deviate from existing transportation facilities, the Applicant would install culverts at 

natural drainage features. Please refer to Final EIS Sections 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.2.3. 

S-235 Irretrievable & 

Irreversible 

Commitment

NDOT Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.17 discuss Irretrievable and 

Irreversible Commitment of Public Resources. It is NDOT opinion that this section 

needs more coordination and clarification. The Interstate right-of-way is a Public 

Resource already acquired with Federal and Tax Payers funds, or granted by BLM. It 

cannot be turned over to a private corporation in perpetuity with conditions of 

Irretrievable and Irreversible commitments to be use for profit and gain, especially with 

the commitment of the State of Nevada to their citizens in regards to past actions of 

planning, revenue stream from the community, condemnation and sovereignty. NDOT 

does not concur with the Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment section specifically 

the conversion to other uses.

Final EIS Section 3.17, Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources, 

has been updated to reflect this comment. 

S-236 Irretrievable & 

Irreversible 

Commitment

NDOT This right-of-way was designated for transportation purposes only. The comment is noted and does not request nor require response through additional or 

modified analysis of a specific environmental impact of the proposed action. 

S-237 Land Use City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS fail to actually analyze land use or growth 

impacts associated with the proposed DesertXpress project as mandated by NEPA. 

[...] The Land Use Chapter (3.1) contains statements and conclusions that the 

proposed project is incompatible with certain land uses along the route such as 

residential areas and sensitive BLM lands, yet there is no discussion of the nature or 

extent of the incompatibility. (DesertXpress Supplemental Draft EIS, pp. 3.1-10-3.1 -11, 

Draft EIS pp. 3.1-52-3.1-58.) Simple conclusory statements are not adequate under 

NEPA which requires a discussion for each of the alternatives of all direct and indirect 

environmental impacts, and cumulative impacts, and their significance. (40 C.F.R. 

1502.16; see also Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1123-1124 (9 the Cir. 2002).)

Final EIS Section 3.1.1 reflects revisions to Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS 

Sections 3.1, Land Use and Community Impacts, clarifying the basis for FRA's 

conclusions regarding land use compatibility

S-238 Land Use City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

There is also no conclusion regarding the land use impacts after mitigation. 

(Supplemental Draft EIS, p. 3.1-16.)

Mitigation related to land use and community impacts is discussed in Final EIS Section 

3.1.3. Conclusions regarding land use impacts after mitigation are presented in Final 

EIS Section 3.1.4. After mitigation, the Action Alternatives would result in the permanent 

conversion of certain lands to transportation uses.

March 2011 4-121 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-239 Land Use City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

Further, the discussion of land use impacts on the City of Barstow and adjacent areas 

is out of date. The City submitted comments on the Draft EIS, in which the City 

commented that the land use policy information in that document appeared to originate 

in 2005 data, and that updated land use policy information for the City was available at 

the City's website. However, the Supplemental Draft EIS appears to ignore the City's 

comment entirely. The EIS therefore appears to rely on inaccurate information in its 

analysis of the land use impacts of the project on the City and surrounding areas. 

FRA notes that, as stated in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 2.2.3, further analysis and 

discussion of the feasibility and impacts of Segment 2C as an alternative rail alignment 

was in response to the City of Barstow's comments on the Draft EIS. The City stated 

that the previous proposal of Segment 2A/2B would have traversed an area intended for 

industrial/warehouse use and stated that the proposed DesertXpress routing was 

incompatible and requested consideration of other routing alternatives. 

Segment 2C was therefore evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS as a way to keep 

the proposed rail alignment within an existing transportation corridor, thereby reducing 

the potential for land use conflicts in the City of Barstow. However, environmental 

consequences related to land use and community impacts are discussed in Final EIS 

Section 3.1.2.3. The nature of each land use or community impact is discussed and the 

compatibility of the alternative with each land use designation is measured. Where a 

feature of the alternative is considered to have "low" compatibility with a land use, such 

compatibility is explained. 

S-240 Land Use CCDOA FRA cannot yet assume that the DesertXpress project has "high" compatibility with 

airports, as the Supplemental Draft EIS summarily concludes in Table S-3.1-2 

(Supplemental Draft EIS at p. 3.1-7). Instead, FRA cannot reach any defensible 

conclusions as to whether or not the proposed alignments would be compatible with 

local land uses until it reviews the final determinations from FAA -

the federal agency with expertise in matters of aviation safety.

Please see Final EIS Sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3, which include revisions and 

clarifications regarding land use compatibility conclusions. Mitigation Measure LU-1 

would require the Applicant to coordinate with the FAA, CCDOA, and airlines operating 

at the airport to develop and agree to a rail alignment design that avoids impacts to the 

one-engine inoperative zones and departure conditions under FAA standards. This 

Final EIS also amends Draft EIS Section 3.1.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 

3.1.4 to include an additional mitigation measure related to the compatibility with existing 

and planned airport uses and established Runway Protection Zones. Mitigation 

Measure LU-2 in Final EIS Section 3.1.3 requires the Applicant to obtain a Part 77 

determination from the FAA to confirm that the project does not present a hazard to air 

navigation.

S-241 Land Use CCDOA Fig. S-3.1-3 and Fig. S-3.1-4 incorrectly depict the Airport Site as owned by the BLM. In 

fact, the Airport Site is owned by Clark County. See BLM Patent 27-

2004-0104.

The Final EIS has been revised to reflect this requested change in ownership. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-3 and S-3.1.4 have be revised to show the Airport 

site as owned by Clark County. No physical environmental impact is implicated in 

making this change. These revised figures are shown as Final EIS Figures F-3.1-6 and 

F-3.1-7.

S-242 Land Use CCDOA Fig. S-3.1-8 correctly depicts the Airport Site as a distinct land use designation, but 

does not include this designation in the legend. In addition, the legend should not 

restrict land use designations to California only. Fig. S-3.1-8 incorrectly depicts land use 

to the west ofI-15 and north of Primm as being "residential". This land is designated as 

"open lands." See South County Land Use Plan (http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/ gismol 

cpmapprod.htm).

The Final EIS has been revised to address this comment. Supplemental Draft EIS 

Figures S-3.1-8 through S-3.1-10 of the Supplemental Draft EIS have been revised to 

incorporate the South County Land Use Map. No physical environmental impact is 

implicated in making this change. These revised figures are shown as Final EIS Figures 

F-3.1-1 through F-3.1-5.

S-243 Land Use CCDOA Section 3.1 discussion should include the following: The 2002 Clark County 

Conservation of Public Lands and Natural Resources Act (Public Law 107-282). In this 

Act, Congress directed that an additional 17,000-acre Airport Environs Overlay District 

be transferred to the County upon final approval of the airport. Congress also directed 

BLM to establish a half-mile wide "Transportation and Utility Corridor" between the 

Airport Site and the Las Vegas Valley for the placement, on a non-exclusive basis, of 

utilities and transportation. BLM formally identified the boundaries of that corridor in July 

2007.

The commenter requests a change to the regulatory requirements discussion. The 

requested additional clarifying information has been added to Final EIS Section 3.1.1.3. 

The additional language does not result in any new physical environmental impact. 

S-244 Land Use CCDOA Section 3.1 discussion should include the following: The Heliport Transfer Act (Public 

Law 109-115, § 180). The Heliport Transfer Act directs the BLM to convey 229 acres to 

Clark County for the purpose of operating a heliport facility. FAA issued a FONSIIROD 

on the Heliport in early 2009 and the Department of Interior transferred title to the 

Heliport in late 2009 (see BLM Patent No. 27-2010-01).

The commenter requests a change to the regulatory requirements discussion. The 

requested additional clarifying information has been added to Final EIS Section 3.1.1.3. 

The additional language does not result in any new physical environmental impact. 

March 2011 4-122 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-245 Land Use CCDOA Section 3.1 discussion should include the following: Clark County, South County Land 

Use Plan (2008). The DEIS should be revised to recognize the County's position with 

regard to development within the Transportation and Utility Corridor established 

pursuant to Public Law 107-282. Specifically, the Plan

states: [...]

The commenter requests a change to the regulatory requirements discussion. The 

requested additional clarifying information has been added to Final EIS Section 3.1.1.3. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-6 through S-3.1-10 have been revised to 

incorporate the most current land use plans and land use designations, including the 

South County Land Use Plan. The additional language does not result in any new 

physical environmental impact. No physical environmental impact is implicated in 

making this change. These revised figures are shown as Final EIS Figures F-3.1-1 

through F-3.1-5.

S-246 Land Use Kubacki, Joseph As a resident of Enterprise Township living in a rural environment why would the 

residents living here with horses want a high speed train traveling through here over 

100 times -a-day? Do you understand that this land in Enterprise is zoned Rural 

Residential and as such we all like it that way.

Throughout the Enterprise Regional Plan Area, the Preferred Alternative rail alignment 

would be located within the I-15 ROW. Please also refer to Draft EIS Section 2.4.9.1, 

which provides an anticipated operations schedule. 

S-247 Land Use Marks, Philip H. I live in Las Vegas approximately 2 miles from the alternate location of the proposed 

rail line along Dean Martin/Industrial Road. A large portion of the surrounding 

neighborhood is zoned Rural Preservation Neighborhood with an emphasis on rare 

animals and horses. All of the homes in this area are on 1/2 to 1 acre lots. No EIS has 

been performed for this area including but not limited to Noise and family living impact.

The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluates land use effects within a one-mile radius of the 

proposed rail alignment. All residential land use designations have been consolidated 

into one "Residential" land use category due to the large scale of the project and the 

specific residential densities have not been identified. Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S3.1-10 accurately depicts the residential land use designations surrounding the 

proposed rail alignments in Las Vegas. These residential land use designations include 

the Rural Preservation Neighborhood noted in the comment. These rural residential 

land use designations would be located farther than one mile from the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment and would not be considered to experience any adverse 

effects related to land use conflicts, noise, air quality, or visual resources. 

S-248 Land Use Misiura, Walter 

and Charlotte

Re: New alternate route segment 2b: Despite what the consultant (your speaker) said, 

the route runs right across the southern end of our property a) blocking the actual 

entrance and b) affecting the market value of our property. 

Please note that Segment 2B is not part of the Preferred Alternative, discussed at 

further length in Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative. In the Barstow area, 

Segment 2C, within the I-15 freeway ROW, is part of the Preferred Alternative. The 

impacts described by the commenter are not associated with Segment 2C. 

S-249 Noise EPA Commit to mitigation of all adverse noise effects, through the mitigation measures 

listed in the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Mitigation measures for noise impacts have been identified in the Final EIS Section 

3.12.3 based on the FRA guidance to eliminate all noise impacts due to the proposed 

project. The Record of Decision will incorporate all mitigation measures from the Final 

EIS, making them conditions of project approval and thus conditions of the various 

federal permits and licenses needed to construct and operate the Preferred Alternative. 

S-250 Noise EPA Consider relative noise impacts in choosing between the "side running" or "median" 

options for Segment 2C.

Comment regarding the consideration of noise impacts is noted. While the median 

alignment was identified in Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, 

as an environmentally preferable alternative, numerous technical and operational factors 

led the Federal cooperating agencies to identify side-running segments as the Preferred 

Alternative rail alignment. Segment 2C that has been included in the Preferred 

Alternative would run along the side of the I-15 freeway through central Barstow with the 

existing I-15 freeway. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a discussion regarding 

the selection of Segment 2C as part of the Preferred Alternative. The project would 

include appropriate noise mitigation (in the form of sound barriers) to reduce noise 

impacts on adjacent residences and sensitive land uses. Please see Final EIS Figure F3.12-1 in this Final EIS for the noise mitigation locations along Segment 2C. Final EIS 

Table F-3.12-4 summarizes the comparison of the noise and vibration effects for the No 

Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives, highlighting the components of the 

Preferred Alternative.

March 2011 4-123 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-253 Noise Richter, Doug I live within 1000 feet of the proposed alignment in Enterprise Township (Las Vegas). I 

am very concerned about noise.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where an impact is projected, mitigation measures have been recommended 

to eliminate all noise impacts due to the proposed project. Please see Mitigation 

Measures NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. At a distance of 1,000 feet, 

there would be no impact from project noise. 

S-254 Noise and Vibration Chavez, Remijio 

A.

(Re Segment 2C) Even in the median, we suspect that the noise and vibration would 

further erode our quality of life, lead to accelerate deterioration of our late 1950's built 

homes and further reduce 2 our property values!

The noise impact assessment takes into account the existing noise levels and the 

change in noise levels due to the proposed project. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 

3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 for a discussion regarding the method of 

evaluation for the project's noise impacts. In locations with high existing noise levels, 

less project noise is allowed under FRA guidance. At all locations with noise impact, 

mitigation measures have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts due to the 

proposed project. See Mitigation Measures NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 

3.12.3. Final EIS Section 3.12.2.3 and Section 3.12.3 demonstrates that there are no 

substantial vibration impacts along the Preferred Alternative.

S-255 Noise and Vibration City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS simply states that "if feasible, most effective location for 

the noise barriers would be on the elevated structure" of Segment 2C, except where 

the segment would be at-grade, at which points "noise barriers should be located on 

the wayside of the rail alignment where feasible." The Supplemental Draft EIS conducts 

no analysis of whether such mitigation actually would be feasible in the areas in which it 

is needed to reduce or avoid significant noise impacts. [...] It is not clear that this 

assumption about the effectiveness of a 4-foot barrier is justified in fact, particularly 

since the Supplemental Draft EIS does not disclose anticipated noise levels after 

implementation of recommended mitigation. The Supplemental Draft EIS should be 

revised to explain, based on substantial evidence, its conclusions regarding the 

effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the significant noise impacts of 

Segment 2C, and other project features discussed in the EIS.

Final EIS Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration, discusses noise and vibration conditions 

and potential impacts from the Preferred Alternative, which includes Segment 2C. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Appendix S-D provides a detailed noise and vibration evaluation 

for the Segment 2C alignment options. Mitigation measures for reducing noise impacts 

are discussed in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. Final EIS Section 3.12.4 discusses "Residual 

Impacts Following Mitigation." Specifically, with regard to Segment 2C, noise impacts 

would be fully mitigated with implementation of noise barriers. Technical information 

concerning noise impacts and mitigation for Segment 2C are presented in Supplemental 

Draft EIS Appendix S-D at pages S-D-1 through S-D-34. Mitigation measures utilize 

proven noise-reduction materials that are described in Final EIS Section 3.12.3.

S-256 Noise and Vibration Dieleman, 

Crystal

Building an elevated steel-on-steel guideway might be fine in the middle of the desert 

where no one will notice the loud noise, but to build that near neighborhoods and in 

front of local businesses who depend on that freeway visibility is an absolute outrage.

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.5 notes that with the inclusion of noise barriers, all 

noise impacts associated with Segment 6B would be reduced to a less than significant 

level (in other words, noise levels would be beneath the levels set forth by FRA as 

resulting in a noise impact). Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options 

have been assessed using FRA's published guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 

3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 for a discussion regarding the method of 

evaluation for the project's noise impacts. The visual environment of the I-15 freeway 

through Las Vegas, particularly north of I-215, is highly disturbed with numerous 

buildings, signs, and other attractions competing for visual attention. The addition of an 

elevated section of railroad in this environment would not constitute a substantial 

adverse visual impact. 

March 2011 4-124 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-257 Noise and Vibration Doulton, R. The proposed route with 228 passing noisy steel on steel trains will all but wipe out the 

business for five hotels located at Dean Martin and Russell ( Marriott, Fairfield, 

Courtyard, Residence Inn and Staybridge).

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.5 notes that with the inclusion of noise barriers, all 

noise impacts associated with Segment 6B would be reduced to a less than significant 

level (in other words, noise levels would be beneath the levels set forth by FRA as 

resulting in a noise impact). Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options 

have been assessed using FRA's published guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 

3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 for a discussion regarding the method of 

evaluation for the project's noise impacts. The visual environment of the I-15 freeway 

through Las Vegas, particularly north of I-215, is highly disturbed with numerous 

buildings, signs, and other attractions competing for visual attention. The addition of an 

elevated section of railroad in this environment would not constitute a substantial 

adverse visual impact. 

S-258 Noise and Vibration Krogh, Didrik I live on the corner of West Warm Springs and Polaris, one block west of Dean Martin 

and have several concerns. I am a residential appraiser and the noise from this rapidly 

traveling steel on steel will certainly have an adverse impact on residential properties in 

my area.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. Noise mitigation on elevated structures 

is typically very effective due to the close proximity of the barrier to the source of the 

noise. Please see Final EIS Figure F-3.12-2 for noise mitigation locations along the 

Preferred Alternative Segment 6B. 

S-259 Noise and Vibration Kubacki, Joseph Owning property near a train even elevated where the noise will have the ability to 

travel due to no buildings blocking the sound makes matters worse.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. 

S-260 Noise and Vibration Makar, Steve If that's not bad enough they plan to place this noisy thing right next to my 

neighborhood. The route includes "Dean Martin Drive right of way at Blue Diamond" a 

rural preservation residential zoning

This Final EIS includes revised Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-3.1-9 and S-3.1-10, 

included as Final EIS Figures F-3.1-4 and F-3.1-5 in this Final EIS, to clarify the location 

of the proposed rail alignments relative to areas designated by Clark County as "Rural 

Preservation." While these figures have been updated accordingly, there is no change 

in any environmental effect. The proposed rail alignment will run alongside I-15, which 

contributes substantial noise to the existing environment. 

S-261 Noise and Vibration Stimson, David 

A.

First, we do not believe the results and assumptions made with respect to noise and 

vibrations. When I-15 was expanded from 4 lanes to 6, noise levels increased. Even 

with the construction of a sound barrier, the noise levels are still high. Whether the train 

is elevated or not, noise will be increased. 

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3. Noise mitigation on elevated structures 

is typically very effective due to the close proximity of the barrier to the source of the 

noise (see Mitigation Measure NV-1). 

March 2011 4-125 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-262 Noise and Vibration Stimson, David 

A.

Second, there will be vibrations during construction and during operations. Based on 

our experience with the freeway expansion, the vibrations will be noticeable. Vibrations 

may decrease overtime as the ground settles, much in the same way it did with the 

freeway, however, just because we may no longer physically feel it, that doesn‟t mean 

the slab, driveway, etc. won‟t be affected. Pile driving activities in connection with 

constructing the elevated portion of this project will also impact our home.

A vibration analysis for both operations and construction has been conducted in Draft 

EIS Section 3.12.6.2 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.12.3. Vibration from 

operations, while potentially feasible, would be well below the thresholds for even minor 

damage. In locations with elevated structures, the vibration levels from operations 

would be even lower than at grade. If piling does need to occur, limits can be placed on 

pile driving to avoid any adverse effects. These and other construction period noise and 

vibration mitigation measures are included in Draft EIS Section 3.12.7.3. Final EIS 

Section 3.12.3 states that the Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse vibration 

effects and no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures NV-5 through NV-9 

identified in Draft EIS Section 3.12.7.2 would not be required for the Preferred 

Alternative.

S-263 Noise and Vibration Stimson, David 

A.

Fifth, we really do not want to sit on our porch and watch high speed trains go whizzing 

by. Proposed mitigation measures (windows, doors, insulation) is probably not sufficient 

for homes next to I-15 between Barstow Road and the Stater Brothers Shopping 

Center.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3.

S-264 Noise and Vibration Ziska, Alinka 

Woyton

I'm not certain of how loud the Desert Xpress train is supposed to be but I know that 

European train sound exactly like old freight trains except that they

are a bit louder. I would hope that there is some sort of authority that will be able to step 

in and slow these trains down as they pass through any

environmentally sensitive land along the route and that they would also be slowed 

down when passing through any city center or towns along the way.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3.The types of trains proposed by the 

project are significantly quieter than freight trains. They are also much shorter than 

freight trains, and the noise events will not last as long as freight trains. The speed of the 

trains on the project was incorporated into the impact assessment at all locations.

S-265 Noise and Vibration; 

General - Project 

Attributes

NDOT The use of impact pile driving (page 3.12-29) is unlikely in the hard soil areas. Typically 

drilled shaft foundations are used. NDOT will need to review/approve the geotechnical 

data in the areas where there are joint operations or where column footings lie within 

NDOT right-of-way and the footings have the potential to impact highway facilities. 

There is concern in the area where DXE is crossing/spanning the highway near the 

proposed Ivanpah Airport and in the urbanized areas (some areas here are already 

paved from right-of-way to right-of-way).

The design-build process for the DesertXpress project will determine the appropriate pile 

construction methodologies based on the most currently available local geotechnical 

data. FRA, FHWA, and the State DOTs have jointly prepared a Highway Interface 

Manual that sets forth a framework for how the project will be safely constructed, 

operated, and maintained within existing freeway ROW areas and that will allow for 

greater compatibility between the Preferred Alternative and planned and programmed 

improvements to the I-15 corridor. Final EIS Appendix F-B includes the manual, which 

is further discussed at Final EIS Section 3.5.1. 

S-266 Noise and Vibration; 

Visual Resources

Conway, Robert 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

[...] I haven't heard any comments in regards to just how much noise this thing makes 

when it comes through at 150.

Noise impacts along the project alternatives and options have been assessed using 

FRA guidance. Please refer to Draft EIS Section 3.12.4 and Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 

for a discussion regarding the method of evaluation for the project's noise impacts. At 

locations where impact is expected as the result of the project, mitigation measures 

have been recommended to eliminate all noise impacts. Please see Mitigation Measures 

NV-1 through NV-4 in Final EIS Section 3.12.3.

S-267 Noise and Vibration; 

Visual Resources

Zannis, Mark First of all, we would like to know how you have calculated visual and noise impacts for 

those properties that are going to be running or where this track is going to be running 

along those private properties. We would like to know what studies have been 

conducted on noise and visual impact.

The approach to visual impact analysis is discussed in Final EIS Section 3.6.2.1 and 

Draft EIS Section 3.6.3. For the noise and vibration study methodology, please see 

Final EIS Section 3.12.2.1 and Draft EIS Section 3.12.4. 

March 2011 4-126 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-268 Purpose and Need Atilano, Lucy 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

On that same theme, stop interfering with the State-sponsored Maglev project. Release 

the money that is owed to our state immediately! You have received letters from our 

elected Attorney General and our Governor, former Governors Guinn and Miller before 

him and by the Nevada Legislature, not to mention Caltrans, Anaheim, Orange County, 

San Bernardino County, Ontario and Barstow Follow the law and release the 

SAFETEALU funds so that Maglev can continue to deploy. I believe that what FRA is 

doing by interfering with a State-sponsored project that has the full support of Congress 

and the voters is wrong.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-269 Purpose and Need Chavez, Remijio 

A.

...we have real doubts on the validity of the "purpose and need" for this project. As 

written, its weak to say the least. Who the hell would drive all the way from the LA 

basin, park their car at the Victorville Station, spend an hour on the train and get to Las 

Vegas with no way of getting around. Most folks on the west coast haven't fully 

embraced mass transit yet. Look at mass transit statistics from LA and you will discover 

that the vast majority of people taking mass transit are low income, inner-city dwellers. 

So, using mass transit in Vegas won't be to popular. Unless this train starts from the LA 

basin I strongly suspect ridership would be much lower than stated in the document. 

The technical reports evaluating ridership and connectivity to existing transportation 

facilities explained the selection and viability of the Victorville terminus. For example, the 

Cambridge Systematics report states that "the location of the Victorville terminal would 

be passed by virtually every auto traveler going between Southern California and Las 

Vegas." Ridership Forecast Review at 5 (Feb. 2008). Similarly, the report prepared by 

Steer Davies Gleave provides: "The DesertXpress High Speed Train is to run from 

Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV. Victorville is 80 miles northeast of downtown Los 

Angeles and located on the existing I-15 highway running between LA and Las Vegas. 

All drivers travelling from Southern California to Las Vegas must pass Victorville" 

DesertXpress Ridership & Audit Ridership & Revenue Audit Technical Memorandum: 

FRA Summary at 2 (Sept. 2007). he independently reviewed ridership study is included 

as Final EIS Appendix F-D. Please also see response to comment S-17 above. 

S-270 Purpose and Need Chavez, Remijio 

A.

Overall, we believe that this project is not the right project to relieve I-15 car traffic, 

benefit air quality or affect air traffic from the LA Basin to Las Vegas. These notions are 

poorly supported in the Supplemental Draft EIS! The direct, negative impacts to the 

economy of Barstow and the potential negative impacts to Mr. Love and I are much 

more apparent. We both believe that some form of mass transit is needed to connect 

the LA Basin to Las Vegas for future growth just not this project as currently proposed. 

We are opposed to the Desert Express Project for the reasons stated above. 

The comment is noted. The analysis in the Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and this 

Final EIS document establishes that the DesertXpress project would have several 

beneficial effects related to freeway congestion and air quality. Adverse effects of the 

project are also extensively described in specific chapters. These are summarized in the 

Final EIS Executive Summary, which contains references to specific impact discussions 

elsewhere in the Final EIS. Please also see response to comment S-200 regarding 

potential economic impacts to the City of Barstow. 

S-271 Purpose and Need City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

This statement of purpose and need is drafted very narrowly to meet specific private 

objectives of the project applicant, independent of the Federal Railroad Administration's 

("FRA's") objectives. By focusing on the "privately financed" aspect of the proposed 

project - an element which has absolutely no environmental implications - the EIS 

excludes any comparison of the project with any alternative that is not privately 

financed by the applicant, include an existing, detailed proposal for a similar project 

being pursued by the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission that would 

employ a magnetic levitation ("maglev") train between Anaheim, CA and Las Vegas, 

NV. 

Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, describes the objectives of the DesertXpress 

project which is to improve safety along the I-15 corridor and address the worsening 

congestion of existing transportation modes between southern California and Nevada by 

developing a dedicated passenger rail system using proven rail technology. In addition, 

please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, for an updated discussion of the CaliforniaNevada Interstate Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project 

NEPA process. 

S-272 Purpose and Need City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

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

the proposed project -- the maglev project. With the single exception that the maglev 

project would not be "privately financed" (a quality which is entirely unrelated to 

environmental impacts), the maglev project would plainly fulfill the purpose and need 

stated in the DesertXpress EIS.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

S-273 Purpose and Need CCDOA CCDOA owns and operates a system of airports which, collectively, accommodates the 

commercial service, general aviation, sport aviation, and air cargo demands within 

Southern Nevada. For that reason, it is incorrect to refer to the SNSA as a "secondary" 

airport, as the Supplemental Draft EIS does on p. 1-3. Instead, the Supplemental Draft 

EIS should clarify that the SNSA will serve as a supplemental commercial service 

airport.

The Final EIS will reflect this requested change in language. No physical environmental 

impact is implicated in making this change. Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.16.2.2 of 

this Final EIS for a clarification regarding the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport 

(SNSA). 

March 2011 4-127 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-275 Purpose and Need Manas, Joe I really hope this Desert Xpress train is not truly going to be built using public land. The 

mainstream media keeps reporting that the Desert Xpress is a privately funded train. 

[...]

The Applicant remains a private entity (DesertXpress Enterprises LLC). As described in 

Final EIS Section 1.5.1 DesertXpress Enterprises LLC may become eligible to for apply 

for financing from the federal government through a federal loan program, the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. 

S-277 Safety NDOT The Supplemental Draft EIS notes changes to 6B, and adds 4C (which is outside the I15 ROW). Safety analysis is ongoing and there still may be additional alignment 

adjustments. The Safety data will show if we have any site specific safety problems 

within the ROW.

FRA, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT) has conducted additional safety analysis of the Preferred Alternative. The 

results of the analysis are summarized in Final EIS Section 3.5.2.3. 

S-278 Safety NDOT The Final EIS shall include a detailed description of the traffic/safety impacts of the 

DXE to the downstream and upstream interchanges and overpasses due to the termini 

Rail Passenger Station.

FRA, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT) has conducted additional safety analysis of the Preferred Alternative. The 

results of the analysis are summarized in Final EIS Section 3.5.2.3. 

S-279 Section 4(f) CALTRANS Regarding Table S-3.7-1: “Additional Archaeological Resources at Project 

Modifications and Additions”, Section 3.15-4 Cultural Resources appears to indicate 

that there are two cultural resources that are potential Section 4(f) resources. However, 

there are numerous archaeological resources listed in Table S-3.7-1 that are assumed 

eligible/eligible that may also be potential Section 4(f) resources (see CA-SBR-7694H 

as an example). Why is there no Section 4(f) Evaluation in the Draft Supplemental 

EIS?

Supplemental EIS Section 3.15, Section 4(f) Evaluation, provided an analysis of 

potential Section 4(f) uses for the project modifications and additions examined in that 

document. The Final EIS includes a substantially updated and Final Section 4(f) 

evaluation in Final EIS Section 3.15, Final Section 4() Evaluation. This Final Section 4(f) 

Evaluation describes FRA's resource identification process and includes documentation 

of further consultation, coordination, and site record preparation.

S-280 Section 4(f) Gonzalez, Juan Environmentalists have certainly met their match in the Desert Xpress. Their leaders 

that they helped elect are standing by and watching the Mojave Desert Preserve being 

destroyed by this ill-advised transit option.

The proposed DesertXpress alignment is within a designated transportation corridor 

along the I-15 highway. Only Segment 4A would traverse the Preserve, for a distance of 

about 1.55 miles. Segment 4C was proposed and evaluated in the Supplemental Draft 

EIS as an alternative to avoid the impacts of Segment 4A. Segment 4C would not cross 

the Preserve. (See page 2-5 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.) If an Action Alternative is 

selected, the DesertXpress project will be required to comply with applicable laws. The 

No Action Alternative could also have impacts to the Preserve from highway congestion 

or the need to widen existing highway to accommodate increasing traffic volumes on the 

I-15 freeway.

S-281 Section 4(f) Loffelmacher, 

Maria

The Desert Xpress not only wants to interfere with a valuable right of way along the I-15 

corridor that could be used for something useful, they want to destroy the integrity of 

the Mojave Preserve. [...] If you can destroy this type of preserve with a train running 

with overhead wires, its noise, it's destruction of the habitat for an industrial purpose, 

you can build anything on that land.

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, which describes the 

components of the Preferred Alternative. Segment 4A is not identified as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. Please note, however, Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative, which identifies Segment 4A as the environmentally preferable 

alternative, insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation impacts associated with 

Segment 4C. Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, also 

establishes that Segment 4A is environmentally preferable in its shorter length and 

relatively close adherence to the I-15 and/or Nipton Road corridors. Notwithstanding, 

Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, notes that FRA and 

Cooperating Agencies could not choose Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as 

there is presently no mechanism in place for the National Park Service to grant such a 

ROW through the Mojave National Preserve. 

March 2011 4-128 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-282 Section 4(f) National Parks 

Conservation 

Association

Avoid incursion into Mojave National Preserve. Protected in perpetuity through the 

1994 California Desert Protection Act, Mojave National Preserve is a treasured part of 

the California Desert. Any incursion into this protected National Parkland should be 

avoided

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, which describes the 

components of the Preferred Alternative. Segment 4A is not identified as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. Please note, however, Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative, which identifies Segment 4A as the environmentally preferable 

alternative, insofar as it would avoid some habitat fragmentation impacts associated with 

Segment 4C. Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, also 

establishes that Segment 4A is environmentally preferable in its shorter length and 

relatively close adherence to the I-15 and/or Nipton Road corridors. Notwithstanding, 

Final EIS Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, notes that FRA and 

Cooperating Agencies could not choose Segment 4A as the Preferred Alternative as 

there is presently no mechanism in place for the National Park Service to grant such a 

ROW through the Mojave National Preserve. 

S-283 Section 4(f), Cultural San Manuel 

Band of Mission 

Indians

[At Halloran Springs site ] an alternative with a route other than proposed in 3A or 3B 

should be developed. This route could be on the south I-15 corridor or some other 

route taking the train line further away from the site. The current proposed 3A and 3B 

alternatives will significantly impact the Halloran site. 3B will come within 50 feet. There 

may very well be unacceptable noise and vibration that may physically damage the site 

and/or unduly disturb the sanctity of the site.

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, which describes a shift in the 

Segment 3B alignment in this area - which would relocate the rail alignment from the 

north side to the south side of the I-15 corridor avoiding the resource described by the 

commenter.

S-284 Section 4(f), Cultural San Manuel 

Band of Mission 

Indians

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians believes that the Halloran site should be 

evaluated under the National Historic Preservation Act section 106 process and the 

Dept of Transportation Act section 4{f) criteria. prior to the selection of an alternative. 

The Halloran complex of sites should be evaluated as a traditional cultural property and 

landscape. Such an evaluation would provide more information about the site on a 

spiritual and landscape level. It is impossible to meaningfully comment on the effects of 

alternatives on the site unless the extent of the site as a traditional cultural property is 

known.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.15, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, which is the Final 

Section 4(f) evaluation for the project. This analysis identifies the cited resource as a 

Section 4(f) resource, but identifies an avoidance alternative that would reduce adverse 

effects to the resource and thus would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the site. BLM 

has advised FRA that the resource in question does not meet federal criteria to be 

evaluated as a traditional cultural property. Therefore, analysis of landscape-level effects 

is not required. 

S-285 Section 4(f), Cultural San Manuel 

Band of Mission 

Indians

In regard to the Cronese site also in segment 3, the San Manuel Band of Indians 

believes that this complex should also be evaluated under the NHPA section 106 

process and section 4(f) as a traditional cultural property prior to the selection of an 

alternative. Such an evaluation would provide more information about the site on a 

landscape level and assist with selection of alternatives and mitigation to minimize 

impacts. The alternative A, median alignment may offer the least impact on cultural 

resources. 

Please see Final EIS Section 3.15, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, which is the Final 

Section 4(f) evaluation for the project. The Cronese site noted by the commenter was 

not identified as a potential Section 4(f) resource. Nor is the site understood to meet the 

federal criteria to evaluated as a traditional cultural property. Therefore, landscape level 

analysis is not required. 

March 2011 4-129 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-286 Section 4(f), Cultural 

Resources

Soboba Band of 

Luiseno Indians

Additional Section 106 Consultation Is Necessary to Comply with Section 4(f) 

The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS both state that a final Section 4(f) evaluation 

will be completed prior to the Final EIS. Yet, the Programmatic Agreement delays the 

consultation and phased identification of sites until the Final EIS is finished and the 

project has been approved. Thus, the Final EIS and ROD will be issued without 

identifying all sites. This is not in accordance with the Section 4(f) mandate, because 

the Section 4(f) evaluation cannot be completed until the Section 106 process is 

completed. The agencies must complete the Section 106 process in consultation with 

tribes that attach cultural and religious significance to the properties. The agencies 

need to provide notice of particular sites, locations and supply the findings in reports to 

consulting tribes as needed. The additional consultation and review of findings is 

necessary to determine whether the sites are eligible for the NRHP and what steps 

need to be taken to resolve potential adverse effects as required by Section 4(f). 

Final EIS Section 3.15.4.5 describes the methodology employed to determine if any of 

the archaeological resources in the APE had the potential to be Section 4(f) resources. 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) was developed for the project in consultation with the 

BLM, STB, and SHPOs of California and Nevada. Both “Direct” and “Indirect” APEs 

were developed for the DesertXpress project. The Indirect APE was defined as the area 

200 feet on either side of the centerline of the proposed rail alignment (400 feet in total 

width). The Indirect APE was also defined as 50 feet from the centerline of the center of 

a proposed utility corridor (100 feet in total width). The Direct APE is defined as the 

actual width of the finished rail alignment (inclusive of tracks, maintenance/access 

areas, catenary structures, equipment and other infrastructure). This width is typically 60 

feet, narrowing to 40 feet in several locations, where the maintenance road is omitted to 

ensure highway safety or avoid sensitive resources. For both the direct and indirect 

APE, a records search of both prehistoric and historic resource files was conducted. In 

order to achieve a comprehensive resource identification process, FRA engaged thirdparty contractor archaeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior‟s Professional 

Qualification Standards to carry out pedestrian surveys. These archaeologists 

consulted with the BLM to develop pedestrian survey criteria for the project. These 

criteria stipulated that the pedestrian surveys of the APE be conducted for those areas 

outside the I-15 freeway right-of-way fence, which were determined to have the greatest 

potential for previously unidentified resources. The freeway right-of-way was determined 

to be previously disturbed and therefore unlikely to contain unidentified Section 4(f) 

resources with integrity. FRA‟s third-party archaeologists made preliminary 

assessments of the eligibility of the resource identified within the APE for the National 

Register. After completing the identification process, and consistent with the 

requirements of Section 4(f), FRA concluded that one archaeological resource in the 

APE qualified as a Section 4(f) resource. Accordingly, FRA worked with the Cooperating 

Agencies and identified an avoidance alternative that moved the rail alignment away 

from the resource to the south side of the I-15 freeway so that the identified resource 

was no longer within the area of potential affect for the project thus avoiding a Section 

4(f) use of that resource. 

S-287 Section 4(f), Visual 

Resources

Sierra Club - 

CNRCC Desert 

Committee

As proposed, [Segment 4c] will definitely and negatively change the experience for 

visitors to the Clark Mountain unit of the Mojave National Preserve. DesertXpress will 

create a wall across what is now a spectacular view east from Clark Mountain.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.6, Visual Resources, which includes Figure F-3.6-7 

depicting a visual simulation of the DesertXpress project along with the approved and 

under construction ISEGS Bright source solar energy project. The projects individually 

and collectively will alter the viewshed to the east from Clark Mountain. Final EIS Section 

3.6.2.4 also provides a comparative assessment of the visual effects of the different 

Action Alternatives, including a comparison with Segment 4A. Mitigation Measure VIS-1, 

included in Final EIS Section 3.6.3, requires rail features of the Preferred Alternative to 

blend in with or represent the surrounding environment. 

S-288 Section 4(f); Land 

Use

Condon, Jill L. I am extremely concerned about the industrial look that this will create through or close 

to the Mojave National Preserve. I thought that when this area was set aside under the 

Clinton administration, that it would be protected from exactly this type of development. 

[...] I know the environment will suffer, the animals will suffer and that this preserve 

status will mean nothing when the integrity of a national preserve is balanced against 

the profit potential of billionaires behind this train.

Segment 4C, part of the Preferred Alternative rail alignment, is located outside of the 

Mojave National Preserve. Please refer to Final EIS Section 2.4.1 for a discussion 

relating to the selection of Segment 4C as part of the Preferred Alternative. Various 

sections of the EIS (including but not limited to visual resources, biological resources, 

farmlands/grazing lands, and others) analyze potential impacts to resources on and/or 

near the Mojave National Preserve. See Final EIS Section 3.1, Land Use; 3.3, 

Farmlands and Grazing Lands; 3.6, Visual Resources; 3.14, Biological Resources; and 

3.15, Final Section (4f) Evaluation, for a discussion analyzing potential impacts on the 

Mojave National Preserve. Portions of the Preserve are managed as wildlife areas, 

while other portions allow multiple uses, including grazing and mining.

March 2011 4-130 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-289 Traffic and 

Transportation

Brown, Charles [...] there is a lot of traffic congestion between Las Vegas and Primm and on in to 

California. Unfortunately, the residents of Jean suffer the most headaches from that on 

a holiday weekend or event happening here in Vegas. Anything that will impact I-15 

down there getting on, getting off will hurt us going into Jean because it is one way in, 

one way out.

As documented in Final EIS Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation, the project would 

result in diverting some traffic from the I-15 freeway and reducing congestion. The 

project as planned would not impact how cars and truck get on and off the freeway in 

Primm or Jean.

S-290 Traffic and 

Transportation

Silva, Tim (City of 

Barstow Council 

Member)

You mention about safe travel and then you mention going through the power line 

corridor. Will there ever be a tower failure within that corridor? Would it be outside the 

distance of a failure? That doesn't sound like safe travel to me.

As further described in Final EIS Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, various 

power lines traverse the project area between California and Nevada. These lines 

frequently overcross the I-15 freeway and are not seen as posing a substantial safety 

hazard in doing so.

S-291 Traffic and 

Transportation

Silva, Tim (City of 

Barstow Council 

Member)

You talk about this is to release congestion on the I-15. [...] Actually, the worse 

congestion is south of Victorville. That is not going to be solved by this project. 

As set forth in Final EIS Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, the intent of the project is to 

provide a safe and reliable alternative to freeway travel between southern California and 

Las Vegas. Please see the response to comment S-135 for further information on why 

FRA believes there is a rational basis for the selection of Victorville as the southern 

California terminal site. Please also see the response to Draft EIS comment 405. 

S-292 Traffic/ 

Transportation

Atilano, Lucy 

(Ironworkers 

Local 433)

DesertXpress will not help with traffic congestion. It is to be located in the "bottle neck" 

of the Cajon Pass where traffic often stretches 30 miles without letting up. The 

infrastructure in the small towns along the way cannot handle the extra influx of cars 

driving into Victorville. 

Please see response to comment S-291.

S-293 Traffic/ 

Transportation

CALTRANS Section 3.5: The mitigation measures (2013) recommend signalizing the ramp 

intersections. However, fig 3-5.3-3 does not depict the traffic control. Please clarify.

Intersection geometry figures in Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5, Traffic and 

Transportation, presents the „unmitigated‟ configuration. Supplemental Draft EIS Figure 

S-3.5-3 illustrates the 2013 „unmitigated‟ lane geometry. Mitigations are not illustrated in 

any of the figures but only listed in Supplemental Draft EIS Tables S-3.5-7 and S-3.5-8. 

Mitigation measures are normally not depicted graphically in an EIS. 

S-294 Traffic/ 

Transportation

CALTRANS Table S-3.5-8: Mitigation (2013) includes dual left turn lanes on the NB off-ramp. 

However, no corresponding through lanes is identified to accept this traffic. Please 

rectify – refer to Figure S-3.5-3, for the missing, omitted diagrams.

As discussed in response to comment S-293, Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-3.5-3 

illustrates the 2013 „unmitigated‟ lane geometry. It does not reflect the mitigation 

measures proposed in Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-3.5-8.

S-295 Traffic/ 

Transportation

City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS is entirely lacking in evidentiary support for its conclusion 

that the identified potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts will be 

mitigated by the measures discussed in the document. The courts have held that a 

discussion of mitigation in an EIS is not complete without an analysis of whether 

recommended mitigation measures will, in fact, be adopted. [...] For this reason, and 

until the Supplemental Draft EIS can provide assurance, based in substantial evidence, 

that the needed mitigation measures will successfully be implemented, the 

Supplemental Draft EIS must conclude that the potentially significant traffic and 

transportation impacts will remain significant and unavoidable in light of the uncertainty 

surrounding mitigation.

Mitigation of potential impacts to traffic and transportation is discussed in detail in Draft 

EIS Section 3.5.5 and Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5.4. Mitigation is also discussed 

more generally Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.5, Traffic and 

Transportation. The Traffic Impact Study and Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis, 

Final EIS Appendix F-G, provide the data and analysis informing the discussion of 

impacts and associated mitigation presented in those sections. Data on the 

effectiveness of mitigation is presented and analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis and 

the Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis. As provided in Draft EIS Section 3.5.5 and 

Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5.4, this data and analysis show that mitigation 

measures would improve the level of service (LOS) to acceptable conditions at all study 

intersections, except for the two Stoddard Wells Road Intersections which, due to 

cumulative growth in the region, would be at unacceptable levels of service by 2030 

whether or not the proposed project is built. Adverse cumulative effects to these 

intersections cannot be feasible.

S-296 Traffic/ 

Transportation

CCDOA CCDOA recently met with Marnell Enterprises, the design engineer for the 

DesertXpress project, at which meeting Marnell provided updated drawings of 

alignment 4C that depict a slightly different alignment near the SNSA Southern 

Interchange, which would not conflict with the Interchange. See Exhibit 3 (Alignment 

4C, Revision C). Assuming the information CCDOA received from Marnell is correct, 

CCDOA recommends that FRA update the EIS with the correct alignment information. 

However, CCDOA reiterates its comment that alignment 5B in the Draft EIS and the 

alignment 4C depicted in the Supplemental Draft EIS would conflict with the SNSA 

Southern Interchange.

FRA reviewed the proposal from DesertXpress to shift the transition point between 

Segment 4C and 5B, as requested by CCDOA. This shift was achievable within the 

Area of Potential Effect for the project and did not alter any conclusions about the 

environmental effects of either segment. Accordingly, Final EIS Appendix F-C (Plan and 

Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative) reflects this change. 

March 2011 4-131 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-298 Traffic/ 

Transportation

NDOT The alternative presented considers I-15 "as is" today south of I-215, and does not 

clearly consider the I-15 South design-build project from I-215 to Blue Diamond, which 

is part of the I-15 South NEPA document (EA/FONSI), and other feasible and 

foreseeable projects as presented in the 2030 RTP. 

The cumulative impacts analysis in Final EIS Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, account 

for the I-15 South Design-Build project from I-215 to Blue Diamond. This project is part 

of the I-15 South NEPA document (EA/FONSI). Other relevant feasible and foreseeable 

projects presented in the 2030 RTP are discussed and considered in Final EIS, Section 

3.16, Cumulative Impacts. 

S-299 Traffic/ 

Transportation

NDOT Draft EIS Section 3.5.3.2 does not list I-15 mainline section from I-215 to termini station 

location. Nor is it listed in the Supplement.

Draft EIS Section 3.5.3.2, as well as Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.5, Traffic and 

Transportation, have been updated in Final EIS Section 3.5.1 to list and consider the I15 mainline section from I-215 to termini station location. See Final EIS Section 3.5.2.3 

and Figure F-3.5-3.

S-300 Traffic/ 

Transportation

NDOT In the Final EIS, Section 3.5.3.2 should add the model assumptions between Blue 

Diamond and Tropicana Design/Build for year 2012. It is not clear if models were 

updated.

The traffic and transportation impact methodology described in Draft EIS Section 3.5.2 

remains applicable to this Final EIS and the evaluation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Estimated traffic levels for the project were based on projections of expected ridership. 

These traffic levels were in turn added to existing and expected future traffic levels on 

freeway segment and at local intersections. 

S-301 Traffic/ 

Transportation

San Bernardino 

County 

Department of 

Public Works

Page 167: Two horizon years selected for traffic analysis (selected years 2013 and 

2030): 2013 was selected as train operations are expected to begin. Should this year 

for analysis be reconsidered? This date appears to have been retained from the earlier 

document without consideration of the procedural timeframes given this Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS, published in March 2009, anticipated an opening year of 2013. In order 

to provide an equal playing field for the evaluation of project modifications and additions, 

the 2013 opening year was retained in the Supplemental Draft EIS. Due to a longer 

than expected environmental review process, 2013 may or may not be the opening year 

for the project. FRA views this as an artifact of the process and does not believe that 

substantially different findings regarding traffic impacts would result if all traffic analysis 

was revised to assume an opening year of 2014 or 2015.

S-304 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

When grading activity affects the Transmission Line Access Roads, the developer shall 

replace the affected access roads using the LADWP's Access Road Design Criteria. 

See attached.

When grading activity resulting from the project affects Los Angeles Department of 

Water and Power (LADWP) transmission line access roads, the developer would work 

to replace the affected access roads according to LADWP's Access Road Design 

Criteria. Reference to these criteria have been included with this Final EIS. As shown in 

Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to "meet any 

design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development proposed on the 

physical facilities of the utility providers (i.e., access roads). These specifics from the 

commenter would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation 

Measures would be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-305 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Cathodic protection system, it any, shall have a design that does not cause corrosion 

to the IPA & LADWP facilities. A detailed design of the cathodic protection system shall 

be submitted for approval to the LADWP. 

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-306 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

No grading or structures shall be conducted within the IPA & LADWP Transmission 

Line Rights-of-Way without prior written approval of the Los Angeles Department of 

Water & Power. 

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-307 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

The LADWP prohibits drainage structures or the discharging of drainage onto the 

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way. Concentrated runoff can cause erosion especially to 

the transmission line tower footings.

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

March 2011 4-132 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-308 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

The developer shall compact all fill slopes within the IPA & LADWP Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way. The compaction shall comply with applicable Building Code 

requirements. 

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-309 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

No grading is allowed below the top of tower footing within the transmission line Rightsof-Way, in the immediate vicinity of the towers.As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-310 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Provide plans that illustrate the Intermountain Power Agency (IPA) and the Los 

Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) Transmission Line Rights-of-Way 

boundaries within the proposed DesertXpress Project improvements. Include towers 

and clearances from proposed improvements. 

Final EIS Appendix F-C (Plan and Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative) show all 

project improvements relative to existing adjacent structures and buildings, including all 

existing utility lines. These drawings show existing and planned grades.

S-311 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Conductor Clearances will be subject to the review and approval of the Transmission 

Engineering Group. The LADWP will need a copy of the conductor survey illustrating 

the cross sections showing our existing conductors and proposed improvements. See 

attached LADWP Conductor Survey Instructions. 

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-312 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Provide cross sections of existing and proposed improvements within & adjacent to the 

IPA & LADWP Transmission Line Rights-of-Way. 

Note: Cut & till slopes inside the IPA & LADWP Transmission Line Rights-of-Way 

steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical require retaining structures or geotechnical report 

approval.

Final EIS Appendix F-C (Plan and Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative) show all 

project improvements relative to existing adjacent structures and buildings, including all 

existing utility lines. These drawings show existing and planned grades.

S-313 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

Provide the location and elevations (heights) of all above and below ground structures. 

All ground elevations are to remain unchanged from existing conditions after proposed 

improvements associated with the DesertXpress Project are completed.

Note: Grading activity resulting in a vertical clearance between the ground and the 

transmission line conductor elevation less than thirty-five (35) feet within the IPA & 

LADWP Transmission Line Rights-of-Way are unacceptable. Ground cover for all 

below ground utilities shall not be less than four (4) feet.

Final EIS Appendix F-C (Plan and Profile Drawings of the Preferred Alternative) show all 

project improvements relative to existing adjacent structures and buildings, including all 

existing utility lines. These drawings show existing and finished grade. The exact 

placement of towers within the two utility corridors within the Preferred Alternative 

(Victorville and Baker) has not yet been determined. Final EIS Section 2.2.3.2 provides 

additional information about these corridors, including anticipated distance between 

proposed towers. 

S-314 Utilities Los Angeles 

Department of 

Water and Power

All construction activities shall adhere to the LADWP's Standard Conditions for 

Construction. See attached.

As shown in Final EIS Section 3.4.3, Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the Applicant to 

"meet any design requirements" set forth by utilities in terms of any development 

proposed for areas beneath electrical utility lines. These specifics from the commenter 

would be part of compliance with Mitigation Measure UTIL-8. Mitigation Measures would 

be incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-315 Utilities San Bernardino 

County 

Department of 

Public Works

Ensure the [Supplemental Draft EIS] addresses estimated wastes to be generated 

from construction as well as operation and the planned disposal method of said 

wastes.

Final EIS Section 3.4.2.3 addresses the potential effects related to solid waste 

generation from the operation and construction of the Preferred Alternative.

March 2011 4-133 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-316 Utilities Southern 

California Edison

In addition, the proposed project crosses into the project area for SCE's planned 

Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission project (EITP) currently in the licensing phase with the 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). [...] The maps in the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS and/or discussion and analysis need additional information in 

order to determine potential project impacts to the EITP. The Final Supplemental EIS 

(Final SEIS) should indicate the project's potential to impact the EITP for all Alternative 

Alignments being considered, including identifying areas of potential utility crossings 

and longitudinal interfaces. The Final SEIS should further indicate which of the 

Alternative Alignments has the least potential impact to the EITP and/or how potential 

impacts will be addressed and any proposed mitigation measures. 

The planned Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) would cross the 

DesertXpress project alignment in several locations. The EITP also crosses the I-15 

freeway in two locations. Such crossings between transportation infrastructure such as 

the DesertXpress project and I-15 freeway are not considered significant constraints. 

The crossings will require detailed design work to ensure all facilities can operate in a 

safe and efficient manner. FRA believes that these details can be worked out during the 

detail design phase for both projects after the Record of Decision and final approval of 

the EITP have occurred. This Final EIS clarifies the title for this project and considers it 

in the cumulative analysis of the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Section 

3.16.2.2. 

S-317 Utilities Vasseur, Robert 

A.

During construction, and obviously after this train route is completed, the population of 

the Victorville area will increase substantially, further deepening their parasitic effect on 

water supplies. This is essentially committing the populous and environmental 

infrastructure in our area to a very waterless future.

Please see Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS Sections 3.4, Utilities/Emergency 

Services, which evaluated water supply impacts of the project. Population growth 

projections for Victorville are assumed to be largely independent of the DesertXpress 

project, except for potential opportunities for transit-oriented development in the 

Victorville area. Please see Final EIS Section 3.16.3.3 for a discussion regarding the 

potential cumulative impacts on water supply in the Victorville area.

S-318 Utilities Warren, 

Elizabeth

Make certain you are not relying on any water coming out of the Colorado River as Las 

Vegas is discovering is a pretty uncertain supply.

Final EIS Section 3.4.2 includes an assessment of project water demand and sources of 

supply. 

S-319 Utilities Warren, 

Elizabeth

That aquifer in Ivanpah dry lake, there are two. 164 A and B have been overdrawn 

since at least 1970 and declared so by the state engineer. Where is the water to come 

from not just to build the project but in order to maintain the project wherever you are 

going to put your facilities?

Final EIS Section 3.4.2 includes an assessment of project water demand and sources of 

supply. 

S-320 Utilities/Energy Southern 

California Edison

Please note as indicated in our previous comment letters and reiterated here, the 

proposed project has the potential to impact critical electrical infrastructure including 

existing 115 and 220 kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission lines.

Based on the most current project plans for the Preferred Alternative, the Final EIS does 

not identify the need to impact or otherwise modify any of SCE's existing 115 and 220 

kV electrical transmission lines. Please see Final EIS Appendix F-C, which includes the 

revised Plan and Profile drawings for the Preferred Alternative. 

S-321 Utilities/Energy Southern 

California Edison

In order to ascertain specific impacts on the EITP to be included in the Final SEIS, SCE 

requests that DesertXpress provide additional information to SCE. This information 

would include GIS maps/data files and/or surveyed drawings, elevations and profile 

details of the proposed DesertXpress High-Speed Rail Alternative Alignments.

Final EIS Section 3.16.2 includes the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) in 

the list of related project considered in the cumulative analysis. Final EIS Section 3.16.3 

describes the cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative in combination with the 

related projects, including the EITP. Elevations and profile details have been included in 

the Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS and this Final EIS (see Final EIS Appendix F-C). 

During the design-build process for the DesertXpress project, the Applicant will 

coordinate with SCE to provide more detailed project information, including GIS maps 

and data files.

S-322 Utilities/Energy Southern 

California Edison

In order to determine electrical infrastructure necessary to support the proposed EMU 

Technology Alternative, the project proponent, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, must 

submit a signed Method of Service (MOS) agreement to SCE and pay engineering fees 

for an electrical service study to be completed. Infrastructure necessary to support this 

project is subject to the licensing and permitting authority of the CPUC.

The Applicant has not identified the electrical power source for the DesertXpress project. 

If SCE is determined to be the electrical power provider to the DesertXpress project, the 

Applicant will submit a signed Method of Service (MOS) agreement to SCE and pay 

appropriate engineering fees for an electrical service study to be completed. The 

DesertXpress project includes all necessary electrical infrastructure for project operation, 

including electrical transmission lines, substations, autotransformers.

March 2011 4-134 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-323 Utilities/Energy Southern 

California Edison

In our letter dated June 19, 2009, SCE requested clarification of the federal preemption 

of state requirements indicated in the Draft EIS. [...] SCE recommends the FRA 

contact the CPUC Energy Division to ensure an appropriate approach is being taken 

relative to the assumed federal preemption of CPUC jurisdictional authority to confirm 

applicable regulatory requirements. Please include in the Final SEIS a conclusive 

discussion of the assumed federal preemption authority and applicability of any CPUC 

and CEQA requirements relative to new electric infrastructure necessary to support the 

project and for any required utility relocations.

In a June 25, 2007 Decision (2007 Decision) in Finance Docket No. 34914, the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) issued a declaratory order in which it found that the 

DesertXpress Project would fall within the Board‟s exclusive jurisdiction over 

transportation by rail carriers and thus would receive federal preemption from most state 

and local laws under 49 U.S.C. Section 10501(b) if it were to seek the Board‟s authority 

under 49 U.S.C. Section 10901 to build and operate the new line. Thus, the project 

would not be subject to state and local environmental review, such as under the 

California Environmental Quality Act. The Board noted that the project would, however, 

be subject to Federal environmental laws, such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the 

Clean Water Act, as well as the regulation of railroad safety under the Federal Railroad 

Safety Act, and that state and local agencies and concerned citizens would have a full 

opportunity to participate in the federal environmental review process. The Board 

explained that the project would be expressly preempted from any state or local 

permitting requirements that, by their nature, could be used to deny or unreasonably 

delay the railroad‟s right to proceed with this rail transportation project. See City of 

Auburn v. STB, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998). Other state and local regulation would be 

preempted only if, as applied, it would have the effect of unreasonably burdening or 

interfering with transportation by a rail carrier. Moreover, as the Board explained, the 

Board‟s jurisdiction over the project would not completely preempt the exercise of states‟

police powers to ensure health and safety, such as fire and electric codes and 

inspections. The Board reaffirmed its 2007 Decision in a May 7, 2010 declaratory order 

responding to a petition filed by the California-Nevada Super High Speed Train 

Commission. Therefore, in response to an October 15, 2010 comment by the Southern 

California Edison Company (SCE) in response to the SDEIS, the jurisdiction of the 

California Public Utility Commission to regulate the existing electric infrastructure that 

may be impacted or require relocation as a result of the 

S-323, 

continued.

DesertXpress project, or new electric infrastructure that may be necessary to support 

the DesertXpress project, would depend on whether such regulation is preempted by 49 

U.S.C. Section 10501(b). If SCE wants guidance beyond the numerous court and 

Board decisions interpreting Section 10501(b), in various contexts, SCE may seek a 

determination on the scope of preemption with regard to the specific facts or 

circumstances of concern from a court of competent jurisdiction or by seeking a 

declaratory order from the Board.

S-324 Utilities; Emergency 

Services

NDOT If the adjustment or relocation of any existing utility or pipeline or any permitted 

encroachment is unavoidable, the DXE project shall be responsible for all costs to the 

utility facility.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 in Final EIS Section 3.4.3 has been revised to clarify that the 

Applicant shall be responsible for all such costs. Mitigation measures would be 

incorporated into the Record of Decision issued for the project. 

S-325 Utilities; Emergency 

Services 

City of Barstow 

(Meyers Nave) 

The Supplemental Draft EIS notes that the Barstow Fire Protection District has 

indicated that present staffing levels are insufficient to meet demands of the Segment 

2C routing option through the City, and that a new facility north of the Mojave River 

would be necessitated by this alternative. (Supplemental Draft EIS p. 3.4-16.) However, 

the Supplemental Draft EIS fails to provide any analysis, or even qualitative discussion, 

of the potential environmental impacts associated with construction or operation of this 

necessary new facility. The Supplemental Draft EIS must be revised to provide this 

analysis.

The Preferred Alternative rail alignment through the City of Barstow will be in far closer 

proximity to the BFPD's existing facilities at 861 Barstow Road and 2600 West Main 

Street. The former facility is located approximately 3,000 feet from the I-15 corridor; the 

latter is approximately 1.5 miles driving distance from the L Street/I-15 interchange. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 3.4.2.3 for a discussion regarding the Preferred 

Alternative's Segment 2C impacts on the BFPD. This more centrally located alignment 

would be more readily served by existing stations than Segment 2A/2B, which had been 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. Mitigation Measure UTIL-6, included in Final EIS Section 

3.4.3, would require the applicant to pay impact fees for the incremental additional needs 

for fire/emergency services and would still apply to the project. 

S-326 Utilities; Emergency 

Services 

NDOT The Utilities/Emergency Services section shows impacts to NHP and LV Metro police. 

We would expect more formal documentation in the Final EIS. Where did FRA capture 

the coordination needed with UPRR for the segments beside 6C?

Please see Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, 

specifically page 3.4-20 which documents 2010 communications with LV Metro Police 

and page 3.4-35 of the Draft EIS for information regarding consultation with the Nevada 

Highway Patrol. 

March 2011 4-135 Final EIS
Table F-4-2 Responses to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Overall 

Comment 

Number

Supplemental Draft 

EIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

S-327 Visual Resources Allen, Mark [...] but the aesthetic look of what it is going to do to the strip, both for the locals and for 

the tourists is going to be a nightmare. It is going to detract from what they built there.

Please see Final EIS Section 2.4.1, which describes the Preferred Alternative rail 

alignment. In the metropolitan Las Vegas area, this is Segment 6B. In the vicinity of the 

Las Vegas Strip, this alignment would be on the far (western) side of the I-15 corridor 

and therefore all but imperceptible along the Strip (Las Vegas Boulevard), except 

perhaps for major cross streets. Given the distance between the Strip and the proposed 

rail alignments, in addition to substantial resort construction intervening, the project 

poses no foreseeable visual detriment to the Las Vegas Strip. 

S-329 Visual Resources NDOT Section 3.6-10 heading "Portions of AAA 8 within I-15 Freeway Corridor" states that the 

rail alignment will be immediately adjacent to I-15 South bound travel lanes. Please 

clarify it seems that is outside C-D roads and not next to the I-15 mainlines.

This Final EIS incorporates clarifying text related to the location of AAA8 along the 

Segment 6B rail alignment. Supplemental Draft EIS Section 3.6.3 has been revised; the 

text revisions are shown in Final EIS Section 3.6.1.3.

S-330 Visual Resources NDOT The DesertXpress must consider NDOT Landscape and Aesthetics Master Plan 

(LAMP). The Supplemental Draft EIS does mention some new visual resource impacts 

but does not reference the LAMP. The limited description of the aerial structure in AAA -

8 does not cover the freeway median crossovers (crossovers

for connection to future Ivanpah Airport). Visual impacts did come up at the 

Supplemental Draft EIS public hearing held on October 13, 2010. The LAMP also 

requires up to 3% of a project's construction cost to go for aesthetics. This is also 

enforced on permit work. It should be noted that the Las Vegas Strip is designated as a 

National Scenic Byway and holds the highest designation of All American Road within 

that category.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.6.1.2.

S-331 Visual Resources Pleri, Jim The rail bed running through a desert area is bad enough but the ugly guide wires that 

remain in place overhead are an insult to the vistas along the entire length of the 

system.

The comment is noted. All visual simulations of rail alignments within the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS include the proposed catenary structures, which are necessary 

to deliver electrical power to the trains. Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final 

EIS Sections 3.6, Visual Resources, fully evaluate the potential visual impacts of the rail 

alignments within the various visual environments through which the project would 

travel. 

S-332 Visual Resources Ross, Carl I don't like the idea of putting a train down I-15 freeway high in the air as it will block 

view to many businesses from 140,000 cars a day driving north and south on I-15 very 

bad idea

The visual environment of the I-15 freeway through Las Vegas, particularly north of I215, is highly disturbed with numerous buildings, signs, and other attractions competing 

for visual attention. The addition of an elevated section of railroad in this environment 

would not constitute a substantial adverse physical environmental impact. Please see 

Final EIS Section 3.6.2.3 for a discussion of the visual effects relative to the Preferred 

Alternative.

S-333 Visual Resources Stimson, David 

A.

Fourth, the EIS makes the assumption that views will not be affected. Wrong. Having 

an elevated train running down or alongside I-15 will impact our view to the east and 

north east.

Please see Final EIS Section 3.6.2.3 for a discussion of the visual effects relative to the 

Preferred Alternative.

S-334 Manas, Joe I prefer the maglev option because it seems to have the support of the people who 

would ride it, is more economically feasible and I would personally ride it to Las Vegas 

as often as I can.

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.6.1, which discusses the California-Nevada Interstate 

Maglev Train proposal and its relationship to the DesertXpress project NEPA process. 

Please also refer to Final EIS Section 2.2.3.3, which notes that magnetic levitation 

technology was considered but rejected as a technology option for the DesertXpress 

project due to prohibitive cost and uncertainty regarding the viability of the technology. 

S-335 NDOT If for any reason the rail facilities fail, the property should revert back to its original 

purpose unless further agreement is reached between the parties. 

Please refer to Final EIS Section 1.5.2, which addresses conditions that may be 

included in an agreement granting the Applicant use of the right of way, including 

removal of infrastructure in the event of financial default.

Note: All public comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS are included herein, but some comment numbers have been intentionally omitted.

March 2011 4-136 Final EIS