Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Record of Decision

California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

1.0 Introduction

This is the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an 

operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the lead 

Federal agency for the California High-Speed Train (HST) Merced to Fresno Section 

(Project) (Figure 1). The Project Proponent is the California High-Speed Rail Authority 

(Authority), the lead agency for state environmental reviews under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and joint lead agency with FRA for Federal 

environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

Authority proposes to construct and operate the Project subject to the approval of the 

appropriate Federal agencies. These agencies include FRA and the Federal cooperating 

agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Other Federal agencies with specific review or permitting roles include the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

To comply with NEPA and CEQA, FRA and the Authority issued a joint Draft 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the 

Merced to Fresno Section of the California HST Project in August 2011 and a joint Final 

EIR/EIS in April 2012. Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 1506.2, 

the Final EIR/EIS is one document that covers both state and federal environmental 

requirements. Because this ROD contains only the decision of FRA, a Federal agency,

based on the Draft and Final EIR/EIS, the documents will be referred to as the “Draft 

EIS” and the “Final EIS.” In making its decision, FRA considered the information and 

analysis contained in the 2011 Draft EIS and 2012 Final EIS (collectively, “EIS 

Documents”). FRA also considered public and agency comments received during the 

public comment period for the Draft EIS and the waiting period following the Final EIS. 

Based on the analysis of the Project’s potential environmental effects (both adverse and 

beneficial) in the EIS Documents and substantive agency and public comments, FRA 

selects the north-south Hybrid Alternative and the Downtown Merced Station and 

Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station alternatives, as described further in 

Section 4.0, Alternatives, below. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

2

Figure 1

California HST System Initial Study Corridors
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

3

FRA has prepared the ROD in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Section 1505.2) and FRA’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, May 26, 1999)

(FRA Environmental Procedures). Specifically, this ROD: 

 Provides background on the NEPA process leading to the Final EIS, including a 

summary of public involvement and agency coordination.

 States and reaffirms the Project’s purpose and need.

 Identifies the alternatives considered in the EIS Documents.

 Summarizes the alternatives previously considered in the alternatives analysis 

process and not carried forward for study in the Draft EIS.

 Identifies the Selected Alternative.

 Identifies the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

 Summarizes environmental benefits and adverse effects.

 Summarizes the comments received on the Final EIS.

 Discusses the measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm and requires 

a monitoring and enforcement program for all mitigation measures.

 Presents the FRA Decision, determinations, and findings on the proposed Project 

and identifies and discusses the factors that were balanced by FRA in making its 

decision.

1.1 California HST System 

The Authority is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and operating the 

California HST System. Its state statutory mandate is to develop a high-speed rail 

system that coordinates with the state’s existing transportation network, which includes 

intercity rail and bus lines, regional commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus transit lines, 

highways, and airports. 

The California HST System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 

800 miles of track throughout California, connecting the major population centers of 

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

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego, as shown in Figure 1. The Authority and FRA 

prepared two programmatic (Tier 1) EIR/EIS documents to select preferred alignments 

and station locations to advance for project-level analysis in Tier 2 EIR/EISs. See 

Chapter 1 of the Merced to Fresno Section Final EIS for a more detailed description of 

the HST System, history of Tier 1 documents, and HST system phasing. Figure 1 shows

the proposed California HST System that resulted from the Tier 1 EIR/EISs and Tier 1 

decisions. The HST System will use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, 

steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and 

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

hour (mph) over a fully grade-separated, dedicated guideway alignment. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

4

The Authority plans two phases: Phase 1 (to be constructed in stages dependent on 

funding availability) will connect San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via Pacheco 

Pass and the Central Valley through a combination of dedicated high-speed rail 

infrastructure blended with existing urban systems, with a state statute mandated 

express travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles of 2 hours and 40 minutes or less. 

Phase 2 will extend the system from Los Angeles to San Diego and from Merced to 

Sacramento. The HST System could have more than 200 trains per day after full buildout of Phase 2. The California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan1

describes in more detail how Phase 1 of the HST System will be implemented and 

recognizes current budgetary and funding realities, which will result in both Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 being constructed over a longer period of time than originally anticipated.

The California HST System as approved through Tier 1 decisions has been divided into 

nine individual sections for more detailed, second-tier analysis. The nine sections were 

identified by certain operating characteristics including the requirement that they 

terminate at or proximate to station locations in larger urban centers. The individual 

project sections tier from decisions made during the programmatic decision and are 

units of the whole system that can be combined together as necessary due to funding and 

constructability constraints. 

The Merced to Fresno Section is one of the nine individual sections undergoing Tier 2 

environmental review for Phases 1 and 2 of the California HST System. As described in 

the October 1, 2009, Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Merced to Fresno Section (74 FR 

50869), FRA identified the Project termini as the station sites in downtown Fresno and 

Merced. This is consistent with the Tier 1 decisions and permits full analysis and 

consideration of the potential impacts of construction and operation of the Merced to 

Fresno Section of the California HST System.

1.2 Merced to Fresno Section

FRA and the Authority, as joint lead agencies for NEPA compliance, commenced the 

environmental review process for the Project in 2009. The Authority held scoping 

meetings for the Project in March 2009. The Draft EIS was issued in August 2011 and 

the 60-day public review period closed on October 13, 2011. The Draft EIS presented the 

purpose and need for the Project; the reasonable range of alternatives for rail alignment, 

station site, heavy maintenance facility (HMF), and a connection to the east-west 

running San Jose to Merced Section also known as “wye connections”; the existing 

environmental setting; potential effects (both beneficial and adverse) from construction 

and operation; and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse 

environmental effects.

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

various alternatives and potential impacts. FRA and the Authority held public hearings 

 1. Authority. 2012. California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan. Sacramento, Calif. 

April 2012. Available at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Business_Plan_reports.aspx.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

5

in Merced, Madera, and Fresno to provide opportunities for all of the public to comment

on the Draft EIS verbally and in writing. FRA and the Authority received 895 comment 

submittals on the Draft EIS. 

FRA and the Authority considered the information presented in and the comments 

received on the Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS. During a hearing by the 

Authority Board of Directors in December 2011, the Authority designated the Hybrid as 

the Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS, published April 20, 2012, identified the Hybrid 

as the Preferred Alternative and included minor design modifications to proposed 

alternatives resulting from public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and an 

evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

Following the identification of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, the USACE and 

EPA concurred (on March 26, 2012,2 and March 23, 2012,3 respectively)—based upon

the analyses incorporated in the Draft EIS and the subsequent Final EIS, as well as 

documents submitted as part of the Section 404 permitting process, and the biological 

assessment of ecosystems impacts and cultural and community impacts—that the Hybrid 

Alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), 

consistent with USACE’s permit program (33 C.F.R. Part 320–331) and EPA’s Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 C.F.R. 230–233).4

Table 1 summarizes the major NEPA milestones of the Project. 

 2 Response to February 22, 2012 Checkpoint C Package, and the March 9, 2012 response for the proposed 

Merced to Fresno segment of the California HST Project. Letter from Michael S. Jewell, Chief, Regulatory 

Division to Mark McLoughlin, Authority. Sacramento, CA. March 26, 2012. 

3 Response to Checkpoint C – Request for Agreement on Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging 

Practicable Alternative and Draft Mitigation Plan for California HST Project Merced to Fresno Section. 

Letter from Connell Dunning, Transportation Team Supervisor, Environmental Review Office, 

Communities and Ecosystems Division, to David Valenstein, FRA, and Tom Fellenz, Authority. San 

Francisco, CA. March 23, 2012. 

4 For more information about the integration of NEPA with Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting, 

please see Section 2.2. For more information about the identification of the LEDPA and the integration of 

USACE’s 404 permit into the NEPA process, please see Section 4.4. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

6

Table 1: Summary of Major NEPA Milestones

Milestone Date

Notice of Intent (NOI) February and October5

2009

Public Scoping Meetings March 2009

Notice of Availability Published and Circulation of Draft EIS/Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2011

Public Hearings: Merced, Madera, and Fresno September 2011

Notice of Availability and Publication of Final EIS and Final Section 

4(f) Evaluation

April 2012

1.3 Initial Project Construction

The Authority identified the Central Valley as the highest construction priority, and FRA 

selected this Project for construction funding. Recognizing funding limitations, and to 

maximize potential interim use of the HST System in the Central Valley, the Authority 

will phase construction of the Project. 

The Authority will use the design/build project delivery method to construct the HST 

System in the Central Valley. When using design/build, one contractor (or team of 

contractors) is selected to provide design and construction services under a single 

contract. Construction within the Merced to Fresno Section is anticipated to commence 

in 2013 after the Authority selects a design/build contractor(s) as part of an ongoing 

procurement process. 

This ROD will allow the Authority to move forward with construction and related 

activities for the Selected Alternative within the Merced to Fresno Section, a portion of 

which (between Avenue 17 and Los Angeles Street) is funded for construction. 

2.0 Federal Agency Actions

The specific roles and responsibilities of the Federal agencies involved in the Project, 

including lead, cooperating,6 and permitting agencies, are further described below. 

Table 2 identifies permit and approvals anticipated for these agencies.

 5 The original NOI was filed for the Merced to Bakersfield Section in February 2009; it was amended in 

October 2009 for the Merced to Fresno Section. 

6 The Bureau of Reclamation is a cooperating agency but does not have jurisdiction over a permit or 

approval for this section. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

7

Table 2: Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated 

Agency Permit/Approval

FRA • FRA funding approval 

• FRA regulations related to HST operation and safety

• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Transportation Act of 1966

• National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation

• Clean Air Act General Conformity Determination

USACE • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for discharge of 

dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, 

including wetlands

• Rivers and Harbors Act Section 408 Permit for the use, 

including modifications or alterations, of any flood control 

facility built by the USACE

• 33 C.F.R. 208.10 Permit for encroachment on a local flood 

control facility built by the USACE that does not include 

modifications to the facility

USFWS • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation and 

Biological Opinion

NMFS • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation and 

Biological Opinion

2.1 Federal Railroad Administration

Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 20101 et seq., FRA has authority over the safety of 

railroads. FRA will exercise jurisdiction over railroad safety issues during design and 

operation of the Project. FRA also administers the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

grant program. Based on the evaluation of applications submitted to FRA and the two 

Tier 1 EIRs/EISs and subsequent RODs, FRA selected the Authority to receive grant 

funds for preliminary engineering and environmental reviews for Phase 1 of the 

California HST System, and final design and construction of the California HST System 

between Madera, a city located within the Merced to Fresno Section, and Bakersfield 

(Kern County) in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) prohibits DOT and its modal 

administrations, including FRA, from undertaking a transportation project or providing 

Federal funding or discretionary approvals for a project that results in the use (unless the 

use has de minimis impacts) of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites, unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the resource and the action includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. Section 4(f) also 

protects historic sites of national, state, or local significance located on public or private 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

8

land. FRA’s Environmental Procedures contains FRA processes and protocols for 

analyzing the potential use of Section 4(f) protected properties. FRA’s Section 4(f) 

Determination is included as Section 9.2 of this ROD. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f),

requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated 

by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by the ACHP that are available at 36 

C.F.R. Part 800. Under the NHPA, significant cultural resources, referred to as historic 

properties, include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, object, or 

landscape included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). A Programmatic Agreement (PA) among FRA, ACHP, the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Authority regarding compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA for the HST System was executed on July 22, 2011.7 In 

accordance with the PA, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the treatment of 

adverse effects on historic properties in the Merced to Fresno Section of the HST System 

was executed on August 31, 2012 (see Appendix A). The City of Madera, the City of 

Fresno, and Fresno County, as well as the following Federally-recognized Native 

American tribes: Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi 

Tribe, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the California Valley Miwok 

Tribe; and the following non-Federally recognized Native American tribes: North Fork 

Mono Tribe, and the Chowchilla Tribe of Yokuts, have accepted the Authority and FRA’s 

invitation(s) to be consulting parties to the MOA and treatment plan(s). 8

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 176(c) requirements, EPA promulgated 40 

C.F.R. 51 Subpart W and 40 C.F.R. Part 93, Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of 

General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans” (58 FR 63214,

November 30, 1993, as amended, 75 FR 17253, April 5, 2010). These regulations, 

commonly referred to as the General Conformity Rule, apply to all Federal actions,

including those by FRA, except for those Federal actions that are excluded from review 

(e.g., stationary source emissions) or related to transportation plans, programs, and 

projects under Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act, which are subject to the

Transportation Conformity Rule. 

A conformity determination under the General Conformity Rule is required if the 

Federal agency determines the following: the action will occur in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area; that one or more specific exemptions do not apply to the action; the 

action is not included in the Federal agency’s “presumed to conform” list; the emissions 

from the proposed action are not within the approved emissions budget for an applicable 

 7 Authority and FRA. 2012. Programmatic Agreement. Appendix 3.17-A of the California HST Merced to 

Fresno Section Final Project EIR/EIS. Volume II: Technical Appendices. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, 

D.C. April 2012. 

8 Signatures of potentially concurring parties are currently being sought. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

9

facility; and the total direct and indirect emissions of a pollutant (or its precursors), are 

at or above the de minimis levels established in the General Conformity regulations. The 

proposed Project is subject to review under the General Conformity Rule; therefore, FRA 

prepared a Conformity Determination consistent with the applicable regulatory 

requirements. The final General Conformity Determination was issued on 

September 18, 2012.

2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACE is responsible for issuing permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404

(33 U.S.C. 1344) (Section 404) and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 14 (33 U.S.C. 

408) (Section 408).9 USACE is required to comply with NEPA and issue its own Record 

of Decision before it can issue a permit under Section 404 or Section 408. 

As a first step in Project permitting, the Authority, FRA, USACE, and EPA executed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or NEPA/404/408 MOU) in November 2010. 

The MOU outlines a process to integrate the requirements of NEPA with the 

requirements of Section 404 and Section 408. The purpose of the MOU is to ensure the 

analysis underlying the EIS Documents for each HST section is sufficient to support 

USACE’s Preliminary LEDPA determination and for USACE to issue a NEPA decision 

document. 

Consistent with the MOU, FRA and the Authority initiated the CWA Section 404 

permitting process with USACE on August 3, 2011. As part of the CWA Section 404 

permitting process, FRA and the Authority prepared a Wetland Delineation Report

(2011) and submitted it to USACE for issuance of a preliminary jurisdictional 

determination, which USACE issued on November 3, 2011. Jurisdictional 

determinations and issuance of a permit for the discharge of fill material into waters of 

the United States associated with construction and operation of the Project will be part 

of the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by USACE.10

Pursuant to NEPA, Section 404, and Section 408, USACE and EPA issued letters 

identifying the Hybrid Alternative as the preliminary LEDPA on March 26, 2012, and 

March 23, 2012, respectively. The Section 404 process continues with submittal of a 

permit application to USACE and development of a mitigation plan. The Section 408 

 9 CWA Section 404 sets forth a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of 

the United States, including wetlands. USACE may only issue a Section 404 permit for a project 

alternative that USACE determines is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 

(LEDPA). Section 408 permit decisions will be made for alteration/modification of completed Federal 

flood risk management facilities and any associated operation and maintenance, and real estate 

permissions or instruments (as applicable).

10 For CWA section 404(b)(1) compliance, USACE must take into consideration the context of the 

geographic area of the proposed action and the type of project being proposed. USACE has determined 

that the overall project purpose (as stated above) allows for a reasonable range of practicable alternatives 

to be analyzed and is acceptable as the basis for the USACE 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

10

process continues with USACE’s evaluation of potential Project impacts on flood 

protection facilities. USACE will issue a NEPA decision after a preliminary review of 

impacts on facilities under its jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Authority will submit 

permit applications for facilities under Section 408 jurisdiction to USACE.

2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536) consultation process, pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 402. Section 

7 of the Federal ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS, 

depending on the type of species or habitat affected, to ensure that actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plant species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat for any such species. Impacts 

associated with threatened and endangered species, including critical habitat, occupied 

habitat, and suitable habitat for special-status species, is addressed through a 

coordination process that is outlined under Section 7 of the Federal ESA. If a project 

may have an impact on a resource under Section 7, a study that describes the impacts, 

known as a Biological Assessment (BA), is required to be submitted to the appropriate 

agency with jurisdiction over the resource (USFWS, and/or NMFS). After the

appropriate agency has accepted the BA, the agency will render a Biological Opinion

(BO). A BO is the agency’s opinion as to whether a project is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of an ESA-listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of a species’ critical habitat. 

Because the Project is likely to have an impact under Section 7, FRA prepared a BA for 

the Project and consulted with USFWS, as required. FRA’s informal and formal Section 

7 consultation with USFWS has been ongoing and was instrumental in scoping the 

biological resource analysis for the EIS Documents, as well as for the BA. FRA developed 

and submitted the Draft BA to USFWS in October 2011, which evaluated direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects of the Project on Federally listed, threatened, endangered, or 

proposed listed species and their designated habitat. 

Following USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, USFWS issued a 

BO for the Project on September 14, 2012. In the BO, USFWS concluded that the 

Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed 

wildlife and plant species potentially occurring in the Project action area. Consistent 

with Section 7 requirements, the BO stipulates several reasonable and prudent 

conservation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts. The BO is included as

Appendix B. This BO also includes an incidental take statement authorizing activities 

associated with the first phase of construction in the Central Valley, as described in 

Section 1.3. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

11

2.4 National Marine Fisheries Service

Because the Project might impact protected aquatic species under NMFS jurisdiction, in 

addition to the Section 7 consultation with USFWS described above, FRA is required to 

consult with NMFS.

FRA submitted a Draft BA to NMFS in October 2011. In addition to the BO issued by 

USFWS, NMFS issued a BO for the Project on April 17, 2012. NMFS concluded in its BO 

that the Project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. 

NMFS anticipates that the Project would result in the incidental take of California 

Central Valley steelhead and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon.11 Consistent 

with Section 7 requirements, the BO stipulates several reasonable and prudent 

conservation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts. This BO is included as 

Appendix B. The BO also includes an incidental take statement authorizing activity 

associated with construction and operation of the Project. 

3.0 Purpose and Need

As established in the Final Program EIS, the purpose of the California HST System is to 

provide a reliable high-speed electric-powered train system that links the major 

metropolitan areas of California, delivering predictable and consistent travel times. A 

further objective is to provide an interface with commercial airports, mass transit, and 

the highway network and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation 

system as increases in intercity travel demand in California occur, in a manner sensitive 

to and protective of California’s unique natural resources.12

The purpose of this Project is to implement the Merced to Fresno Section of the 

California HST System to provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail 

service that provides predictable and consistent travel times between major urban 

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

the south San Joaquin Valley and to connect the northern and southern portions of the 

system. 

The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system, including the central part of 

the San Joaquin Valley region, is insufficient to meet existing and future travel demands. 

The current and projected future system congestion will continue to result in 

deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The current 

transportation system has not kept pace with the increase in population, economic 

activity, and tourism within the state, including in the central part of the San Joaquin 

Valley region. The interstate highway system, commercial airports, and conventional 

passenger rail system serving the intercity travel market are operating at or near capacity 

 11 Within the Project action area, these species potentially occur only in the San Joaquin River.

12 Authority and FRA. 2005. Final Program EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California HST System. Sacramento, 

CA, and Washington, DC. August 2005.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

12

and will require large public investments for maintenance and expansion to meet 

existing demand and future growth over the next 25 years and beyond. Moreover, the 

feasibility of expanding many major highways and key airports is uncertain; some 

needed expansions might be impractical or are constrained by physical, political, and 

other factors. The need for improvements to intercity travel in California, including 

intercity travel between the central part of the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco Bay 

Area, Sacramento, and Southern California, relates to the following issues:

 Future growth in demand for intercity travel, including the growth in demand 

within the central part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Capacity constraints that will increase congestion and travel delays, including 

those in the central part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, 

accidents, and other factors that affect the quality of life and economic wellbeing 

of residents, businesses, and tourism in California, including the central part of 

the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Reduced mobility as a result of increasing demand on limited modal connections 

between major airports, transit systems, and passenger rail in the state, including 

the central part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources and 

agricultural lands as a result of expanded highways and airports and urban 

development pressures, including those within the central part of the San 

Joaquin Valley region.

4.0 Alternatives

This section summarizes the alternatives analysis process and the alternatives evaluated 

in the EIS Documents and describes the Selected and Environmentally Preferable 

alternatives.

4.1 Alternatives Considered in the Alternatives Analysis 

Process and Not Carried Forward for Consideration in 

the EIS Documents

FRA and the Authority have undertaken an extensive, public screening process for 

alternatives to study in the EIS Documents. The potential alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study were presented in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis 

Report (April 2010), the Alternatives Analysis Report (August 2010), and the 

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (May 2011) and are summarized in 

Chapter 2 of the EIS Documents. Several potential alternatives either failed to 

adequately meet the project purpose, need, and objectives, failed to offer a substantial 

environmental advantage over one or more of the alternatives studied in the EIS

Documents, or were deemed infeasible from a cost, technical, or engineering perspective

and therefore were eliminated from further analysis in the EIS Documents. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

13

4.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIS Documents

The EIS Documents included three alignment alternatives: UPRR/SR 99 Alternative, 

BNSF Alternative, and the Hybrid Alternative (Figure 2). The No Action Alternative was

also analyzed in the EIS Documents. The EIS Documents also included the Downtown 

Merced HST Station, two station alternatives for Downtown Fresno (the Kern Street 

Station Alternative and Mariposa Street Station Alternative), five HMF alternatives, and 

two wye alternatives. These alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Final 

EIS. The alternatives analyzed in the EIS Documents are those that FRA and the 

Authority considered reasonable and feasible.

4.2.1 HST Alignment Alternatives

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would result in no construction and no operation of the HST 

System. As a result, it would not meet the Project’s purpose, need, and objectives. 

The No Action Alternative is the basis for comparison of the Project alternatives in the 

Environmental Documents. The No Action Alternative represents the state’s 

transportation system (highway, air, bus, conventional rail) as it is currently and as it 

would be after implementation of programs or projects that are currently projected in 

regional transportation plans, have identified funds for implementation, and are 

expected to be in place by 2035, as well as any major planned land use changes. The 

entire San Joaquin Valley is projected to grow at a rate higher than any other region in 

California. The three counties—Merced, Madera, and Fresno—are projected to continue 

to grow at an average rate of 3% per year. By 2035, the population in the study area is 

projected to grow from 1,365,911 to 2,298,075, for a net increase of 60%. 

Accommodating this new population would require land acquisition and the 

construction of new infrastructure, including roadways, electric power generation, water 

and wastewater facilities, schools, hospitals, and commercial and industrial facilities. To 

support this growth, development would consume an estimated 91,000 acres because, 

according to current planning trends, these counties would develop at a density of 

approximately 10 persons per acre.

UPRR/SR 99 Alternative 

The alignment for the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative traverses urban downtown areas in the 

cities of Merced, Madera, and Fresno. It is generally adjacent to SR 99 and the UPRR

railway. The HST alignment is designed to follow the existing UPRR corridor adjacent to 

the UPRR mainline right-of-way and to avoid the existing UPRR operations right-of-way 

and active rail spurs to the greatest extent possible. In several locations, the HST 

alignment is elevated to cross over the UPRR operational right-of-way. In these 

instances, the alternative maintains required horizontal and vertical clearance over 

UPRR operational right-of-way to avoid or minimize impacts on other UPRR right-of-
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

14

Figure 2

Alternatives 

Considered in the 

EIS Documents
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

15

way, spurs, and facilities. Similarly, the HST alignment follows the SR 99 corridor and, 

therefore, crosses over SR 99 in some locations and under SR 99 in Merced. As the 

alignment travels through rural areas, it affects existing local frontage roads used by

small communities and farm operations. Where these frontage roads parallel the HST 

alignment, they would be shifted and reconstructed to maintain their function. Where 

roads are perpendicular to the proposed HST, overcrossings or undercrossings are 

planned approximately every two miles, while other roads would be closed. 

The north-south alignment of the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative would begin at the HST 

station in Downtown Merced, located on the west side of the UPRR right-of-way. South 

of the station and leaving Downtown Merced, the HST alignment would be at-grade and 

cross under SR 99. As the HST alignment approaches Chowchilla, the UPRR/SR 99 

Alternative has two primary design options: the East Chowchilla design option, which 

would pass Chowchilla on the east side of town, following the Ave 24 Wye alignment, 

and the West Chowchilla design option, which would travel south at a distance of three

to four miles west of Chowchilla before turning back to rejoin the UPRR/SR 99 

transportation corridor. Both of the Ave 21 and the Ave 24 Wye options would connect 

in the vicinity of Chowchilla; these wye options are described below in Section 4.2.4. The 

HST alignment would continue south on the east side of the UPRR corridor south of Dry 

Creek and remain on an elevated profile for 8.9 miles through Madera. After crossing 

over Cottonwood Creek and Avenue 12, the HST alignment would transition to an atgrade profile and continue to be at-grade until north of the San Joaquin River. The 

UPRR/SR 99 Alternative would continue toward Fresno, crossing the San Joaquin River,

and rise over the UPRR railway on an elevated guideway supported by straddle bents. 

The HST alignment would then cross over the existing Herndon Avenue and descend 

into an at-grade profile. The alignment would continue west of and parallel to the UPRR 

right-of-way. Advancing south from Clinton Avenue between Clinton Avenue and 

Belmont Avenue, the two-track HST alignment would run at-grade adjacent to the 

western boundary of the UPRR right-of-way and then enter the station in Fresno.

BNSF Alternative 

The alignment for the BNSF Alternative traverses from north to south, crossing the cities 

of Merced, Le Grand, Madera, and Fresno. The north-south alignment of the BNSF 

Alternative would begin at the HST station in Merced. South of Merced, there are two

design options that traverse east to the BNSF in the vicinity of the community of Le

Grand. The BNSF alternative would remain at-grade through Merced and would cross 

under SR 99 at the south end of the city. Just south of the SR 99/East Childs Avenue 

interchange, the BNSF Alternative would cross over SR 99 and UPRR once more as it 

begins to curve to the east, crossing over the E Mission Avenue interchange. It would 

then travel east to the vicinity of Le Grand where it would turn south and travel adjacent 

to the BNSF tracks. Continuing southeast along the west side of BNSF, the HST 

alternative would begin to curve just before Plainsburg Road through a predominantly 

rural and agricultural area. One mile south of Le Grand, the HST alignment would cross 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

16

Deadman and Dutchman creeks. The HST alignment would deviate from the BNSF 

corridor just southeast of S White Rock Road, and would remain at-grade for another 

seven miles, except at the bridge crossings, and would continue on the west side of the 

BNSF corridor through the community of Sharon. The HST alignment would continue 

at-grade through the community of Kismet until reaching the crossing at Dry Creek. The 

BNSF Alternative would cross Dry Creek and continue at-grade through agricultural 

areas along the west side of the BNSF corridor through the community of Madera Acres 

north of the City of Madera. Between Le Grand and Madera, the proposed Ave 21 or 

Ave 24 Wye alignments would connect with this north-south portion of the alternative. 

The wye alignments are described below in Section 4.2.4. The HST alignment would 

continue at-grade on the west side of the BNSF corridor, crossing over the Fresno River 

and SR 145. This would involve raising the HST tracks over the existing SR 145 

undercrossing. South of Avenue 15 east of Madera, the alignment would transition 

toward the UPRR corridor. The alignment would follow the east side of the UPRR 

corridor near Avenue 9 south of Madera and then would continue along nearly the same 

route as the UPRR/ SR 99 Alternative over the San Joaquin River to enter the 

community of Herndon. The HST alignment for the BNSF Alternative in the Fresno 

vicinity would be the same as for the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative. 

Hybrid Alternative 

From north to south, generally, the Hybrid Alternative would follow the UPRR/SR 99 

alignment with either the West Chowchilla design option and Ave 24 Wye or the East 

Chowchilla design option and Ave 21 Wye; at the wye connection, it would join the BNSF 

Alternative through Madera and would continue south over the San Joaquin River on to 

the Fresno station. The HST alignments in the Merced vicinity for the Hybrid 

Alternative and design options are the same as for the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative. 

Approaching the Chowchilla city limits, the Hybrid Alternative would follow one of two 

wye options. In the vicinity of Madera and south to Fresno, the Hybrid Alternative is the 

same as the BNSF Alternative, and throughout the Fresno vicinity, both the Hybrid and 

BNSF Alternatives are the same as the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative 

4.2.2 Station Alternatives

The Downtown Merced and Downtown Fresno stations would each occupy several 

blocks, to include the station plazas, drop-offs, multimodal transit center, and parking 

structures. The stations would include the platforms and associated building for 

passenger services and concessions, and back-of-house functions and access structures. 

Both the Merced and Fresno stations would have additional platform tracks, with the

platforms at-grade.

Downtown Merced Station 

The Downtown Merced Station would be between Martin Luther King Jr. Way to the 

northwest and G Street to the southeast, approximately seven blocks west of the existing 

Amtrak station. The station would be accessible from both sides of the UPRR, but the 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

17

primary station house would front 16th Street. The major access points from SR 99 

include V Street, R Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and G Street. Primary access to 

the parking facility would be from W 15th Street and W 14th Street, just one block east of 

SR 99. The closest access to the parking facility from the SR 99 freeway would be 

R Street, which has a full interchange with the freeway. The site proposal includes a 

parking structure that would have the potential for up to six levels with a capacity of 

approximately 2,250 cars and an approximate height of 50 feet. During Phase 1 of the 

HST System (see Section 1.1), when parking demand would be higher at the station, 

additional parking would be provided either at existing sites distributed throughout the 

community or at a second structure. 

Fresno Mariposa Street Station Alternative 

The Mariposa Street Station Alternative is located in Downtown Fresno, less than one

half mile east of SR 99. The station would be centered on Mariposa Street and bordered 

by Fresno Street on the north, Tulare Street on the south, H Street on the east, and 

G Street on the west. The station building would be approximately 75,000 square feet, 

with a maximum height of approximately 64 feet. The two-level station would be atgrade, with passenger access provided both east and west of the HST guideway and the 

UPRR tracks, which would run parallel with one another adjacent to the station. The 

first level would contain the public concourse, passenger service areas, and station and 

operation offices. The second level would include the mezzanine, a pedestrian 

overcrossing above the HST guideway and the UPRR railway tracks, and an additional 

public concourse area. Entrances would be located at both G and H Streets. The eastern 

entrance would be at the intersection of H Street and Mariposa Street, with platform 

access provided via the pedestrian overcrossing. This entrance would provide a “front 

door” connection with Downtown Fresno on an axis that also includes the County 

Courthouse and City Hall several blocks to the east. The main western entrance would 

be located at G Street and Mariposa Street.

The Mariposa Street Station Alternative includes the potential for up to three parking 

structures occupying a total of 5.5 acres. Two of the three potential parking structures 

would each sit on two acres, and each would have a capacity of approximately 1,500 cars. 

The third parking structure would be slightly smaller in footprint (1.5 acres), with 

five levels and a capacity of approximately 1,100 cars. An additional two-acre surface 

parking lot would provide approximately 300 parking spaces. Currently, Downtown 

Fresno has a large amount of excess public parking within a mile of the proposed HST 

station. Based on discussions with the City of Fresno, the balance of spaces needed to 

satisfy the estimated year 203513 parking demand (7,400 total spaces) would be 

accommodated by existing public spaces, without the need for additional parking lots or 

structures.

 13 During Phase 2 of the California HST System (see Section 1.1).
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

18

Fresno Kern Street Station Alternative 

The Kern Street Station Alternative for the HST station is also situated in Downtown 

Fresno and would be centered on Kern Street between Tulare Street and Inyo Street. 

This station would include the same components as the Mariposa Street Station 

Alternative, but under the Kern Street Station Alternative, the station would not 

encroach on the historic Southern Pacific Railroad depot just north of Tulare Street and 

would not require relocation of existing Greyhound facilities. The station building would 

be approximately 75,000 square feet, with a maximum height of approximately 64 feet. 

The station building would have two levels housing the same facilities as the Mariposa 

Street Station Alternative (i.e., UPRR tracks, HST tracks, mezzanine, and station office). 

The approximately 18.5-acre site would include 13 acres dedicated to the station, bus 

transit center, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride accommodations. Two of the 

three potential parking structures would each sit on two acres and each would have a 

capacity of approximately 1,500 cars. The third structure would be slightly smaller in 

footprint (1.5 acres) and have a capacity of approximately 1,100 cars. Like the Mariposa 

Street Station Alternative, the balance of the spaces needed to satisfy the estimated year 

2035 parking demand (7,400 total spaces) would be accommodated by existing public 

spaces, and the majority of station facilities would be sited east of the HST tracks.

4.2.3 Heavy Maintenance Facility

One HMF site will be required for operation of the entire HST System. The HMF, to be 

located within the Central Valley, would serve two functions: (1) support train arrival, 

assembly, testing, and commissioning to operations and (2) become the state’s systemwide heavy maintenance workshop. It is anticipated that permanent emergency standby 

generators will be located at the HMF. The EIS Documents evaluated five different 

locations for the HMF site (as shown in Figure 2):

 Castle Commerce Center, accessible by all HST alternatives.

 Harris-DeJager, accessible along the UPRR/SR 99 and Hybrid alternatives if 

coming from the Ave 21 Wye. (This site was withdrawn from consideration by 

the property owners on October 27, 2011.)14

 Fagundes, accessible by all HST alternatives, via the Ave 24 Wye.

 Gordon-Shaw, accessible along the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative.

 Kojima Development, accessible along the BNSF Alternative if coming from the 

Ave 21 Wye.

4.2.4 Wyes

The connection between the east-west alignment of the San Jose to Merced Section (i.e., 

Pacheco Pass connection) and the north-south alignment of the Merced to Fresno 

 14 Kopshever, Jim. 2011. E-mail from Jim Kopshever, Harris-DeJager site property owner, to Peter 

Valentine, regarding withdrawal of site from consideration for use as an HMF, October 27, 2011.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

19

Section would require a railroad wye. Two railroad wye locations (see Figure 2) were 

considered in the EIS Documents. These include the Ave 24 Wye (generally following 

the south side of Avenue 24) and the Ave 21 Wye (generally following the north side of 

Avenue 21). Based on input from regulatory agencies, FRA and the Authority have 

determined that a previously studied SR 152 east-west alignment and related wyes merit 

detailed study as well. Although the Final EIS identifies the possibility of the SR152 wye, 

full environmental analysis of this wye option as well as additional analysis on the Ave 24 

and Ave 21 options, where necessary, will occur in the San Jose to Merced Project

EIR/EIS.

4.3 Selected Alternatives 

4.3.1 Alignment Alternative

The Selected Alternative is the Hybrid Alternative with the Downtown Merced Station 

and Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station Alternative. Chapter 7 of the Final EIS 

identified the Hybrid Alternative as the preferred north-south alignment for the Merced 

to Fresno Section, as shown in Figure 3. In identifying a preferred north-south 

alignment alternative, FRA was guided by the project purpose and need and project 

objectives found in the Final EIS Chapter 1, Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives, as 

well as the objectives and criteria developed for and recorded in the Merced to Fresno 

Section Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report15 and Supplemental Alternatives 

Analysis Report.16 For the Merced to Fresno Section, these objectives and criteria 

primarily include impacts on biological resources, agricultural resources, cultural 

resources, impacts on urban environments (e.g. noise and parks), and cost.

The Hybrid Alternative will result in the least or similar effects on biological resources 

compared to the other build alternatives. It will have the fewest effects on waters of the 

United States, including impacts on seasonal wetlands and direct impacts on vernal 

pools, whereas the BNSF Alternative would have resulted in substantially more 

permanent effects on waters of the United States. Overall, direct conversion of 

conservation habitats, habitats to support special-status wildlife species, and wildlife 

corridors are minimized through the selection of the Hybrid Alternative. 

The Hybrid Alternative effects on prime farmland resources is similar to the 

UPRR/SR 99 Alternative, which would have up to a third fewer acres removed from 

production over the BNSF Alternative. While the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative would have

the fewest effects on farmlands, the Hybrid Alternative counters this difference with the 

 15 Authority and FRA. 2010. Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, Merced to Fresno Section HST 

Project EIR/EIS. Available at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_Merced_Fresno.aspx. Prepared by 

AECOM and CH2M HILL. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC. April 7, 2010

16 Authority and FRA. 2010. Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, Merced to Fresno Section HST 

Project EIR/EIS. Available at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_Merced_Fresno.aspx. Prepared by 

AECOM and CH2M HILL. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC. August 5, 2010
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

20

Figure 3

Selected Alternative – Hybrid
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

21

advantage of avoiding more community resources than the other alternatives. The 

Hybrid Alternative will result in fewer effects on community resources than either of the 

other two alternatives but substantially less than the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative, for which 

impacts would be exacerbated during construction for resources such as noise, dust, and 

air quality, as well as reduced access to parks and businesses. Additionally, the Hybrid

Alternative was found to result in the least harm to Section 4(f) resources. Overall, in 

balancing the effects on natural and community resources, the Hybrid Alternative will

minimize environmental impacts the most among the three action alternatives. 

Consistent with the purpose and need to construct, operate, and maintain an electricpowered high-speed train system, the Hybrid Alternative’s performance is comparable to 

if not better than the other alternatives. In terms of HST System travel time, the Hybrid 

Alternative offers the second-best travel time, taking only 30 seconds longer between 

San Francisco and Los Angeles, a minute more between Merced and Fresno, and the 

same amount of time between San Francisco and Merced compared to the UPRR/SR 99 

Alternative. The BNSF Alternative would have the same travel time as the Hybrid 

Alternative between San Francisco and Los Angeles but otherwise would take as much as 

four minutes longer than the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative. The Hybrid Alternative is 

shorter in length than the BNSF Alternative and has less elevated guideway and fewer 

impacts on adjacent infrastructure than the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative. This difference 

translates into fewer emissions during construction and less disturbance on local traffic 

patterns and traffic circulation in adjacent communities. 

Consistent with the NEPA/404/408 MOU, permitting criteria were also considered in 

the selection of the alternatives. These considerations are consistent with the criteria 

used in the Section 404(b)(1), implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 230–233), including 

minimizing impacts on waters of the United States and other sensitive environmental 

resources. As a result of the analyses incorporated in the EIS Documents as well as 

NEPA/404/408 MOU documentation, USACE and EPA concurred (on March 26, 

2012,17 and March 23, 2012,18 respectively) that the Hybrid Alternative is the LEDPA,

consistent with USACE’s permit program (33 C.F.R. Parts 320–331) and EPA’s Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 C.F.R. Part 230).

Overall, the Hybrid Alternative best balances the minimization of impacts on the 

environment, farmland, and communities. It would avoid the greater impacts on the 

environment and rural communities in Merced County that would occur with the BNSF 

Alternative and it would avoid the greater impacts on more urban areas, such as in the 

City of Madera, along the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative. A summary of the environmental 

effects associated with the Selected Alternative is provided in Section 5.0, below. The 

Hybrid Alternative also best meets the regulatory and permitting criteria under 

Sections 404 and 408.

 17USACE, 2012.

18 EPA, 2012.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

22

4.3.2 Station Alternatives

Chapter 7 of the Final EIS also describes the Downtown Merced HST station, between 

Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street, and the Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street 

Station Alternative as preferred station locations, as shown in Figures 4 and 5,

respectively. The Downtown Merced Station is consistent with the City of Merced’s 

future land use plans for the downtown area and the intent to strengthen connectivity 

with the city’s transit center. The City of Fresno’s Fulton Corridor Specific Plan (2011) 

specifies that the Mariposa Street Station Alternative would better serve the planned 

transit improvements for the downtown area.19 

4.3.3 Heavy Maintenance Facility

The HMF site will be located in the Central Valley. While the EIS contains a thorough 

analysis of the potential impacts of the HMF alternatives in the Merced to Fresno 

Section, FRA and the Authority are also examining possible HMF alternatives in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield and San Jose to Merced sections. As only one HMF site will be 

required for full HST operations, FRA and the Authority will select the HMF site once all 

three Central Valley HST section EIS processes are complete. FRA and the Authority are 

conducting additional environmental analysis of the HMF as necessary, as part of the 

San Jose to Merced and Fresno to Bakersfield Section EISs.

4.3.4 Wyes

The Hybrid Alternative would eventually connect to an HST wye with one of three

associated east-west alignments (along Avenue 24, Avenue 21, and SR 152) (see 

Figure 3). The wyes and east-west alignments would connect the selected Hybrid 

Alternative with the San Jose to Merced Section north of Madera Acres at approximately 

Avenue 191⁄2, depending on the eventual selection of the east-west connection and wye. 

All alignments within the area denoted by the rectangle on Figure 3 will be carried 

forward for further study and consideration as part of the San Jose to Merced Section 

Draft EIS. A decision on the east-west alignment within this area is anticipated to occur 

at the conclusion of the San Jose to Merced Section EIS process. 

4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that an agency identify the alternative or 

alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable, which is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the 

NEPA, Section 101” (440 C.F.R. 1505.2). This means the alternative that causes the least 

damage to the physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, 

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

 19 City of Fresno. Fulton Corridor Specific Plan. October 14, 2011. Available at 

http://fresnodowntownplans.com/project/details/fcsp. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

23

Figure 5

Downtown Fresno Mariposa 

Source: URS (2011). Street Station Alternative

Figure 4

Downtown Merced Station 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

24

In determining an environmentally preferable alternative, FRA considered all action 

alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative. FRA weighed and balanced the 

physical environmental effects associated with the action alternatives as well as those 

associated with the No Action Alternative. FRA determined that the adverse 

environmental effects associated with the Hybrid Alternative were less substantial than 

the consequences associated with the No Action Alternative in terms of air quality, 

energy, and traffic, and thus identified an action alternative as environmentally 

preferable. Final selection of the Hybrid Alternative as the Environmentally Preferred 

alternative over the UPRR/SR 99 and the BNSF alternatives involved the above noted 

advantages as well as the comparably relatively low community, farmland, and biological 

effects, including lower impacts on jurisdictional wetlands. Based on consideration of 

these factors, FRA identified the Hybrid Alternative as the Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative. 

The Hybrid Alternative would result in fewer effects on community resources than either 

of the other two alternatives but substantially less than the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative, for 

which impacts would be exacerbated during construction for resources such as noise, 

dust, and air quality, as well as reduced access to parks and businesses. Overall, in 

balancing the effects on natural and community resources, the Hybrid Alternative would 

minimize environmental impacts the most. Of the three alignment alternatives, the 

Hybrid Alternative is the LEDPA for issuance of the necessary Section 404 permits. 

For the HST station in Merced, the Authority only developed one alternative, in close 

cooperation with the City of Merced to consider environmental and community factors,

and it is thus considered the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. For the Downtown

Fresno Station, two alternatives were considered and the environmental impacts were 

similar. Both stations would affect eligible historic structures listed on the NRHP. Other 

effects include noise, which would be mitigated, as well as temporary impacts on 

businesses and transportation circulation during construction. However, due to the City 

of Fresno’s planning and the orientation of the Downtown Fresno City Center, the 

preferred Mariposa Street Station Alternative offers substantially more opportunities for 

transit-oriented development. As a result, the Mariposa Street Station Alternative was 

determined to be the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects 

Construction and operation of the Selected Alternative has the potential to affect a 

variety of natural and social resources. Some impacts will be beneficial, others will be 

adverse. Those impacts that are adverse can be further categorized as impacts that are 

significant and those that are not significant. Under NEPA, determining the significance 

of an impact requires consideration of both context and intensity.20 

 20 The context of an impact is the setting of the affected environment in which the impact occurs. 

Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, which includes consideration of the type, quality, and 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

25

To fully understand the potential range of impacts of the Selected Alternative, the Final 

EIS analyzed all potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of the HST. 

A full discussion of the potential impacts of the Selected Alternative, organized by 

resource area, can be found in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Most potential impacts will 

not be significant when considering the context and intensity of the impact. Potential 

impacts of the Selected Alternative will not rise to the level of significance in the 

following resource areas: electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic interference; public 

utilities and energy; hydrology and water resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; 

hazardous materials and waste; and station planning, land use, and development. In 

determining that the Selected Alternative will not result in significant impacts on these 

resources, implementation of project design features and best management practices 

(BMP) are presumed and will be required as part of project implementation as described 

further in Section 6.0. Although not discussed below, FRA considered these adverse but 

not significant impacts in reaching its decision. 

Some potential adverse impacts would be significant were it not for implementation of 

mitigation measures that effectively avoid or reduce the impact. Other impacts would be 

significant even after mitigation measures are implemented. Finally, some impacts of 

the Selected Alternative will be beneficial. The following sections summarize the 

significant adverse impacts, the adverse impacts that would be significant if not for the 

implementation of mitigation, and the beneficial impacts that may occur with 

construction and operation of the Selected Alternative. 

5.1 Transportation

The Selected Alternative will benefit the regional transportation system by diverting 

intercity trips from the regional roadway system and commercial air flights to high-speed 

rail. Diverting trips to high-speed rail will reduce the overall number of vehicle trips on 

the regional roadway system, improve future levels of service, and reduce overall vehicle 

miles traveled. 

The Selected Alternative will cause traffic impacts in congested urban areas due to 

realignment of SR 99, increased traffic around HST stations, and road closures. 

Specifically, realignment of SR 99 will change traffic circulation patterns due to closure 

of interchange ramps, thereby increasing traffic at intersections in the vicinity of the 

freeway shift and impacting freeway operations. HST stations and road closures in 

Merced and Fresno will increase traffic at local roadways and intersections nearby, 

reducing acceptable levels of service in those locations. Traffic mitigation measures to 

improve operations at key intersection and roadway segments will include lane 

widening, modification to signals, additional lanes, and restriping. Although all of these 

impacts will be reduced with the implementation of such measures, the Selected 

 

sensitivity of the resource involved, as well as the location, extent, and duration of the effect (40 C.F.R. 

1508.27).
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

26

Alternative may result in extending the duration of peak periods of congestion in 

already-congested urban areas, and these impacts are considered significant.

5.2 Air Quality and Climate Change

Operation of the HST will benefit statewide and regional air quality. The HST will result 

in a permanent net benefit to air quality because it will lower emissions of mobile source 

air toxics, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 

microns and 25 microns in diameter (PM10, and PM2.5) by diverting trips from modes 

with higher emissions (commercial air flights and automobile trips) to high-speed rail, 

which has lower emissions.

Construction of the HST will create temporary air quality impacts. Construction 

emissions of VOCs and NOx are expected to cause or contribute substantially to 

violations of air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). If ballast 

material is hauled from quarries located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), NOx may 

exceed air quality standards in the SCAB. With mitigation, air quality impacts in these 

two air basins will be reduced and will not be significant.

Specifically, the Authority will mitigate construction emissions in the SJVAB by 

providing funds for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)

Emission Reduction Incentive Program21 to fund grants for projects that achieve 

emission reductions, thus offsetting impacts on air quality related to the Selected 

Alternative. Purchase of offset emissions through a Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD for these pollutants will reduce construction 

emission impacts in the SJVAB to less than significant. If ballast is hauled from the 

SCAB, the Authority will mitigate construction emissions in the SCAB by purchasing NOx

offsets from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, reducing these impacts to 

less than significant as well.

5.3 Noise

The Selected Alternative will cause severe noise impacts for up to 525 sensitive receivers, 

such as residences, without mitigation. Sound barriers will eliminate most significant 

noise impacts. However, some receivers are located outside of areas where barriers can 

be effective, or a sound barrier will not fully eliminate the severe noise impact. Because

the degree of noise level change in residential areas, including in rural areas, is expected

to affect such a high number of receivers, noise impacts resulting from operation of the 

HST will be significant. 

 21 SJVAPCD. 2011. Emission Reduction Incentive Program. Available at 

www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/GrantPrograms.htm. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

27

The realignment of SR 99 in Fresno will create noise impacts for surrounding sensitive 

receivers. However, with sound barriers and building insulation as mitigation, the 

number of noise impacts would be reduced. 

With full implementation of the Proposed California HST Project Noise and Vibration 

Mitigation Guidelines,22 most significant noise impacts will be eliminated. However, 

where sound barriers are used, even with the implementation of such mitigation, 

significant noise effects will remain for some receivers because they are located outside 

of the area where the barrier will be fully effective or the sound barrier will not fully 

mitigate the effect (i.e., noise is reduced by five decibels but would still be significant). 

Furthermore, significant noise effects will remain for receivers mitigated only with 

indoor sound insulation or with implementation of noise easements. 

5.4 Public Utilities and Energy

The statewide and regional impact on energy use from operation of the HST will be 

beneficial. While the HST System will require electricity to operate, it will result in a 

permanent net reduction in energy use because it will divert trips from transportation 

modes with higher energy use (commercial air flights and automobiles) to high-speed 

rail, which has lower energy use.

The Selected Alternative will not cause any significant adverse impacts on public utilities 

or energy.

5.5 Biological Resources and Wetlands

The Selected Alternative will not cause significant impacts on biological resources or 

wetlands after mitigation measures are implemented. The Selected Alternative will not 

result in significant impacts on wildlife movement, critical habitat, essential fish habitat, 

or mitigation banks. Other resource impacts that would be significant prior to 

mitigation, and the mitigation measures identified to reduce impacts to less than 

significant, are described below.

Riparian habitat will be temporarily affected during construction and there will be 

permanent impacts as a result of the Selected Alternative. Restoration of riparian 

habitat shortly after construction disturbance will mitigate construction period impacts 

to less than significant. The Authority will compensate for permanent impacts on 

riparian habitat, determined in consultation with the appropriate agencies (e.g., 

California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), by restoring nearby areas to suitable 

habitat through permittee-responsible mitigation and/or by purchasing credits in a 

mitigation bank. This mitigation measure will result in less than significant permanent 

impacts on riparian habitat.

 22 Authority and FRA. 2012. Proposed California HST Project Noise and Vibration Mitigation Guidelines. 

Appendix 3.4-A of the California HST Merced to Fresno Section Final Project EIR/EIS. Volume II: Technical 

Appendices. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. April 2012. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

28

The Selected Alternative may result in an incremental regional effect and measureable 

adverse loss of special-status plant species populations. Measures to mitigate 

impacts on special-status plant species include developing and implementing a plan to 

address monitoring, salvage, relocation, and propagation of special-status plant species 

during and after construction; the purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank;

and/or conducting a special-status plant re-establishment program within the same 

watershed or in proximity to the impact area. Mitigation measures and compliance with 

the Section 7 BO and the Incidental Take Permit will mitigate temporary and permanent 

impacts on special-status plant species to less than significant. 

The Selected Alternative may result in an incremental regional effect and measurable 

adverse loss of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Measures to mitigate impacts 

on jurisdictional waters and wetlands include monitoring of construction impacts, 

restoration of disturbed areas after construction, compensation for permanent impacts, 

and implementation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation measures 

and compliance with the CWA, regulatory agency permit conditions, and the Streambed 

Alteration Agreement (pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code)

will mitigate impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands to less than significant both 

temporarily during the construction period and permanently.

The Selected Alternative will result in an incremental regional effect and measurable 

adverse loss of special-status wildlife species populations. Measures to mitigate 

impacts on special-status wildlife populations include implementation of a Habitat 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, submittal of post-construction compliance reports to 

regulatory agencies, and compensation through habitat replacement or monetary 

contributions, among others. Mitigation measures and compliance with the Section 7 

BO and the Incidental Take Permit will mitigate impacts on special-status wildlife

species to less than significant temporarily during the construction period and 

permanently.

The Selected Alternative will potentially impact some of the species and habitat present 

at Camp Pashayan within the San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve and could 

contribute to an incremental regional and measurable loss of populations. Minimization 

and mitigation measures and project design features at the San Joaquin River developed 

in ongoing coordination with CDFG will result in less than significant impacts on 

biological resources at Camp Pashayan.

5.6 Hydrology and Water Resources

Currently, groundwater supports many existing water uses along the Selected

Alternative. As a result of the Selected Alternative, some of these uses will no longer 

exist. The elimination of some water uses will reduce regional groundwater drawdown, 

which will be a beneficial effect to groundwater supplies in the region.

The Selected Alternative will not cause any significant adverse impacts on hydrology or 

water resources.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

29

5.7 Safety and Security

Operating on a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment, using contemporary 

safety, signaling, and automated train control systems, the HST System, including the 

Selected Alternative, would provide a safe and reliable means of intercity travel. Design 

of the system also would avoid conflicts with other vehicles, existing rail systems,

pedestrians, and bicyclists and allow the trains to operate year-round under different 

weather conditions. Overall, the HST would provide a safety benefit. The Selected

Alternative will also improve safety where existing at-grade railroad crossings are 

replaced with grade-separated crossings, resulting in a beneficial effect on safety at 

railroad crossings in local communities. 

The demand for local emergency services may increase in the Downtown Merced and 

Downtown Fresno station areas due to the number of additional people present at the 

stations. The Authority will monitor service levels in the vicinity of the stations to 

establish baseline service demands and will fund the Authority’s fair share of services 

above the average baseline service demand level, based on projected passenger use. The 

resulting impact on emergency providers will be less than significant. 

5.8 Socioeconomics, Communities, and Environmental 

Justice

Project construction will temporarily benefit regional economic conditions through

increased sales tax revenues and job creation due to project spending. Jobs will be 

created through construction of the Selected Alternative and through other sectors that 

provide materials, equipment, and services. Construction will also benefit employment 

for low-income and minority communities (also called communities of concern) with the 

implementation of mitigation measures such as special recruitment, training, and other 

employment programs. 

Permanent benefits include improved mobility within the region, improved traffic 

conditions on freeways, improvements in regional air quality, new employment 

opportunities, and increased tax revenues in the region. Benefits of the Selected

Alternative will likely accrue to a greater degree in minority and low-income 

communities because they comprise a large percentage of the population in the project 

area. 

The Selected Alternative will result in adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. With mitigation, the effects of noise impacts on communities of concern in 

Merced and Fresno and visual impacts, displacements, and relocations on communities 

of concern in the City of Madera and Madera Acres will not be appreciably more severe 

or greater in magnitude than those effects on the general population. Therefore, impacts 

on these communities of concern are not considered disproportionate. 

In the community of Fairmead, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, 

visual impacts, displacements, and relocations may result in significant impacts on 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

30

communities of concern. Visual impacts of the elevated guideway may reduce property 

values due to the size of the structure and its proximity to the small community. In 

addition, residents may need to relocate outside of Fairmead because there are not 

enough replacement properties available within the community. The Authority will 

implement mitigation measures such as considering relocation of structures on existing 

properties or nearby vacant parcels, constructing replacement housing on vacant lots, 

and implementing design measures to minimize the potential for physical deterioration 

around and under the elevated HST structure.

The offsetting benefits associated with the Selected Alternative are considered as part of 

the environmental justice analysis. The Selected Alternative will provide benefits to all 

populations, including communities of concern. Because much of the study area 

population includes communities of concern, the benefits of the Selected Alternative are 

likely to accrue to a greater degree to the communities of concern. To offset any 

disproportionate effects, special recruitment, training, and job set-aside programs will be 

developed so that communities of concern are able to benefit from the jobs created by 

the Selected Alternative.

5.9 Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

The Selected Alternative will result in beneficial effects on regional land use and 

development. Increased density around the HST stations will minimize sprawl, promote 

transit-oriented development, and revitalize the downtown areas of Merced and Fresno. 

Concentrated and infill development may also assist in preserving agricultural lands and 

natural resources in the region. The Selected Alternative will fulfill local and regional 

plans that promote infill and redevelopment opportunities and encourage reduced 

automobile dependency and the use of alternative transportation modes. 

The Selected Alternative will not cause significant adverse impacts on land use or 

development.

5.10 Agricultural Lands

The Selected Alternative will convert between 1,273 and 1,426 acres of important 

farmland to a transportation use, causing significant loss of farmland in the project area. 

Mitigation measures will preserve land for agriculture and consolidate remnant parcels 

so that they remain in agricultural production. To support farmland preservation, the 

Authority will enter into a contract with the California Department of Conservation 

(DOC) to provide agricultural land mitigation services. On behalf of the Authority, 

DOC’s California Farmland Conservancy Program will establish permanent agricultural 

conservation easements on land of similar acreage, location, and quantity to that affected 

by the Selected Alternative. The new conservation easements will prevent the future loss 

of currently unprotected farmland to development. However, these mitigation measures 

will not create new farmland or replace the converted farmland in an area of high 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

31

production agricultural soils that are threatened by development encroachment. 

Therefore, the farmland loss is considered a significant impact. 

5.11 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Construction of the Selected Alternative will require permanent acquisition of 0.6 acre of 

the San Joaquin River Ecological Reserve property at Camp Pashayan to install piers for 

elevating the guideway, representing an impact of 2% of the Camp Pashayan total area. 

This impact, in addition to temporarily limiting access to a small portion of Camp 

Pashayan for up to four years, will result in significant impacts on the park. The 

Authority will compensate CDFG, the park owner, for construction staging in the park 

through an allowance or additional property to accommodate for displaced park use 

during construction. However, even with this mitigation, the impact on the park will 

remain significant in the context of the local region and due to the duration of the 

construction use. 

The projected increase in noise to Roeding Park resulting from the Selected Alternative 

will be significant without mitigation. Construction of a sound barrier will reduce the 

noise impact on Roeding Park to less than significant.

5.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

The HST stations will improve visual quality in the Merced and Fresno downtown urban 

centers. The architecture of the HST stations and landscape improvements proximate to 

the stations will enhance visual quality. Indirect impacts of the HST stations could reach 

beyond the immediate station area and increase the overall visual quality of the larger 

downtown areas, which are areas of high viewer sensitivity in which the visual changes 

will be long in duration. These impacts will create beneficial visual effects in downtown 

Merced and Fresno.

The Selected Alternative will create significant adverse visual effects in certain areas west 

of SR 99 where elevated HST structures and road overcrossings of the HST will remove 

orchards and fields, block views, and degrade the visual quality in the area. Mitigation 

measures such as planting trees and other vegetation to screen the structures will reduce 

the visual effect, but the change will remain significant. 

Traction power substations will potentially alter the visual character of adjacent lands 

and/or potentially block views toward areas beyond the HST alignment. Mitigation with 

physical or vegetative screening and location selection will result in less than significant 

visual impacts from the substations.

5.13 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The Selected Alternative will affect resources in known archaeological sites and may 

affect archaeological sites that are presently unknown or undiscovered. Mitigation 

measures, such as halting construction if a previously undiscovered archaeological site is 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

32

revealed, conducting archaeological monitoring near identified or sensitive sites, and 

planning intentional site burial and preservation in place if avoidance is not feasible, will 

reduce impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant. 

The Selected Alternative will physically affect built cultural resources, resulting in 

significant impacts on historic properties. Even with treatment measures such as 

relocating historic structures, preparing and submitting nominations for historic 

registers, documenting historic resources, preparing structural reports, creating 

interpretive exhibits, and planning to prepare for inadvertent damage, the impacts will 

remain significant.

Destruction of fossil deposits during construction will result in significant impacts on 

paleontological resources without mitigation. Mitigation measures such as monitoring, 

implementing a paleontological plan, and halting construction when paleontological 

resources are found will reduce impacts to less than significant. 

6.0 Commitments

Consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1505.2(c), all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm caused by the Selected Alternative have been identified and 

included as mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan 

(MMEP), included as Appendix C.23 The MMEP describes mitigation measures that will 

avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse environmental impacts that result 

from constructing and operating the Merced to Fresno Section of the California HST 

System. These measures were developed by FRA and the Authority in consultation with 

appropriate agencies, as well as with input from the public. The Authority has also

proposed mitigation measures that were determined necessary to comply with CEQA. 

For the purposes of compliance with NEPA, measures that are specific to CEQA are 

described in the MMEP as “voluntary.” The Authority adopted the measures listed as 

voluntary mitigation in the MMEP to comply with CEQA, and they are included in FRA’s 

MMEP to provide the comprehensive mitigation strategy for the Selected Alternative. 

The Authority is required to comply with all mitigation measures adopted with the ROD, 

including those specific to CEQA and those addressing Federal laws and requirements. 

The mitigation measures in the MMEP contain formal commitments required for project 

approval. Therefore, in designing, constructing, and operating the Selected Alternative, 

the Authority is required to adhere to and provide appropriate funding for all mitigation 

measures in Appendix C. The Authority will implement an Environmental Management 

System consisting of strategic planning, policies and procedures, organizational 

structure, staffing and responsibilities, milestones, schedule, and resources devoted to 

achieving the Authority’s environmental commitments. The Environmental 

Management System will also track the implementation of environmental requirements 

 23 FRA will monitor the implementation of environmental commitments in the MMEP consistent with CEQ 

regulations and guidance. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

33

and compliance reports. This system will rely on data from the design/build contractor, 

regional consultants, permitting activities, monitoring, inspections, and other 

compliance activities. This database will be managed by the Authority, and agency 

partners, including FRA, will receive regular updates from meetings and reports that will 

demonstrate compliance activities and progress relevant to their regulatory 

requirements. 

In addition to mitigation measures, the Selected Alternative incorporates many design 

features and BMPs that are identified in the Final EIS and included in detail in the 

technical reports. As a result of applying these design features and BMPs, the Selected 

Alternative will avoid significant impacts in several resource areas. In addition, the 

regulatory requirements for many activities provide additional assurance that significant 

impacts on the environment will not occur. The applicable regulatory requirements and 

project design features that are part of the Selected Alternative are described in more 

detail in the MMEP (Appendix C). Like the mitigation measures (Appendix C), the 

project design features are a condition of project approval and must be implemented by 

the Authority during design, construction, and operation of the Selected Alternative. 

7.0 Summary of Comments on the Final EIS

During the 30-day waiting period following publication of the Final EIS, FRA received 

12 comment letters. In addition to the comment letters received by the FRA during the 

30-day waiting period, the Authority received a combination of 26 comment letters and 

emails, as well as hearing from speakers at the Authority Board hearing held on May 2, 

2012, focusing primarily on CEQA-related issues. Staff responses were prepared on May 

3, 2012 for the comments received by the Authority. These staff responses are available 

for the public on the Authority's website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/final-eirm-f.aspx. All substantive comments received in the waiting period referenced issues that 

were previously addressed in detail in Volume IV of the Final EIS or by the Authority 

staff responses and therefore do not require any further response here. No issues were 

identified in the comments that were not previously addressed. 

The range and types of comments received during the waiting period included concerns 

and questions regarding the following topics:

 Range of alternatives considered

 Technology to be used for the project

 Notification of availability of the environmental document

 Process for decision making regarding the wye connections

 Coordination with UPRR and the associated impacts on freight service

 Location of barriers and walls and the required/adequate distances and 

clearances

 Right-of-way and relocation assistance 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

34

 Mitigation measures for agricultural lands

 Adequacy of the water analysis, specifically the demand during construction, 

water demand estimates, and the preparation of a water supply assessment

 Environmental Justice, specifically the determination of disproportionate 

impacts on environmental justice populations, construction duration estimates, 

residential and business displacements by community, mitigation measures, and 

implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

 Sprawl inducement, land use, station area development, and California Senate 

Bill 375

 Utility relocation and associated impacts

 Emissions from hauling materials outside SJVAB, specifically adequately 

addressing hauling from outside the project area, hauling ballast, and the 

inclusion of water trucks in construction emission calculations

 Mitigation measures for air quality

 Staging areas and batch plants

 Noise and vibration, specifically noise monitoring sites and mitigation measures

 Operation of Amtrak and the HST 

 Project funding

 Biological performance standards, specifically wildlife surveys, baseline, and 

performance standards

 Forestiere Underground Gardens and historic property impacts

 Coordination with local school districts and associated impacts on school 

districts, school bus routes, and poverty-level students

 Road closures and detours

 Safety and security; derailment

 Maintenance access and emergency responses 

 Independent utility

In issuing this ROD, FRA has considered all comments received on the Final EIS, as well 

as the comments previously received on the Draft EIS.

8.0 Corrections to the Final EIS

FRA and the Authority prepared an errata sheet to identify minor corrections to the 

Final EIS and issued it on April 27, 2012. The errata sheet identifies the location of the 

correction in the Final EIS, the incorrect text, the corrected text, and the reason for the 

correction. None of these corrections materially affected the FRA’s decision. These 

corrections are noted in an errata sheet in Appendix D and pertain to the following 

chapters of the Final EIS: cover sheet; Summary; Alternatives; Transportation; Air 

Quality and Global Climate Change; Public Utilities and Energy; Biological Resources 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

35

and Wetlands; Hazardous Materials and Wastes; Socioeconomics, Communities, and 

Environmental Justice; Agricultural Lands; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space;

Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Cultural and Paleontological Resources; Cumulative 

Impacts; Preferred Alternative and Station; and Public and Agency Involvement. 

Changes made to mitigation measures in the errata have been incorporated into the 

MMEP, included as Appendix C. 

As discussed in Section 1.3, the Authority proposes to use the design/build method of 

project delivery. As the Selected Alternative proceeds into final design, project design 

modifications may occur. FRA and the Authority will consider whether project design 

modifications could result in new environmental impacts of a type or severity not 

analyzed in the EIS Documents. Where appropriate, FRA and the Authority will evaluate 

the modification to determine whether it would result in a substantial change that 

requires a supplemental Final EIS consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c). 

9.0 Decision

FRA finds that the Hybrid Alternative, Merced Downtown Station, and Fresno Mariposa 

Street Station Alternative best fulfill the purpose and need and objectives for the Project 

while balancing impacts on the natural and human environment. FRA considered the 

physical and operational characteristics and potential environmental consequences 

associated with the HST alternatives. FRA, as lead agency, consulted with the joint lead 

agency and cooperating agencies and considered the EIS Documents, including the 

analysis of the No Action Alternative, all action alternatives, and all public and agency 

comments received during the review periods in identifying the Selected Alternative. 

The cooperating agencies may issue their own decision documents, as appropriate, 

consistent with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities.

9.1 Section 106 

Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f) requires that any Federal agency having direct 

or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertaking take 

into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or 

other object that is listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

FRA, the SHPO, the Authority, and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation 

executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the California High-Speed Rail Program 

on July 22, 2011. The PA sets forth a process for consistent application of Section 106, 

including consultation, for all project sections. The PA outlines a uniform approach for 

the identification of cultural resources located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE),

as well as the evaluation, assessment of effects, and treatment of cultural resources 

potentially affected by each undertaking. The PA stipulates that Memoranda of 

Agreement (MOA) be developed for each undertaking where the FRA determines there 

would be an adverse effect to Historic Properties.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

36

An MOA for the treatment of adverse effects to historic properties for the Merced to 

Fresno Section of the HST System was developed and executed among FRA, the 

Authority, and the SHPO on August 31, 2012 (Appendix A). The MOA summarizes the 

results of the Section 106 process and the treatment measures agreed to among the 

Selected Alternative’s consulting and concurring parties. The treatment measures are 

elaborated upon in detail in two primary attachments to the MOA: the Archaeological 

Treatment Plan and the Built Environment Treatment Plan. 

The City of Madera, City of Fresno, County of Fresno, California Valley Miwok Tribe, 

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, Santa 

Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe, North Fork Mono Tribe, and the Chowchilla Tribe of Yokuts

were consulted in the development of the MOA and treatment plans. The City of 

Madera, the City of Fresno, and Fresno County, as well as the following Federallyrecognized Native American tribes: Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Santa Rosa 

Rancheria Tachi Tribe, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the California 

Valley Miwok Tribe; and the following non-Federally recognized Native American tribes: 

North Fork Mono Tribe and the Chowchilla Tribe of Yokuts, have accepted the Authority 

and FRA’s invitations to be consulting parties to the MOA and treatment plans. 24

9.2 Section 4(f) Determination

The Final EIS included an evaluation required by Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303). The alternatives evaluation process 

conducted as part of the Merced to Fresno Section EIS process concluded that in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 303(c), there was no feasible and prudent HST alternative 

within the study area that did not result in a use of a Section 4(f) resource. Further, the 

least harm analysis determined that the Selected Alternative is the alternative with the 

least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources. FRA also identified the appropriate 

measures to minimize harm to 4(f) properties as part of the EIS and 4(f) Evaluation in 

cooperation with the agencies that have jurisdiction over each 4(f) resource. These 

measures have been incorporated into the MMEP (Appendix C), and the Authority will 

implement them as a condition of project approval. 

FRA finds that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the permanent use of 

two historic resources, the Weber Avenue Overcrossing Bridge and the Belmont Avenue 

Subway and Traffic Circle in Fresno, because these sites will be permanently 

incorporated into the Selected Alternative.

 The Weber Avenue Overcrossing Bridge (NRHP-eligible) in Fresno is in the direct 

path of the Selected Alternative, the construction of which will result in the 

physical destruction, damage, or alteration of this historic property. This will be 

a permanent use under Section 4(f).

 The Belmont Avenue Subway and Traffic Circle (recommended as NRHPeligible) in Fresno, which is located just southeast of Roeding Park, is in the 

 24 Signatures of potentially concurring parties are currently being sought. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

37

direct path of the Selected Alternative and associated roadway improvements, 

and the construction of the Selected Alternative will result in the elimination of 

this historic property. This will be a permanent use under Section 4(f).

FRA found that the Selected Alternative resulted in a de minimis impact under 49 U.S.C. 

303(d) to Camp Pashayan. FRA and the Authority worked with CDFG, the agency with 

jurisdiction over the resource, to develop mitigation measures and determine 

concurrence with FRA’s findings. FRA received written concurrence with its de minimis

determination about project effects on Camp Pashayan from CDFG on September 10,

2012, included as Appendix E.

9.3 General Conformity

As part of the environmental review of the Selected Alternative, FRA conducted a general 

conformity evaluation pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart W and 40 C.F.R. Part 93 

Subpart B, which can be found in the Merced to Fresno Section project library at 

Authority’s website.25 The general conformity regulations apply to the Selected 

Alternative because the project area is located in an area that is designated as a severe 

nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for PM2.5, and, in the 

urban areas of Fresno County, a maintenance area for CO. FRA conducted the general 

conformity evaluation following all regulatory criteria and procedures and in 

coordination with EPA, SJVAB, and the California Air Resources Board. As a result of 

this review, FRA concluded, based on the fact that project-generated emissions will 

either be fully offset (for construction phase) or less than zero (for operational phase), 

that the Selected Alternative’s emissions can be accommodated in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the SJVAB. FRA has determined that the Selected 

Alternative as designed will conform to the approved SIP, based on the following 

findings:

 A commitment from the Authority that all construction-phase NOx and VOC 

emissions for the years that the conformity applicability thresholds will be 

exceeded will be offset through a VERA with SJVAPCD. 

 The Authority and the SJVAPCD will enter into a contractual agreement to 

mitigate the Selected Alternative’s NOx and VOC emissions (in the years of 

exceedance) by providing funds for the SJVAPCD’s Emission Reduction Incentive 

Program to fund grants for projects that achieve the necessary emission 

reductions.

 The SJVAPCD will seek and implement the necessary emission reduction 

measures, using Authority funds.

 The SJVAPCD will serve in the role of administrator of the emissions reduction 

projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. 

 25The Authority library for the Merced to Fresno Section is located online at 

www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_Merced_Fresno.aspx.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

38

Therefore, FRA concludes that the Selected Alternative, as designed, conforms to the 

purpose of the approved SIP and is consistent with all applicable requirements. 

9.4 Section 7 Endangered Species Finding 

Since the Selected Alternative will result in a “take” of special status fish species under 

Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS and USFWS prepared BOs to identify the effect and extent of 

the take and propose conservation measures to avoid and/or minimize potential adverse 

effects of the Selected Alternative.

Based upon these findings, summarized below, FRA determines that the Selected 

Alternative is consistent with Section 7 of the ESA.

9.4.1 Biological Opinion Issued by NMFS

NMFS cannot accurately estimate the number of individual fish subject to take from the 

Selected Alternative. Therefore, NMFS is using an environmental surrogate to estimate 

the level of take to Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon or Central Valley steelhead 

that may occur. NMFS utilizes the area of sound pressure wave impacts extending into 

the water column during pile driving as a surrogate for the number of fish subject to 

take. Take may also occur during handling of stranded individuals during dewatering 

activities prior to construction work. This level of take is anticipated to be less than 10%

of those individuals handled. 

FRA and the Authority have proposed conservation measures including performing fish 

surveys, limiting the construction window, and measures to limit effects during 

construction. Given this, NMFS has determined that the level of take resulting from the 

construction of the Selected Alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon or Central Valley steelhead. 

However, NMFS has incorporated several reasonable and prudent measures to further 

minimize incidental take of Federally listed fish species. NMFS also proposes 

conservation recommendations including BMPs to protect aquatic and riparian habitat 

outside of the work zone including implementation of measures from the 1602 permit 

and the stormwater pollution prevention plan.

9.4.2 Biological Opinion Issued by USFWS

USFWS has determined that even with the implementation of the proposed conservation 

measures, there is a likelihood of take of San Joaquin kit fox, central California tiger 

salamander, conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole 

shrimp, and valley elderberry beetle from the Selected Alternative. USFWS has also 

concluded that there will be adverse effects to the Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley 

Orcutt grass, hairy Orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, and succulent owl’s clover. USFWS 

has also stated that it cannot accurately estimate the number of individual listed species

subject to take from the Selected Alternative. Therefore, USFWS is using the amount of 

habitat affected by the Selected Alternative as a surrogate to estimate the level of take. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

39

USFWS has concluded that the Selected Alternative is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any listed species because the amount of anticipated take is of 

such a limited scale, relative to the status of these species in and around the action area 

and range-wide. In addition, USFWS has concluded that the Selected Alternative will 

not result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 

USFWS has incorporated terms and conditions and conservation recommendations to 

further minimize incidental take of listed plant and wildlife species affected by the 

Selected Alternative.

9.5 Wetlands Finding 

In addition to NEPA and other environmental laws, FRA is also required to make 

findings pursuant to Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Wetlands Order, DOT Order 5660.1A.

It is anticipated that impacts on waters of the United States may occur as a result of the

Selected Alternative. However, as noted in Section 2.2 above, in March 2012 USACE 

identified the Selected Alternative as the LEDPA. Design requirements and permit 

conditions will require contractors to avoid impacts on jurisdictional waters wherever 

feasible. 

In addition to the Section 404 permit, the Authority will submit water quality 

certification applications, prepared pursuant to Section 401 to the State Water Resources 

Control Board (SWRCB) for the Selected Alternative. To the maximum extent 

practicable, the Authority will implement pre- and post-construction BMPs for sediment 

and erosion control. If avoidance of impacts on jurisdictional waters is not feasible, 

mitigation will be determined by USACE and SWRCB and reflected in permits and other 

authorizations issued for the Selected Alternative.

Based upon these findings, FRA determines that the Selected Alternative is consistent 

with Executive Order 11990 and DOT Order 5660.1A.

9.6 Floodplains

DOT Order 5620.2 implements Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. These 

orders state that FRA may not approve an alternative involving a significant 

encroachment on a floodplain unless FRA can make a finding that the proposed 

encroachment is the only practicable alternative. The major purposes of Executive Order 

11988 are to avoid Federal support for floodplain development; to prevent uneconomic, 

hazardous, or incompatible use of floodplains; to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial floodplain values; and to be consistent with the standards and criteria of the 

National Floodplain Insurance Program. 

FRA concludes that the Selected Alternative will not result in any substantial adverse 

impact on natural and beneficial values of the floodplains, will not result in a substantial 

change in flood risks or damage, and will not have a substantial potential for 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Merced to Fresno Section

40

interruption or termination of emergency service and evacuation routes. Based upon 

these findings, FRA determines that the Selected Alternative is consistent with 

requirements of Executive Order 11988.

9.7 Environmental Justice Finding 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that each Federal agency shall make 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. DOT Order 5610.2(a), “Department of Transportation Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 77 FR 

27534 (May 10, 2012), imposes similar obligations on DOT operating administrations to 

promote the principles of Executive Order 12898 and incorporate such principles in all 

programs, policies, and activities, including the NEPA process.

Moderate noise impacts and displacements and relocations in the cities of Merced and 

Fresno will be predominantly borne by communities of concern. With mitigation, the 

effects of displacements and relocations on communities of concern will not be 

substantial and will not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the 

adverse effect on the general population. Benefits will likely accrue to a greater degree to 

communities of concern because they comprise a large percentage of the population in 

the study areas and in the community. These benefits will include improved mobility 

within the region, improved traffic conditions on freeways, improvements in air quality 

within the region, and new employment opportunities during construction and 

operation. Jobs created by construction and operation of the Selected Alternative will

likely be filled by workers in the region. The new jobs will not result in any benefits that 

will accrue to a greater degree to the communities of concern unless they have the 

necessary skills or they receive training or participate in some other type of program that 

enables employment.