DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-11 

surrounding urban development and utilitarian visual features. Since the existing 

landscape is not unified or intact, AAA 8 would do little to detract from the intactness or 

unity of the viewshed. The elevated structure and passing trains would disrupt views to 

the west. The overall visual quality would remain low with AAA 8. 

Portions of AAA 8 Outside of I-15 Freeway Corridor: Similar to Segment 6B 

evaluated in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS, the alignment adjustment would traverse 

through an area of low visual quality. Figure S-3.6-9 shows that while the alignment 

adjustment would traverse through the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road, the 

elevated rail alignment and associated concrete pillars would not detract from the limited 

intactness and unity of the existing view. The alignment adjustment would result in a 

reduction in vividness, as views to the north of the distant mountains for motorists 

traveling on northbound I-15 and Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road would be disrupted 

by the elevated structure. The visual quality with the alignment adjustment would remain 

low with implementation of AAA 8. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The visual effects associated with the Wigwam MSF modification would be similar to the 

effects of the Wigwam MSF evaluated in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. Figure S3.6-10 illustrates that the Wigwam MSF would be located behind a concrete wall when 

viewed from the I-15 freeway. The Wigwam MSF modification would not substantially 

change this condition but would reorient the trackway to enter the MSF from the south 

rather than the north as shown in the figure. The modification to the Wigwam MSF would 

not be out of character with the existing landscape due to the presence of the existing I-15 

transportation corridor and existing overhead electric transmission lines. With the 

modification, the Wigwam MSF would not decrease the already low visual quality of the 

existing environment. 

Profile Modification 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

The Segment 3B profile modification would depress the rail alignment approximately 6 to 

8 feet below grade within a retained cut for a distance of about 1.3 miles. Implementation 

of this profile modification would reduce the visibility of the train from the I-15 freeway 

when compared to the Segment 3B evaluated in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Additionally, a wall would be constructed between the I-15 freeway and rail alignment, 

which would preclude views of the profile modification for motorists on the I-15 freeway 

corridor. Figure S-3.6-11 provides a visual simulation of the Segment 3B profile 

modification, as seen from the southbound I-15 freeway corridor. The wall and upper 

portions of the overhead catenary features would be visible to the north from motorists 

traveling on I-15. The wall would become the primary visual feature and would block 

views of the mountains to the north. Views of the mountains to the south and west would 

remain undisturbed. Similar to Segment 3B evaluated in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft 

EIS, the profile modification would remain contrast with the existing environment. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-12 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

The Segment 3B profile modification would be seen by motorists traveling on I-15 when 

looking north. The wall and upper portions of the overhead catenary features would be 

visible, resulting in a decrease in the overall vividness of the undeveloped desert 

landscape. Views of undeveloped lands and mountains to the north would be replaced 

with less vivid views of a wall in the foreground of the landscape. Refer to Figure S-3.6-

11 for a visual simulation of the Segment 3B profile modification for motorists travelling 

southbound on the I-15 freeway corridor. The profile modification would result in a 

reduction in intactness and unity as well. Nonetheless, the profile modification would 

result in a decrease in the existing visual quality, similar to Segment 3B as evaluated in 

Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

3.6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-6 identified in Section 3.6.5.1 of the Draft 

EIS would be applied to the new rail alignments, station site option, operations and 

maintenance facilities, alignment adjustments, and profile modifications to reduce 

potentially adverse effects related to operational visual effects. In regards to potential 

visual compatibility issues associated with the Frias Substation, Mitigation Measure 

VIS-3 would be applied. 

Mitigation Measures VIS-7 through VIS-10 identified in Section 3.6.5.2 of the Draft 

EIS would also be applied to the additional alternatives to reduce potentially significant 

effects associated with construction of the project modifications and additions. No new 

mitigation would be required. The relevant mitigation measures from Sections 3.6.5.1 

and 3.6.5.2 of the Draft EIS are summarized below: 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-1 – Requires rail features, including pillars, raised 

tracks, catenary structures, embankments, and crash barriers, to be designed to 

blend with or represent the surrounding desert environment. Final design of the 

rail features within the I-15 right-of-way shall be reviewed by the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT) as appropriate. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-2 – Requires the Victorville Station and associated 

elements to be developed with architecture, muted colors, and landscaping that 

reflect the surrounding desert aesthetic. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-3 – Requires maintenance facilities to be aesthetically 

appropriate for the surrounding desert landscape through the use of muted colors 

and desert landscaping. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-4 – Requires contour grading techniques to be applied 

where feasible to reduce the visual appearance of cut and fill slopes.Mitigation 

Measure VIS-5 – Requires lighting at station and maintenance facilities outside 

of the Las Vegas metropolitan area to be designed to minimize disruption of the 

natural dark at night in the desert landscape. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-13 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-6 – Requires stations to provide interpretive displays 

and artwork in pedestrian areas in order to create a coherent pedestrian landscape 

and sense of place. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-7 – Requires construction to be maintained in an 

orderly manner, including proper containment and disposal of litter and debris to 

prevent dispersal onto adjacent properties or streets. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-8 – Requires construction crews working at night to 

direct any artificial lighting into the work area to minimize the spillover of light or 

glare onto adjacent areas. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-9 – Requires visual screening to be erected along 

construction and staging areas as appropriate. 

 Mitigation Measure VIS-10 – Requires the replacement of landscaping that 

will be removed during construction, as directed by Caltrans or NDOT as 

appropriate. Replacement landscaping shall occur within 6 months of 

construction. 

3.6.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Despite the incorporation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the modifications 

and additions to the project would result in the permanent introduction of new elements 

to the project area, ultimately resulting in a permanent visual change within the viewshed. 

This residual impact is consistent with that of the action alternatives evaluated in Section 

3.6.5.3 of the Draft EIS. 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Rockview Park

Grady Trammel Park

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 08.20.10

4

5

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (1)

FIG

S-3.6-1

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Geografika Consulting 08.20.10

4

5

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (2)

FIG

S-3.6-2

Las Vegas

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 08.20.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (3)

FIG

S-3.6-3

Las Vegas

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Legend

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
TCA 14 Stonewater Park

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 08.20.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (4)

FIG

S-3.6-4

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers
TCA 14 

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Robindale MSF

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 08.20.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 7 A

Visual Quality / Sensitivity (5)

FIG

S-3.6-5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Visual Quality / Sensitivity

(Representative Locations)

High

Medium

Low

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2.5 1.25

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications
Yermo Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Victorville

OMSF Site1 Victorville

Site 1

Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Victorville

Segment 2B

Victorville

Site 3A/3B

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 4A

Segment 3A

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 2A

Segment 2A/2B

Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B are one

common alignment that would be used

under Alternative A or Alternative B.

Segment 2C

Segment 4C

1

Locator Map

Map 1 of 1

Legend

1 inch equals 10.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

FIG

S-3.6-6

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.30.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 10 5

Miles

1 inch = 4 miles

Mojave

Monkeyflower

Mojave

Fishhook

Cactus

Fremont-Kramer DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard

Calico Early

Man Site

Parishs

Phacelia

Manix

Afton

Canyon

Cronese

Basin

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Halloran

Wash

Shadow

Valley

DWMA

Clark

Mountain

Mountain Pass

Dinosaur Trackway

Ivanpah

DWMA

National Park Lands

Wilderness Area 5

Wilderness Area 4

Wilderness

Area 6

Wilderness

Area 7

Wilderness

Area 11

Wilderness

Area 10

Wilderness

Area 8

Wilderness

Area 9

Wilderness

Area 2

Wilderness

Area 3

Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

Afton Canyon

Clark Mountain

Cronese Basin

Halloran Wash

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard

Mojave Monkeyflower

Mountain Pass Dinosaur Trackway

Parishs Phacelia

Mojave Fishhook Cactus

BLM Designated Wilderness Mngt Area

Calico Early Man Site

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Additional Alignment Modifications

Manix

Mojave National Preserve

Wilderness Areas

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Alignment Adjustment

Areas 1 and 2

Alignment Adjustment

Areas 3, 4 and 5

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 6

Profile

Modification

Area
S-3.6-7 View Comparison,

Victorville Station Site 3A

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view from I-15 eastbound

Visual simulation of Victorville Station 3A

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS

Note: The visual simulation of the VV3B site option would be similar to the conditions 

shown here, as the railroad tracks and station building are proposed for the exact 

same location. However, the surface parking shown here, beneath the electrical 

utility lines, would be located behind the station building under option VV3B
S-3.6-8 Existing Conditions,

Segment 2C (Central Barstow)

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view from Main Street looking southeast (Barstow, CA)

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
S-3.6-9 View Comparison,

Alignment Adjustment Area 8

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road near

West Ali Baba Lane looking northeast (Las Vegas)

Visual simulation of Alignment Adjustment Area 8 on Dean Martin Drive

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
S-3.6-10 View Comparison,

Wigwam MSF Modification

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view from westbound I-15 of Wigwam MSF site option

KOP 8, Visual simulation of Wigwam MSF Modification

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
S-3.6-11 View Comparison,

Profile Modification Area

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view from I-15 westbound near Halloran Springs

Visual simulation of Profile Modification Area 

from westbound I-15 near Halloran Springs

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
S-3.6-12

View Comparison,

Segment 2C

Side Running Option

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Existing view from Main Street looking southeast

Visual simulation of Segment 2C Side Running

at Main Street overcrossing (Barstow)

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
S-3.6-13

View Comparison,

Segment 2C Median

Running Option

Source: Environmental Vision, 2009

Visual simulation of Segment 2C Median

at Main Street overcrossing (Barstow)

Existing view from Main Street looking southeast (Barstow, CA)

DesertXpress - 

Modifications to the Draft EIS
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-1 

3.7 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the potential impacts on cultural resources from the project 

modification and additions and the mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. 

Cultural resources customarily include archaeological resources, such as artifacts; 

ethnographic resources; and those of the historic built environment (historic architectural 

resources). Paleontological resources, which include the fossilized remains of vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants, as well as fossil tracks and trackways, are also considered in this 

section. 

3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The regulations and standards pertinent to archaeological, historic architecture, and 

paleontological resources as described in Section 3.7.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed 

since publication of the Draft EIS and remain applicable to the proposed project. Section 

3.7.2.1 of the Draft EIS describes the Area of Potential Effect (APE) defined for the 

project consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 1

 

Project modifications and additions that occur within the previously recorded APE include 

the modification to OMSF 2, the Wigwam MSF Modification, and the Profile Modification. 

The affected environment for these project modifications and additions are the same as 

those discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 of the Draft EIS for archaeological resources, Section 

3.7.3.2 of the Draft EIS for historic architectural resources, and Section 3.7.3.3 of the 

Draft EIS for paleontological resources. These project modifications and additions 

relative to cultural and paleontological resources are not discussed further as part of this 

Supplemental Draft EIS.

The remaining project modifications and additions require an expansion of the APE. 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the additional archaeological resources recorded within the expanded 

APE as a result of the project modifications and additions. As discussed in Section 

3.7.1.1 of the DEIS, the FRA and the cooperating agencies, with input from DesertXpress 

Enterprises Inc. and Native American Tribes, are developing a Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) for the project in compliance with Section 106. Since under the PA, a formal 

determination of the eligibility of cultural resources would be deferred until after the ROD 

is issued for the project, all potential resources have been considered and an assumption 

of their eligibility has been presented to inform the NEPA process. This process for 

deferring the PA until after the ROD has been issued has been endorsed by the signatory 

cooperating agencies for the PA, including the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the 

 

1 Per 36 CFR § 800.16(d ), the APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE 

is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects 

caused by the undertaking. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-2 

California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), the California and 

Nevada Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), and the National Park Service (NPS), and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). 

Table S-3.7-1 Additional Identified Archaeological Resources at Project 

Modifications and Additions3 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area (Direct or 

Indirect) b

VV3 

JSA-CS-S-005H Historic 

Habitation site with foundation, 

refuse deposits, and privy. 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-073H Historic Historic fence line Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-074H Historic 

Domestic refuse deposit with 

glass, ceramics and metal Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-076H Historic 

Habitation site with road, mound, 

fire ring, and refuse deposits 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-212H Historic 

Habitation site with refuse 

deposits, privy, chimney 

remnant, and rock alignments 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-213H Historic US BLM cadastral marker Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-214H Historic Segment of historic dirt road Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-215H Historic Domestic refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-216H Historic 

Refuse deposit associated with 

construction of NRHP eligible 

transmission line (CA-SBR7694H) Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-3161H Historic 

Habitation site with rock 

alignments, privy, cellar, and 

refuse deposits 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-7694H Historic Boulder power transmission line Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-10315H Historic Boulder to Hoover power 

transmission line 

Eligible Direct 

 

3 For those resources identified as ineligible, neither direct nor indirect impacts would result in an adverse 

environmental effect. Since formal NRHP eligibility status will be determined through a PA process following 

conclusion of the environmental review, all potential resources, both eligible and ineligible are listed. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-3 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area 

(Direct or 

Indirect) b

Segment 2C – Median

CA-SBR-562 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; non-contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Not Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-2283 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site with rock rings; 

contributing element of 

Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-2910H Historic 

Segment of Route 66, part of the 

old National Trails Highway Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-3486 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-4085H Historic Earthen railroad berm 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-6023H Historic 

Extensive residential and 

commercial refuse deposit, 

known as the Yermo Dump 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Indirect 

CA-SBR-6693H Historic 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 

railroad Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8321 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8322 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8323 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric trail; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8923 Multicomponent 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site with historic to 

modern period rock cairns 

Determined Not 

Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-9357 Prehistoric Prehistoric site with rock rings 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-9361H Historic Sidewinder Road wagon trail 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

P-36-20375 Prehistoric Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District, with 45 

identified contributing elements 

Eligible Direct 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-4 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area 

(Direct or 

Indirect) b

Segment 2 C – Side Running

JSA-CS-S-229H Historic 

Homestead site with treelines 

and redeposited trash and 

structural debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-230H Historic Concrete road monument Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-231H Historic Segment of transmission line Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-232H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-233 Prehistoric Cobble quarry 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-234H Historic 

Historic refuse deposit 

containing cans, wire, metal and 

glass 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-235H Historic 

Foundation and light scatter of 

debris Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-236H Historic 

Foundation and light scatter of 

debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-237H Historic 

Foundation and light scatter of 

debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-238H Historic 

Foundation and scatter of debris 

and artifacts Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-239H Historic 

Redeposited refuse deposit of 

glass, ceramics, and metal Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-240H Historic 

Two foundations and light scatter 

of debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-241H Historic 

Foundation and scatter of debris 

and artifacts Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-242H Historic 

Foundation and light scatter of 

debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-243H Historic 

Foundation and light scatter of 

debris Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-244H Historic 

Foundation, fence line and light 

scatter of debris Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-245H Historic Redeposited residential debris Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-246H Historic 

Dense refuse deposit with cans, 

ceramics, metal, glass, and 

firearm cartridges 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-2910H Historic 

Segment of Route 66, part of the 

old National Trails Highway Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-3485 Prehistoric Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District 

Eligible Direct 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-5 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area 

(Direct or 

Indirect) b

CA-SBR-3486 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-3548 Prehistoric Prehistoric rock rings 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-6693H Historic 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 

railroad Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8313H Historic Fence line 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-8321 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-8322 Prehistoric 

Prehistoric lithic quarry and 

reduction site; contributing 

element of Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-9361H Historic Sidewinder Road wagon trail 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

P-36-13644 Prehistoric Lithic scatter and reduction site Eligible Direct 

P-36-20375 Prehistoric 

Sidewinder Quarry 

Archaeological District, with 45 

identified contributing elements Eligible Direct 

Segment 4C 

JSA-CS-S-108H Historic Road segment 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-109H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-111H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-112H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-113H Historic Road segment 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-116H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-117H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-118H Historic Rock cairn 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-200H Historic Utility pole 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-201H Historic Rock cairns Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-203H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-204H Historic 

Mining site with adit and rock 

cairn 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Indirect 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-6 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area 

(Direct or 

Indirect) b

JSA-CS-S-205H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-206H Historic Rock cairn Not Eligible Indirect 

JSA-CS-S-207H Historic 

Cobble support for water 

conveyance pipe 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-208H Historic US GLO cadastral marker Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-210H Historic Road segment Not Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-3048H Historic 

Road segment and refuse 

deposit 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-6835H Historic 

Survey marker, part of Von 

Schmidt Line 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-6955/H Multicomponent 

Prehistoric habitation site with 

lithics, hearth features, and a 

projectile point; and a historic 

refuse deposit and fire ring 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-7098/H Multicomponent 

Prehistoric habitation site with 

lithics, ground stone and hearth ; 

historic well and refuse deposits 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Indirect 

CA-SBR-7347H Historic Road segment 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-10315H Historic 

Boulder to Hoover power 

transmission line Eligible Direct 

CA-SBR-10872 Prehistoric 

Habitation site with lithics, 

projectile points, ground stone, 

and pottery. Eligible Indirect 

RSMSF 

JSA-CS-S-217H Historic Residential refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

JSA-CS-S-222H Historic 

Residential refuse deposit with 

cans, glass, ceramics, and 

faunal remains 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

CA-SBR-4525H Historic Road segment 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-030H Historic Residential refuse deposit Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-031/H Multicomponent 

Prehistoric quarry site and 

historic rock cairns 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-032 Prehistoric Prehistoric quarry site 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

JSA-CS-S-218H Historic 

Rock rings and historic refuse 

deposit Not Eligible Direct 

JSA-CS-S-219H Historic Concrete foundation Not Eligible Direct 

P-2044-5 Prehistoric 

Habitation and food processing 

site 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-7 

Site Number Period Type NRHP Eligibility a Impact Area 

(Direct or 

Indirect) b

CA-SBR-4198 Prehistoric 

Habitation site with pottery, 

lithics, fire affected rock, faunal 

remains, ground stone, and 

possible human remains 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

P-2044-11 Prehistoric Quarry and habitation site 

Assumption of 

Eligibility Direct 

26CK3542 Historic Railroad grade segment Not Eligible Direct 

Source: ICF, 2010.

a

 Preliminary recommendations of not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP were based on the results of the field survey, 

follow-up archival research, and BLM consultation. The preliminary notations of “Not Eligible” and “Assumption of Eligibility” 

are based on existing data and are not a determination of eligibility. SHPO has not concurred on these findings. 

b

 Direct APE impacts would likely occur within 115 feet on either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline, within 50 

feet on either side of the utility corridor (EMU option only), and within the footprint of project facilities. Indirect APE impacts, 

related to construction, would likely occur within 116 to 200 feet on either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline and 

within 51 to 100 feet on either side of the utility corridor (EMU option only). 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Archaeological Resources 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the archaeological resources within the APE for VV3 under both 

parking options. A total of 12 sites were identified within the APE for VV3, all of which 

were identified as historic . Preliminary evaluations of these sites indicate that five sites 

would not be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, five would be assumed eligible, and two 

would be eligible. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Field investigation of the APE around the VV3 site did not identify any historic 

architectural resources. 

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources (fossils) tend to occur within certain layers of geologic units. 

The majority of the VV3 station footprint for both parking options is situated on surface 

exposures of younger (Holocene) alluvial materials, not considered paleontologically 

sensitive. However, these layers are presumed to be underlain at an unknown depth by 

highly sensitive strata of Pleistocene age. 

Segment 2C 

Archaeological Resources 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the archaeological resources within the APE around the Segment 2C 

alignment options. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-8 

A total of 14 sites were identified within the APE for the Segment 2C Median alignment 

option. Of these, five were identified as being in the historic period, eight were identified 

as within the prehistoric period, and one identified as multicomponent. Preliminary 

evaluations of these sites indicate that two sites would not be eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP, four would be assumed eligible, and eight would be eligible. 

A total of 29 sites were identified within the APE for the Segment 2C Side Running 

alignment option. Of these, 21 were identified as being in the historic period and eight 

were identified as within the prehistoric period. Preliminary evaluations of these sites 

indicate that 15 sites would not be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, six would be 

assumed eligible, and eight would be eligible. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

The Segment 2C alignment options traverse central Barstow, which includes several 

notable architectural features. While none of these are eligible or assumed eligible NRHP 

historical architectural resources, they are discussed in greater detail below. 

The Segment 2C alignment options would rise roughly 35 feet over East Main Street and I15 in Barstow. Buildings along East Main Street and its surrounding environs are 

predominantly commercial, with some residential and manufactured homes to the north 

and south. Most of these buildings date from the 1970s or later, and include strip retail, 

hotels, gas stations, and the like. One such building is “Barstow Station,” popularly known 

as the “Train McDonalds.” 

Barstow Station is a novel, western-themed collection of 17 train cars, including a caboose, 

used as dining space and a gift shop for the adjacent two-story McDonalds fast-food 

restaurant. Although the train cars are older and the facility is well known by Los Angelesto-Las Vegas travelers, the buildings are not 50 years old, they have had numerous 

alterations to the exterior cladding since their 1975 completion, and the McDonalds itself 

is a rebuild from an earlier fire that destroyed the original 1975 facility. Based on the 

reconnaissance survey along East Main Street, the vast majority of buildings, including 

Barstow Station, do not appear to be 50 years old and do not demonstrate exceptional 

significance to meet Criteria Consideration G of the NRHP. 

One feature of note at Barstow Station is a wood water tower and tank. Although the tank 

itself appears to be over 50 years old, the tower/support structure is understood to have 

been recently built. The tank is not of a type associated with historic railroad usage. For 

these reasons, the tower does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP. 

The Segment 2C alignment options would also be approximately 30 feet above the existing 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) bridge over I-15 at a point due northeast 

of East Main Street in Barstow. The BNSF bridge is a double-span deck plate girder 

bridge supported on concrete abutments with a central pier. I-15 was completed through 

Barstow in 1958. Since the piers and abutments were constructed at that time, the bridge 

is now greater than 50 years old. However, deck plate girder bridges are a common type, 

and this example does not appear to have any exceptional qualities. The I-15 abutments 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-9 

and piers may have been altered for seismic safety since construction. Given lack of 

quality and probable alterations, the BNSF bridge is unlikely to meet NRHP criteria. 

Paleontological Resources 

The Segment 2C alignment options would cross extensive exposures of Pleistocene alluvial 

units that may be in part correlative with the richly fossiliferous vertebrate-bearing Lake 

Manix/Lake Mojave deposits and are accordingly considered highly sensitive for 

paleontological resources. Construction along this alignment would therefore have the 

potential for adverse effects on paleontological resources. However, both Segment 2C 

alignment options would be within the existing I-15 right-of-way, and thus the ground has 

likely been subject to prior disturbance during grading for 1-15 or trenching for 

underground utilities adjacent to the freeway. Prior site disturbance reduces the potential 

of finding intact paleontological resources, but would not eliminate it entirely. 

Segment 4C 

Archaeological Resources 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the archaeological resources within the APE around Segment 4C. A 

total of 24 sites were identified within the APE for the Segment 4C. Of these, 21 were 

identified as being in the historic period, one was identified as within the prehistoric 

period, and two were identified as exhibiting components from multiple periods. 

Preliminary evaluations of these sites indicate that 11 sites would not be eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP, 11 would be assumed eligible, and two would be eligible. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Field investigation of the APE around Segment 4C did not identify any historic 

architectural resources. 

Paleontological Resources 

Much of Segment 4C would be situated on alluvial deposits of the Holocene age, which are 

not considered paleontologically sensitive. However, older alluvial strata presumably 

present in the subsurface would be highly sensitive. Segment 4C would also traverse areas 

of metamorphic rocks, particularly in mountainous areas, where tunnels are proposed. 

None of these metamorphic rock areas have strong potential to harbor paleontological 

resources. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Archaeological Resources 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the archaeological resources identified by project archaeologists 

within the APE around the RSMSF. One historic period site was identified, but would be 

assumed to not be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-10 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Field investigation of the APE around the RSMSF site did not identify any historic 

architectural resources. 

Paleontological Resources 

Approximately 75 percent of the RSMSF site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of 

Oligocene-Miocene age. A portion of this sequence may correlate with the Barstow 

Formation, which is famous for its vertebrate fauna; this sequence is therefore considered 

highly sensitive. The remaining 25 percent (south end) of the RSMSF site is underlain by 

alluvial deposits of Holocene age, which could include underlying sensitive strata. 

Frias Substation 

Archaeological Resources 

No archaeological resources were identified within the APE for the Frias Substation. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Field investigation of the APE around the Frias Substation site did not identify any historic 

architectural resources. 

Paleontological Resources 

The Frias Substation is underlain by younger alluvial deposits of active fans and washes. 

These deposits have low sensitivity in regards to paleontological resources because of the 

Holocene age. However, these layers could be underlain by more paleontologically 

sensitive older units in the subsurface. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Table S-3.7-1 lists the archaeological resources identified by project archaeologists 

within the APE around the rail alignments as modified by the AAAs. A total of 11 sites 

were identified within the APE for the AAAs. Of these, six were identified as being in the 

historic period, four were identified as within the prehistoric period, and one was 

identified as exhibiting multicomponent periods. Preliminary evaluations of these sites 

indicate that four sites would not be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and seven would be 

assumed eligible. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Field investigation of the expanded APE around the AAAs did not identify any new 

historic architectural resources. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-11 

Paleontological Resources 

The AAAs do not shift any of their associated segments to such an extent that any different 

geologic units would become relevant. Therefore, conclusions regarding paleontological 

resources for the affected rail alignments of Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B 

are as described in Section 3.7.3.3 of the Draft EIS. 

3.7.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology outlined in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential effects of the project modifications and additions. NEPA and NHPA require 

federal agencies to consider the effect of their undertakings on significant resources, 

known as historic properties. The federal significance of an archaeological site or an 

architectural resource is defined by the NRHP. These criteria, defined in 36 CFR § 60.4, 

state that a resource must be at least 50 years old (unless meeting exceptional criteria) and 

possess the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, 

engineering, and culture and is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association and meet one or more of the following criteria: 

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of history; 

B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; 

C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or 

represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 

If a particular resource meets one of these criteria and retains integrity, it is considered as 

an eligible “historic property” for listing in the NRHP. To comply with Section 106 of the 

NHPA, any effects of the proposed undertaking on properties listed in or determined 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP must be analyzed by applying the Criteria of Adverse 

Effect, as follows: 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in 

a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration is given to all qualifying 

characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified 

subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. Adverse 

effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may 

occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-12 

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: 

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

 Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped 

access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties and applicable guidelines; 

 Removal of the property from its historic location; 

 Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the 

property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance; 

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity 

of the property’s significant historic features; 

 Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural 

significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and 

 Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without 

adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long term 

preservation of the property’s historic significance. 

NRHP eligibility status of resources potentially affected in the APE has not yet been 

determined. The project will achieve compliance with Section 106 requirements through a 

PA, which defers eligibility determinations until after the execution of a ROD for the 

project. Table S-3.7-2 summarizes these findings and the assumed eligibility status of all 

potentially affected archaeological resources. 

Impacts on paleontological resources were evaluated following guidelines published by the 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP).4 Paleontological resources can be affected from 

soil disturbing activities during construction. Construction of the project would likely 

result in adverse effects on paleontological resources in the following two situations: 

 Where the proposed rail alignment or facility crosses paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units exposed at the surface. 

 Where the rail alignment or facility is situated on Holocene materials that overlie 

highly sensitive materials, and ground disturbance would be deep enough to affect 

underlying sensitive strata. 

For the purposes of this project’s analysis, the APE as a whole has been divided into areas 

of potential direct and indirect effects. 

 

4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee, 1995. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-13 

The Direct APE has been defined accordingly: 

 Rail alignments: 115 feet on either side of rail alignment centerlines. 

 Stations/maintenance facilities: 0 additional feet around the boundaries of 

these facilities. 

 Utility corridors: 50 feet on either side of utility corridors. 

The Indirect APE has been defined accordingly: 

 Rail alignments: 116 to 200 feet on either side of rail alignment centerlines. 

 Utility corridors: 51 to 100 feet on either side of utility corridors. 

As part of this Supplemental Draft EIS, project archaeologists conducted field surveys of 

the expanded APE, consistent with methods described in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft EIS. 

3.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table S-3.7-2 summarizes the known NRHP eligible or assumed eligible archaeological 

resources within the expanded APE for the project modifications and additions. The 

environmental consequences of the modifications to Wigwam MSF and the profile of 

Segment 3B do not differ from those presented in the Draft EIS. Section 3.7.4.2 of the 

Draft EIS presents a discussion of potential impacts from the Wigwam MSF and Segment 

3B on archaeological, historic architectural and paleontological resources.

Specific discussions of the environmental consequences for the modifications and 

additions within the modified APE are provided below and illustrated in Table S-3.7-2. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-14 

Table S-3.7-2 Known NRHP Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological 

Resources in the Modified APEa

Project Modifications and Additions Archaeological Resources 

Directly Affectedb Archaeological Resources 

Indirectly Affectedb

Number Number 

VV3 (both parking options) 7 0 

OMSF 2 5 0 

Segment 2C Median 11 1 

Segment 2C Side Running 14 0 

Segment 4C 10 3 

Relocated Sloan MSF 1 0 

Frias Substation 0 0 

AAAs 7 0 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

a

 Preliminary recommendations of not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP were based on the results of the field 

survey, follow-up archival research, and BLM consultation. The preliminary notations of “Not Eligible” and 

“Assumption of Eligibility” are based on existing data and are not a determination of eligibility. SHPO has not 

concurred on these findings. Formal determinations of eligibility will be established as outlined in the 

programmatic agreement prepared for the project. 

b

 Direct APE impacts would likely occur within 115 feet on either side of the DesertXpress alignment 

centerline, within 50 feet on either side of the utility corridor (EMU option only), and within the footprint of 

project facilities. Indirect APE impacts, related to construction, would likely occur within 116 to 200 feet on 

either side of the DesertXpress alignment centerline and within 51 to 100 feet on either side of the utility 

corridor (EMU option only). 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Archaeological Resources 

Construction of either parking option for VV3 may result in direct adverse effects to 

cultural resources eligible or assumed eligible for the NRHP. Tables S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 

summarize the resources that could be affected. A total of 7 eligible or assumed eligible 

archaeological resources are potentially affected by VV3. 

All of the eligible or assumed eligible cultural resources in the APE of VV3 are historic 

period resources, and include habitation sites, refuse scatters, a power transmission line, 

and rock cairns. The power line (CA-SBR-10315H) has been found eligible for the NRHP. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-15 

Architectural Resources 

VV3, inclusive of both parking options, would not involve any direct or indirect effects to 

historic architectural resources since no such resources have been identified within the 

expanded APE for VV3. 

Paleontological Resources 

Depending on the thickness of Holocene materials at the VV3 site for either parking 

option, excavations during construction could disrupt underlying sensitive strata and 

damage paleontological resources. 

OMSF 2 

Archaeological Resources 

The reduction of the footprint of OMSF 2 results in one fewer directly affected 

archaeological resource than the larger OMSF 2 evaluated in Section 3.7.4.2 of the Draft 

EIS. With the reduction in size, OMSF 2 would continue to directly affect five historical 

period resources, including refuse deposits, homestead remnants, and mining sites, which 

are discussed in Section 3.7.4.2 the Draft EIS. 

Architectural Resources 

As discussed in Section 3.7.4.2 of the Draft EIS, OMSF 2 would not result in any direct 

or indirect effects to historic architectural resources since no such resources have been 

identified within the APE for OMSF 2. 

Paleontological Resources 

OMSF 2 is located on the same land as considered in Section 3.7.3.3 of the Draft EIS 

and no new geologic units or paleontological sensitivity have been identified. 

Construction activities could disrupt underlying sensitive strata and damage 

paleontological resources, representing an adverse effect. 

Segment 2C 

Archaeological Resources 

Implementation of the Segment 2C alignment options may result in direct and indirect 

adverse effects to cultural resources eligible or assumed eligible for the NRHP. The 

Segment 2C alignment options would be located within the I-15 right-of-way. While this 

area has likely been subject to prior disturbance during grading for I-15 or trenching for 

underground utilities known to run adjacent to the roadway, ground disturbing activities 

associated with constructing either Segment 2C option may nonetheless result in adverse 

effects to cultural resources. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-16 

As described below, the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option could directly affect 

13 archaeological sites eligible or assumed eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, while the 

Segment 2C Median alignment option could directly affect 11 sites. Tables S-3.7-1 and 

S-3.7-2 summarize the resources that could be affected. 

Segment 2C Median: Eleven archaeological sites eligible or assumed eligible could be 

directly impacted by the Segment 2C Median option, including seven prehistoric sites and 

four historical period sites. The historic period resources consist of two railroad grades, 

one of which has been determined eligible for the NRHP (CA-SBR-6693H); the eligible 

National Old Trails Highway (CA-SBR-2910H); a segment of the Sidewinder Road wagon 

trail. CA-SBR-2910H was recommended as eligible under Criteria A and C of the NRHP. 

However, within the alignment for the Segment 2C Median option, CA-SBR-2910H occurs 

in a disturbed area within the median of I-15, and likely has lost its integrity in this area. 

The eligible or assumed eligible prehistoric sites include five stone quarries, and a site 

with rock rings. 

Five of the NRHP-eligible prehistoric archaeological sites found in the Segment 2C 

Median option are contributing elements of the Sidewinder Quarry Archaeological 

District, a National Register District (P36-020365). The district is composed of a total of 

45 prehistoric sites found within and on both sides of I-15. Although only five of these 

sites occur in the Segment 2C Median option, impacts to any of these sites must be treated 

as impacts to the entire district. The district was found eligible under Criterion D, for its 

data potential. 

One assumed eligible site would be indirectly affected by the Segment 2C Median 

alignment option (CA-SBR-6023H), which is a residential and commercial deposit known 

as the Yermo Dump. 

Segment 2C Side Running: For the side running option, 14 archaeological sites 

eligible or assumed eligible could be directly affected, including eight prehistoric sites and 

six historical period sites. Four of these eligible or assumed eligible also occur within the 

Segment 2C Median alignment option, since these alignment options would follow the 

same rail alignment south and east of Barstow. These four sites include a historic railroad 

grade, the National Old Trails highway, the Sidewinder Road wagon trail, and elements of 

the Sidewinder Quarry Archaeological District. Additional historic period resources 

affected by the Segment 2C Side Running option independent of the Segment 2C Median 

alignment option consist of a fence line and two refuse deposits. The prehistoric sites 

include six stone quarries and a site with rock rings. Six of the NRHP-eligible prehistoric 

archaeological sites found in the Segment 2C Side Running option are contributing 

elements of the Sidewinder Quarry Archaeological District, a National Register District 

(P36-020365). As with the Segment 2C Median option, impacts to any of these sites must 

be treated as impacts to the entire district. The district was found eligible under Criterion 

D, for its data potential. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-17 

Architectural Resources 

While there are several historic architectural resources within the APE for the Segment 2C 

alignment options, these resources are not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The 

Segment 2C alignment options would thus have no adverse effects to historic architectural 

resources. 

Paleontological Resources 

The Segment 2C alignment options would be within the I-15 right-of-way, an area 

previously disturbed during freeway construction and trenching for underground utilities. 

However, much of the Segment 2C alignment options would be constructed on elevated 

trackway. This method of construction will require less ground disturbance, but deeper 

excavation for foundations. Therefore, the elevated structure would result in a greater 

potential to encounter fossil resources than at grade trackway. 

Should maintenance activities along the rail alignment disturb areas not previously 

disturbed by construction of the Segment 2C alignment options, potentially adverse effects 

to paleontological resources could occur if substrate of high or undetermined sensitivity is 

present in that area. 

Segment 4C 

Archaeological Resources 

Implementation of Segment 4C may result in direct adverse effects to ten eligible or 

potentially eligible resources. Tables S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 summarize the resources that 

could be affected. The 10 eligible or assumed eligible resources include one previously 

determined NRHP-eligible site, a historic power transmission line (CA-SBR-10315H) that 

was also identified in the APE considered in the Draft EIS. Other resources include 

historic period sites and a multicomponent site with both prehistoric and historic artifacts 

and features. Many of the historic period sites are likely associated with historic mining 

that occurred in the area. These historic sites include roads, survey lines, mines, and 

water conveyance features. The multicomponent site is a prehistoric habitation site with 

hearths, overlain by an historic refuse deposit. 

Within the indirect APE for Segment 4C, three sites assumed eligible have been identified, 

including an historic period site, a prehistoric site, and a multicomponent site. The 

multicomponent site includes a prehistoric habitation site located in shallow dunes, which 

is associated with a lake shore. 

Architectural Resources 

Segment 4C would not involve any direct or indirect effects to historic architectural 

resources as no such resources have been identified within the APE for Segment 4C. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-18 

Paleontological Resources 

Construction of Segment 4C could have an adverse effect on paleontological resources, 

particularly in areas of high sensitivity. Should maintenance activities along the rail 

alignment disturb areas not previously disturbed by construction of Segment 4C, 

potentially adverse effects to paleontological resources could occur if substrate of high or 

undetermined sensitivity is present in that area. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Archaeological Resources 

Construction of the RSMSF would result in direct adverse effects to one cultural resource 

eligible or assumed eligible for the NRHP. Tables S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 summarize the 

resource that could be affected. The site, JSA-CS-S-217H, consists of three separate 

locations of historic period household refuse, probably dating to the 1940s to early 1950s. 

Architectural Resources 

The RSMSF would not involve any direct or indirect effects to historic architectural 

resources as no such resources have been identified within the APE of the RSMSF. 

Paleontological Resources 

Excavations during construction could disrupt underlying sensitive strata and damage 

paleontological resources on the RSMSF site, representing a potentially adverse effect. 

Frias Substation 

Archaeological Resources 

The Frias Substation would not involve any direct or indirect effects to archaeological 

resources as no such resources have been identified within the APE of the Frias 

Substation. 

Architectural Resources 

The Frias Substation would not involve any direct or indirect effects to historic 

architectural resources as no such resources have been identified within the APE for the 

Frias Substation. 

Paleontological Resources 

Construction activities could disrupt underlying sensitive strata and damage 

paleontological resources, representing an adverse effect. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-19 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Archaeological Resources 

Tables S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 summarize the resources that could be affected by the AAAs.

Construction of the AAAs would result in direct adverse effects to seven cultural resources 

assumed eligible for the NRHP. Tables S-3.7-1 and S-3.7-2 summarize the resources 

that could be affected. The resources affected include an assumed eligible road segment 

(Barstow-Silver Lake Road), a historic period refuse deposit, a prehistoric rock quarry, a 

multicomponent prehistoric rock quarry and historic cairns site, a combined prehistoric 

quarry and habitation site, a large prehistoric habitation and burial site, and a prehistoric 

habitation and food processing site. 

Notably, only one of these seven affected resources, the historic period refuse deposit, was 

not considered in Section 3.7.4.2 of the Draft EIS. In addition, the AAAs will result in 

avoidance of six archeological resources that were listed as affected in Section 3.7.4.2 of 

the Draft EIS. 

Architectural Resources 

The AAAs would not involve any new direct or indirect effects to historic architectural 

resources as no such resources have been identified within the APE for the AAAs. 

Paleontological Resources 

Construction activities could disrupt underlying sensitive strata and damage 

paleontological resources, representing an adverse effect. Ground-disturbing 

maintenance activities in areas of sensitive substrate would also have some potential for 

adverse effects on paleontological resources, specifically in areas not previously disturbed 

by construction. 

3.7.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 in Section 3.7.5.1 of the Draft EIS would 

reduce effects to archaeological resources. 

Mitigation Measure CR-1 encourages avoidance of archaeological resources where 

feasible. Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires test excavations to determine the 

significance of archaeological resources that would be affected by construction of the 

action alternatives. If such resources are determined significant, they would be subject to 

data recovery. Mitigation Measure CR-3 requires that archaeological monitoring be 

conducted for areas with a moderate to high sensitivity according to the historic property 

treatment plan (HPTP) that will be developed in accordance with the PA. 
DesertXpress 3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.7-20 

Mitigation Measures CR-5 through CR-11 in Section 3.7.5.3 of the Draft EIS 

address potential affects to paleontological resources. As identified in Mitigation 

Measure CR-5, the Applicant will ensure site-specific engineering geologic studies which 

will be used to guide mitigation requirements on a site-specific basis during construction 

and during maintenance activities that require ground disturbance, as follows. 

 Mitigation Measure CR-7 will apply to all ground-disturbing construction and 

maintenance activities, although this measure will likely only need to be 

implemented once, during project design. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-8, CR-9, CR-11, and CR-12 will apply to all grounddisturbing construction and maintenance activities. 

 Mitigation Measures CR-10 will apply to all ground-disturbing construction 

activities that affect geologic units identified as highly sensitive for paleontological 

resources, and to all maintenance activities that would involve new or extended 

ground disturbance in highly sensitive units. 

Mitigation Measure CR-6 and CR-7 of the Draft EIS require further evaluation for 

paleontological resources prior to construction. Mitigation Measure CR-8 requires 

paleontological resources awareness training prior to the commencement of construction 

activity. Mitigation Measures CR-9 requires construction monitoring for areas with a 

high likelihood of paleontological materials. Mitigation Measure CR-10 requires that 

if fossil materials are discovered, all construction work is stopped. Mitigation Measure 

CR-11 identifies steps for fossil recovery and curation if fossils are discovered during 

construction. 

3.7.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All effects to cultural resources associated with the project modifications and additions 

can be mitigated through avoidance, evaluation and data recovery, or other mitigation 

through archaeological investigation and monitoring during construction as described in 

Section 3.7.4 above. These measures will form the basis of the stipulations to be 

outlined in the HPTP and the PA to resolve the adverse effects of the project. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-1 

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

This section examines the potential impacts of the project modifications and additions 

related to hydrology and water quality. The aspects of water resources that are specifically 

analyzed are surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, surface water quality, and 

groundwater quality, and flooding. 

3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Section 3.8.1 of the Draft EIS provides a summary of regulations and standards related 

to hydrology and water quality. Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been one 

change to the regulatory setting governing hydrology and water quality in the affected 

environment of the proposed project. The State of California amended the Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act to incorporate provisions of the California Watershed 

Improvement Act of 2009. The details of this amendment are discussed within this 

Supplemental Draft EIS in Chapter 3.0, Regulatory Setting. 

Regional Conditions 

The regional environment of the project area has remained unchanged since publication of 

the Draft EIS. There are no known substantial changes in existing point-source and 

nonpoint-source pollutant discharges contributing contaminants to surface water and 

groundwater within the project area.1

 Figures S-3.8-1 through S-3.8-5 show the 

existing hydrologic resources, including water bodies, streams, dry lakes, and the 100-year 

floodplain, in the vicinity of the proposed project modifications and additions. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

VV3, for either parking option VV3A or VV3B, would be bisected by a branch of Bell 

Mountain Wash. Figure S-3.8-1 shows the location of the VV3 site in relation to existing 

hydrologic features. 

VV3 would be located in the Upper Mojave Groundwater Basin, which is bounded by the 

San Bernardino Mountains on the south, follows the Mojave River through Victorville in 

Apple Valley, and ends near the community of Helendale.2 Groundwater impairments 

include high nitrate concentrations in the southern portion of the basin and high iron and 

manganese concentrations near Oro Grande. 

The VV3 site is not located within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 100-year floodplain. 

 

1 Point source is a stationary location or fixed facility, such as the end of a pipe, from which pollutants are 

discharged. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall moving over and through the ground. As the 

runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutant, finally depositing them into 

lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even underground sources of drinking water. 

2 Department of Water Resources, State of California. Groundwater Basins in California. October 2003. 

<http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/maps/correct_statewide_basin_map

_V3_subbas.pdf>. Accessed February 19, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-2 

OMSF 2 

The size, not the location, of OMSF 2 has been changed. Therefore, existing water 

resources, groundwater resources, and flooding hazards remain unaltered as presented for 

OMSF 2 in Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS. Figure S-3.8-1 shows the location of 

OMSF 2 in relation to existing hydrologic features. OMSF 2 is located within the vicinity 

of minor drainages and would bisect two small washes of Bell Mountain Wash. 

OMSF 2 is not located within a designated 100-year floodplain or other flood hazard zone. 

Segment 2C 

Segment 2C would traverse a number of intermittent streams, washes, and channels, as 

well as the Mojave River. In the immediate vicinity of Segment 2C, the Mojave River 

exhibits intermittent surface flows. An intermittent canal also extends along both sides of 

I-15 east of Calico Road. Figure S-3.8-2 shows the location of the Segment 2C alignment 

options in relation to existing hydrologic features. 

Segment 2C would be located within the Middle Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin 

and the Lower Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. As discussed in Section 3.8.3.4

of the Draft EIS, the Lower Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin includes elevated 

levels of fluoride near Newberry Springs. There are also nine sites in Barstow where 

underground fuel storage tanks are leaking and introducing hazardous materials into the 

groundwater. Superfund sites are also located in the Nebo and Yermo Marine Corps 

depots for contaminated plumes contaminated with trichloroethane.3 The Middle Mojave 

River Valley Groundwater Basin is affected by volatile organic compounds, salts, and 

nitrates that have leached into the groundwater from the Lenwood landfill in the lower 

portion of the basin. 

Segment 2C would cross the designated 100-year floodplain of the Mojave River and 

would cross the designated 100-year floodplain south of Barstow, near Lenwood Road. 

Segment 4C 

There are multiple small drainages, including unnamed washes, intermittent streams, and 

ditches, within the vicinity of Segment 4C. Figure S-3.8-4 shows the location of 

Segment 4C in relation to existing hydrologic features. 

Segment 4C would be located within the Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin.4 As stated in 

Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS, the Ivanpah Groundwater Basin is rated marginal for 

both domestic and irrigation purposes due to elevated levels of fluoride and sodium. 

Segment 4C would not be located within a designated 100-year floodplain. 

 

3 For a discussion of groundwater contamination, refer to Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous 

Materials, of this Supplemental Draft EIS. 

4 State of California, Department of Water Resources. Ivanpah Valley Groundwater Basin. 2004. 

<http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/6-30.pdf>. Accessed March 

15, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-3 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Given the 2 mile proximity of the Relocated Sloan MSF (RSMSF) site to the Sloan Road 

MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS, the existing regional hydrology is similar to that evaluated 

in Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS. There are no existing drainages, channels, or washes 

on the RSMSF site, nor would it be located within a designated 100-year floodplain or 

other flood hazard zone. The RSMSF would be located within the Jean Lake Valley 

Groundwater Basin. 

Frias Substation 

Figure S-3.8-5 shows the location of the Frias Substation in relation to existing 

hydrologic features. The Frias Substation site is located between two existing drainages. 

These drainages cross under the I-15 freeway corridor to the east and are channeled into 

Duck Creek. Duck Creek is a tributary to Las Vegas Wash, which drains to Lake Mead and 

the Colorado River. The area proposed for the underground 25 kilovolt (kV) feeders 

would cross beneath one of the existing drainages. 

The site is located in the Las Vegas Groundwater Basin (Nevada Basin Number 212)..5 

This is the same groundwater basin atop which all Las Vegas Valley MSF options lie, as 

discussed in Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS. The quality of the shallow groundwater in 

the Las Vegas Valley is saline. 

The Frias Substation site would not be located within a designated 100-year floodplain. 

However, the western limit of the 100-year floodplain for Duck Creek is immediately 

adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

The Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAAs) would result in few, relatively minor shifts to 

limited portions of the rail alignment (no more than 400 feet from the center line of the 

rail alignment evaluated in the Draft EIS). Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B 

as described in Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS would affect the same water and 

groundwater resources and flood hazard areas with implementation of the AAAs. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The orientation, not the location of the Wigwam MSF has been changed. Therefore, 

existing water resources, groundwater resources, and flooding hazards are the same as 

presented for the Wigwam MSF in Section 3.8.3.4 of the Draft EIS. The Wigwam MSF 

would not cross any existing drainages and would not be located in the 100-year 

floodplain. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Supplemental Draft EIS 

for a discussion of water supply effects associated with the modified Wigwam MSF. 

 

5 State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Division of Water Resources. 

<http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/cty-bsn/cl_basin.cfm>. Accessed March 15, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-4 

Profile Modification 

The Segment 3B Profile Modification would result in placing a 1.3 mile portion of the rail 

alignment within a retained cut. There are no notable hydrologic features within the area 

of the proposed Profile Modification. An existing culverted wash is at the north/east end 

of the Profile Modification. Existing groundwater depths in this area are estimated to 

range from 45 to 76 feet below ground level. 6 The Profile Modification is not within a 

designated 100-year floodplain or other flood hazard zone. 

3.8.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology discussed in Section 3.8.2 of the Draft EIS applies in this 

evaluation of potential direct and indirect hydrology and water quality effects of the 

proposed modifications and additions. The number of linear feet of water resources has 

been calculated to determine the level of impact related to hydrology and water quality. 

An effect on hydrology and water quality was considered adverse and would require 

mitigation if the project modification and addition would: 

 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or 

substantially degrade water quality; 

 Place structures within a 100-year floodplain or place structures that would 

impede or redirect flood flows; 

 Substantially alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in 

substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding onsite or offsite; 

 Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or 

planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of 

polluted runoff; or 

 Use surface groundwater in a wasteful or inefficient manner resulting in a 

reduction in water availability. 

This evaluation considers both the operational and construction period effects of the 

project modifications and additions relative to hydrology and water quality, consistent 

with the evaluation of the action alternatives in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Operational effects are considered permanent effects, while construction period effects are 

assumed to be temporary in nature and would only occur during the active constriction 

period. 

 

6 State of California, Department of Water Resources. Water Data Library. 

<http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/>. Accessed March 19, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-5 

3.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions per these criteria. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: VV3 would impact a branch of Bell Mountain Wash. VV3A would 

affect approximately 2,257 linear feet of the wash, while VV3B would affect approximately 

2,075 linear feet. In addition to this direct impact, VV3 could result in potential indirect 

effects to water quality due to pollutants deposited from vehicles at the station site and 

associated parking area being carried in water runoff into the local drainages. As a result, 

operation of VV3 would have the potential to violate water quality standards, create 

additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 

Construction Period: Construction of VV3 under either parking option could degrade 

existing water quality. Construction activities, such as grading and site preparation, could 

result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. If precautions are not 

taken to contain such contaminants, construction could produce contaminated 

stormwater runoff with a resultant degradation of water quality. Hazardous materials 

associated with construction equipment could also adversely affect water quality if spilled 

or improperly stored. Construction of VV3 atop a branch of Bell Mountain Wash could 

provide a direct path for construction related contaminants. Water quality impacts from 

construction activities at the VV3 site could violate water quality standards, exceed 

contaminant loadings, create additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade 

water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

Permanent Effects: VV3 would impact a portion of Bell Mountain Wash and require 

the local drainage pattern to be altered to accommodate the station and parking areas. If 

drainage systems are not properly designed, VV3 could experience periodic flooding. 

Construction Period: Construction of VV3 would involve the use of earth moving 

machinery, which could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, 

runoff, and wind. The protective vegetation cover would also be removed, which would 

reduce natural soil resistance to erosion. Such erosion could have an effect on the 

drainage patterns of the existing water resources within proximity of VV3, including Bell 

Mountain Wash. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-6 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

VV3 would not be located within a designated 100-year floodplain and would therefore not 

place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that could impede or redirect flood 

flows. 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: VV3A would include approximately 130 acres of surface parking 

area, while VV3B would include approximately 111 acres of surface parking area. VV3A 

would introduce a greater amount of impervious surface than VV3B. Using the 

methodology for calculating peak discharge as in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, VV3A 

would produce approximately 275 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff during the 100-

year, 24-hour storm event, while VV3B would produce approximately 235 cfs under the 

same conditions. VV3A and VV3B would therefore produce additional stormwater runoff. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this Supplemental Draft EIS 

for a discussion of stormwater conveyance systems. 

Because there are numerous other locations in the watersheds for groundwater recharge, 

the increase of impervious surface associated with VV3 under either parking option would 

not result in a considerable loss of groundwater recharge and would not substantially 

affect groundwater levels. 

Construction Period: Construction of VV3 under either parking option may result in 

additional sources of polluted runoff (i.e., soil erosion or construction machinery fuel 

leakage), which could adversely affect water quality. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: VV3 with either parking option would not result in a new or 

increased use of surface water and/or groundwater during operation beyond what was 

analyzed in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS as the size and use would be consistent with 

the other Victorville Station site options considered in the Draft EIS. It is assumed that 

water service would be obtained from existing water utility providers. Refer to Section 

3.4, Utilities, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of water supply. 

Construction Period: Construction of VV3 (under either parking option) would 

require water for concrete batching, washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. 

The Applicant has not identified a source(s) of water from construction activities. It is 

assumed that water for construction will be obtained from existing commercially available 

sources such as water utility service providers in the project area. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-7 

OMSF 2 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: The modified OMSF 2 facility would affect approximately 825 

linear feet of water resources, as compared to the 2,581 linear feet noted for OMSF 2 in 

Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. While the amount of affected linear feet would be 

reduced as a result of the smaller development footprint, operation of OMSF 2 would still 

have the potential to violate water quality standards, create additional sources of polluted 

runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality, consistent with the conclusion in Section 

3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Construction Period: Construction of OMSF 2 could degrade existing water quality. 

Construction activities, such as grading and site preparation, could result in increased 

erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. If precautions are not taken to contain such 

contaminants, construction could produce contaminated stormwater runoff with a 

resultant degradation of water quality. Hazardous materials associated with construction 

equipment could also adversely affect water quality if spilled or improperly stored. Water 

quality impacts from construction activities at the OMSF 2 site could violate water quality 

standards, exceed contaminant loadings, create additional sources of polluted runoff, or 

otherwise degrade water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

Permanent Effects: The modified OMSF 2 would affect approximately 825 linear feet 

of water resources and bisect two small washes that connect to Bell Mountain Wash. 

Depending on the final design of the OMSF, these washes may be altered and result in 

flooding on the west side of the site is drainage facilities are not properly designed. 

Construction Period: Consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft 

EIS, construction activities associated with the development of OMSF 2 could expose 

disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, runoff, and wind. The existing 

protective vegetation cover would be removed, which would reduce natural soil resistance 

to erosion and could affect the drainage patterns of the existing water resources within 

proximity of OMSF 2, including Bell Mountain Wash. 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

OMSF 2 is not located within a designated 100-year floodplain and would therefore not 

place housing or structures within the 100-year floodplain that could impede or redirect 

flood flows. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-8 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: OMSF 2 would result in the development of impervious surfaces 

on previously undeveloped lands, which would result in additional runoff related to access 

roads and parking facilities. The modified OMSF 2 would result in a reduction in 

impervious surface area and associated runoff as compared to the OMSF 2 evaluated in 

Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Construction Period: Construction of OMSF 2 may result in additional sources of 

polluted runoff (i.e., from soil erosion or construction machinery fuel leakage), which 

could adversely affect water quality. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: OMSF 2 would not result in a new or increased use of surface 

water and/or groundwater during operation beyond what was analyzed in Section 

3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, as the types of uses and employment capacity would be the same 

as considered in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. Water service would be obtained from 

existing water utility providers. Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities, of this Supplemental 

Draft EIS for a discussion of water supply. 

Construction Period: Consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft 

EIS for OMSF 2, the modified OMSF 2 would still require water for concrete batching, 

washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. The Applicant has not identified a 

source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water for construction 

will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as water utility service 

providers in the project area. 

Segment 2C 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: The Segment 2C alignment options would result in potential 

impacts to water quality due to pollutants deposited within the proposed rail right-of-way 

from train operations that could contaminate adjacent drainages and washes following a 

storm event. Depending on the train technology option, contaminants associated with 

train operation would vary. For example, the DEMU technology option could result in 

diesel particulate deposits that would be avoided by the EMU technology option. Segment 

2C would cross several intermittent stream and washes which could result in impacts to 

water quality during operation. 

 The Segment 2C Side Running alignment option would directly affect 

approximately 2,344 linear feet of channels, intermittent streams, and washes, 

including the Mojave River. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-9 

 The Segment 2C Median alignment option would directly affect approximately 

2,342 linear feet of channels, intermittent streams, and washes, including the 

Mojave River. 

The Segment 2C alignment options would have the potential to violate water quality 

standards, provide additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water 

quality. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options would 

involve soil disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, and grading, which could result in 

increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. Hazardous materials from 

construction machinery could also introduce additional contaminants to stormwater 

runoff. Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options would require intermittent 

stream, wash, and ditch crossings which could provide a direct path for construction 

related contaminants. Construction near the high groundwater table within the Mojave 

River could also require dewatering for bridge column construction, with subsequent 

discharge to surface waters, which could result in the release of sediment or other 

contaminants to surface waters. Construction activities at the TCA could also affect water 

quality, as contaminants and sediments from stockpiles could produce contaminated 

stormwater runoff. Water quality impacts from construction activities could violate water 

quality standards, exceed contaminant loadings, create additional sources of polluted 

runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

Permanent Effects: The Segment 2C alignment option would directly affect channels, 

intermittent streams, and washes, including the Mojave River. Segment 2C would cross 

the Mojave River immediately north of the existing I-15 freeway bridge. Due to the width 

of the Mojave River in this location, concrete pillars would be placed within the Mojave 

River and would have the potential to redirect flows. The Mojave River runs primarily 

underground at the proposed location of the Segment 2C crossing. While the placement of 

columns within the riverbed could affect underground flows, the number of columns 

would be limited with wide spacing between each column. 

In regards to the other affected channels, streams, and washes, it is assumed that culverts 

could be provided within the channel and that no change to the bed elevation, to the 

waterway’s ability to convey water, or to the ability to convey flood flows would occur. 

Based on this design information, the crossings of these water resources would not 

permanently alter the course or flows of these water resources. 

Similar to the rail alignments evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, stormwater 

runoff from the Segment 2C would be directed away from the trackway and into existing 

drainage facilities associated with the I-15 freeway or other local drainage system. 

Construction Period: Construction activities associated with development of the 

Segment 2C alignment options could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from 

rainfall, runoff, and wind. The existing protective vegetation cover would be removed, 

which would reduce natural soil resistance to erosion and could affect the drainage 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-10 

patterns of the existing water resources within proximity of Segment 2C. Similar impacts 

could also occur at the TCA. 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

Permanent Effects: Figure S-3.8-1 shows the Segment 2C alignment options in 

relation to the 100-year floodplain. The Segment 2C alignment options would cross a 

portion of the designated 100-year floodplains near the Mojave River and south of 

Barstow, near Lenwood Road. 

 The Segment 2C Side Running alignment option would impact approximately 11 

acres of the 100-year floodplain. 

 The Segment 2C Median alignment option would impacts approximately 10 acres 

of the 100-year floodplain. 

Impacts to the 100-year floodplain could result in impeding or redirecting flood flows. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options could result 

in temporary impacts due to construction workers, equipment, and structures located 

within the 100-year floodplain. The placement of construction activities within the 100-

year floodplain could impede or redirect flood flows depending on the type of activity. The 

TCA would not be located within the 100-year floodplain. 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: Segment 2C would include drainage along the proposed trackway 

to channel stormwater runoff away from the trackway. As portions of the Segment 2C 

would be elevated, the placement of columns to support the trackway would not 

substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area. Runoff produced along the 

elevated rail alignment would be captured and directed to existing designated drainage 

features. For at-grade portions of Segment 2C the trackway would not produce any 

considerable amount of runoff given the permeable nature of construction on ballast 

rather than paved or solid impervious surfaces. Refer to Section 3.4, 

Utilities/Emergency Services, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of 

stormwater conveyance systems. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options may result in 

additional sources of polluted runoff from soil disturbances or construction equipment, 

which could impact water quality on and around the TCA and limits of construction. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: The Segment 2C alignment options would not use surface or 

groundwater resources and no effects would occur during operation. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options would 

require water for concrete batching, washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-11 

The Applicant has not identified a source(s) of water from construction activities. It is 

assumed that water for construction will be obtained from existing commercially available 

sources such as water utility service providers in the project area. 

Segment 4C 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: Segment 4C would result in potential impacts to water quality due 

to pollutants deposited within the proposed rail right-of-way from train operation that 

could contaminate adjacent drainages and washes following a storm event. Depending on 

the train technology option, contaminants associated with train operation would vary. For 

example, the DEMU technology option could result in diesel particulate deposits that 

would be avoided by the EMU technology option. Segment 4C would directly affect 

approximately 1,485 linear feet of intermittent streams, drainages, and washes. Segment 

4C would have the potential to violate water quality standards, create additional sources of 

polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 

Construction Period: Construction of Segment 4C would involve soil disturbance, 

excavation, cutting/filling, and grading, which could result in increased erosion and 

sedimentation to surface waters. Hazardous materials from construction machinery could 

also introduce additional contaminants to stormwater runoff. Construction of Segment 

4C would require intermittent stream, wash, and ditch crossings, which could provide a 

direct path for construction related contaminants. Construction activities at the TCAs 

could also affect water quality, as contaminants and sediments from stockpiles could 

produce contaminated stormwater runoff. Water quality impacts from construction 

activities could violate water quality standards, exceed contaminant loadings, provide 

additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

Permanent Effects: Segment 4C would directly affect approximately 1,485 linear feet 

of water resources. It is assumed that culverts could be provided within the affected 

channels and that no change to the bed elevation, to the waterway’s ability to convey 

water, or to the ability to convey flood flows would occur. Based on this design 

information, the crossings would not permanently alter the course or flow of these water 

resources, similar to the rail alignments evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Furthermore, runoff from Segment 4C would be directed away from the trackway. 

There is a potential that tunneling in Segment 4C could result in the redirection of some 

surface water that currently permeates into the groundwater system within the Clark 

Mountains. However, the amount of water that could be potentially redirected is 

considered minimal in comparison to the overall surface flow that would continue to 

recharge the current groundwater system. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-12 

Construction Period: Construction activities associated with development of the 

Segment 4C rail alignment could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from 

rainfall, runoff, and wind. The existing protective vegetation cover would be removed, 

which would reduce natural soil resistance to erosion and could affect the drainage 

patterns of the existing water resources within proximity of Segment 4C. Similar impacts 

could also occur at the TCAs. 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

Segment 4C would not cross a designated 100-year floodplain and would therefore not 

place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that could impede or redirect flood 

flows. 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: Segment 4C would include drainage along the proposed trackway 

to channel stormwater runoff away from the trackway. For the portions of Segment 4C 

that are at-grade, the trackway itself would not produce any considerable amount of runoff 

given the permeable nature of construction on ballast rather than paved or solid 

impervious surfaces. In areas where Segment 4C would be elevated, the placement of 

columns to support the trackway would not substantially increase the amount of 

impervious surface area. Runoff produced along the elevated rail alignment would be 

captured and directed away from the trackway or into newly created drainage features 

since there are no existing drainage features in the undeveloped areas north of Mountain 

Pass. Portions of Segment 4C would also be within tunnels through the Clark Mountains. 

Through the tunnels, no rainfall would fall directly onto the trackway; however, runoff 

could enter the tunneled portions of the rail alignment at the tunnel portal areas. Runoff 

that enters the tunnels would be captured and directed to designated drainage features. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this Supplemental Draft EIS 

for a discussion of stormwater conveyance systems. 

Construction Period: Construction of Segment 4C may result in additional sources of 

polluted runoff from soil disturbances or construction equipment, which could impact 

water quality on and around the TCAs and limits of construction. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: The Segment 4C rail alignment would not use surface or 

groundwater resources and no effects would occur during operation. 

Construction Period: Construction of Segment 4C would require water for concrete 

batching, washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. The Applicant has not 

identified a source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water for 

construction will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as water 

utility service providers in the project area. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-13 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

The RSMSF would not impact any intermittent washes, stream, or drainages. Operation 

of the RSMSF would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge 

requirements, or degrade water quality during construction or operation. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite or Offsite 

The RSMSF would not directly affect any water resources and would therefore not alter 

the existing drainage patterns in the area during construction or operation. 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

The RSMSF would not be located within the designated 100-year floodplain and would 

therefore not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that could impede or 

redirect flood flows. 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: Implementation of the RSMSF on previously undeveloped, vacant 

lands would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site. However, it is 

assumed that the majority of this site would not be paved over and that the increase in 

associated runoff would not be substantial. Because there are numerous other locations in 

the watersheds for groundwater recharge, the minimal increase in impervious surface 

associated with the RSMSF would not result in a considerable loss of groundwater 

recharge and would not affect groundwater levels. 

Construction Period: Construction of the RSMSF may result in additional sources of 

polluted runoff (i.e., from soil erosion or construction machinery fuel leakage), which 

could adversely affect water quality of the nearby drainages, washes, and streams. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: The RSMSF would not result in a new or increased use of surface 

water and/or groundwater during operation beyond what was analyzed in Section 

3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS as the types of uses and employment capacity would be the same 

as considered for the Las Vegas MSF site options. Water service would be obtained from 

existing water utility providers. Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities, of this Supplemental 

Draft EIS for a discussion of water supply. 

Construction Period: Consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft 

EIS for the Sloan Road MSF, the RSMSF would still require water for concrete batching, 

washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. The Applicant has not identified a 

source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water for construction 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-14 

will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as water utility service 

providers in the project area. 

Frias Substation 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: The Frias Substation would not impact any intermittent washes, 

stream, or drainages. However, the underground 25 kV feeder that connects the Frias 

Substation to the autotransformer and rail alignment would cross beneath an adjacent 

drainage to the north, affecting approximately 50 linear feet of the drainage. It is not 

anticipated that operation of the 25 kV feeder would transport or emit contaminants that 

would violate water quality. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Frias Substation could degrade existing 

water quality, particularly as a result of trenching activities associated with construction of 

the underground 25 kV feeder. If precautions are not taken to contain such contaminants, 

construction could produce contaminated stormwater runoff with a resultant degradation 

of water quality. Hazardous materials associated with construction equipment could also 

adversely affect water quality if spilled or improperly stored. Water quality impacts from 

construction activities at the Frias Substation site could violate water quality standards, 

exceed contaminant loadings, provide addition sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise 

degrade water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite of Offsite 

Permanent Effects: The underground 25 kV feeder associated with the Frias 

Substation would be cross beneath the existing drainage to the north. However, drainage 

patterns in the area have been previously modified by residential development and 

roadway construction and it is not anticipated that the 25 kV feeder would alter the 

direction or course of this drainage. 

Construction Period: Construction activities associated with the development of the 

Frias Substation could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, 

runoff, and wind. The existing protective vegetation cover would be removed, which 

would reduce natural soil resistance to erosion and could affect the drainage patterns of 

the existing water resources within proximity of the Frias Substation. 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

The Frias Substation would not be located within the designated 100-year floodplain and 

would therefore not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that would 

impede or redirect flood flows. However, the western boundary of the 100-year floodplain 

of Duck Creek is located immediately east of the Frias Substation. Figure S-3.8-3 shows 

the Frias Substation in relation to the 100-year floodplain. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-15 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff

Permanent Effects: Development of the Frias Substation on previously undeveloped, 

vacant lands would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site. However, as 

the site would only encompass a 4.6 acre area, the potential to create additional 

stormwater runoff would be minimal. 

Construction Period: The Frias Substation may result in additional sources of polluted 

runoff during construction, but such sources would be confined to the construction limits. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: The Frias Substation would not use surface or groundwater 

resources and no effects would occur during operation. 

Construction Period: Construction of the Frias Substation would require water for 

concrete batching, washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control. The Applicant has 

not identified a source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water 

for construction will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as 

water utility service providers in the project area. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or 

Substantially Degrade Water Quality 

Permanent Effects: AAAs 3, 4, and 7 would not affect any channels, intermittent 

streams, or washes. 

AAAs 1 and 2 along Segment 2A/2B would result in an increase of 17.2 linear feet of 

channels, intermittent streams, and washes that would be potentially affected, as 

compared to Segment 2A/2B evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

 AAA 1 would result in Segment 2A/2B affecting an additional 29.4 linear feet of 

channels, streams, and washes, an increase of 4 percent over Segment 2A/2B 

without the AAA 1 shift. 

 AAA 2 would result in Segment 2A/2B affecting 12.2 less linear feet of channels, 

streams, and washes, a decrease of 2 percent over Segment 2A/2B without the AAA 

2 shift. 

AAAs 5 and 6 along Segment 3B would result in an overall decrease of approximately 479 

linear feet of potentially affected water resources as compared to Segment 3B evaluated in 

Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. These AAAs would result in a decrease from 8,087 

linear feet to 7,608 linear feet of water resources affected by Segment 3B. 

 AAA 5 would result in Segment 3B affecting additional 16.9 linear feet of channels, 

streams, and washes, an increase of 1 percent over Segment 3B without the AAA 5 

shift. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-16 

 AAA 6 would result in Segment 3B affecting 496 less linear feet of channels, 

streams, and washes, a decrease of 7 percent over Segment 3B without the AAA 6 

shift. 

AAA 8 would not result in Segment 6B affecting additional linear feet of channels, 

intermittent streams, or washes than Segment 6B evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the 

Draft EIS. 

Regardless, Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B with the AAAs would have the 

potential to violate water quality standards, provide additional sources of polluted runoff, 

or otherwise degrade water quality, similar to the conclusions for Segment 2A/2B, 

Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Construction Period: Similar to the conclusions for construction of Segment 2A/2B, 

Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, construction of the rail 

alignments with the AAAs would involve soil disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, and 

grading, which could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. 

Hazardous materials from construction machinery could also introduce additional 

contaminants to stormwater runoff. Construction of the AAAs would require intermittent 

stream, wash, and ditch crossings, which could provide a direct path for construction 

related contaminants. Water quality impacts from construction activities could violate 

water quality standards, exceed contaminant loadings, provide additional sources of 

polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 

Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns in a Manner That Would Result in 

Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding Onsite of Offsite 

Permanent Effects: There would be an overall decrease in the length (linear feet) of 

water resources affected by all rail alignments with implementation of the AAAs. The 

additional water resources crossings associated with the AAAs would not permanently 

alter the course of flow of the water resources based on preliminary design information 

from the project Applicant. The same design measures identified for the rail alignments 

identified in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS would be applied to the alignment 

adjustments. Furthermore, runoff would be directed away from the trackway and into 

existing drainage facilities associated with the I-15 freeway or other local drainage systems 

where possible. 

Construction Period: Construction activities associated with the rail alignments with 

the AAAs could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, runoff, and 

wind, consistent with the construction effects related to the rail alignment evaluated in 

Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. With the exception of AAA 8, which would shift the rail 

alignment into areas already disturbed by the I-15 freeway corridor and into the median of 

already paved local roads (Dean Martin Drive), the existing protective vegetation cover 

would be removed by the rail alignments, which would reduce natural soil resistance to 

erosion and could affect the drainage patterns of the existing water resources within 

proximity of the AAAs. 

 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-17 

Place Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Floodplain or Place Structures That Would 

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows 

Permanent Effects: Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B with the AAAs 

would have the potential to place structures within the 100-year floodplain which could 

impede or redirect flood flows. 

 AAA1: AAA 1 would cross or run adjacent to the same 100-year floodplain of the 

Mojave River that would be crossed by Segment 2A/2B as evaluated in Section 

3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. AAA 1 would encroach upon approximately 7.6 acres of 

the 100-year floodplain, resulting in an increase of about 1 acre of floodplain 

affected, as compared to Segment 2A/2B evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the 

Draft EIS. 

 AAA 2: The westernmost portion of AAA 2 would also cross the same 100-year 

floodplain of the Mojave River that would be crossed by Segment 2A/2B as 

discussed in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. AAA 2 would encroach upon 

approximately 3.2 acres of the 100-year floodplain, representing an increase of 

approximately 1.7 acres of affected floodplain to Segment 2A/2B. Overall, 

implementation of the alignment adjustments would increase the floodplain 

encroachment of Segment 2A/2B by approximately 2.7 acres. 

 AAA 3 through 7: AAAs 3 through 7 would not be located within a designated 

100-year floodplain. 

 AAA8: AAA 8 would cross or run adjacent to the same 100-year floodplain that 

would be crossed by Segment 6B evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

AAA 8 would encroach upon approximately 23 acres of the 100-year floodplain, 

result in an increase of about 3 acres of affected floodplain to Segment 6B. 

Construction Period: Consistent with the conclusion for Segment 2A/2B and Segment 

6B in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, construction of the rail alignments with AAAs 1, 

2, and 8 would have the potential place to equipment, workers, and structures within the 

100-year floodplain, which could impede or redirect flood flows during the construction 

period. 

Create or Contribute Runoff Water That Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or 

Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems, or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of 

Polluted Runoff 

Permanent Effects: The AAAs would not result in any change to runoff beyond what 

was evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and 

Segment 6B. Similar to all rail alignments evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, 

the proposed trackways would be designed to channel stormwater runoff away from the 

trackway. Where the rail alignment would be at-grade, the trackway itself would not 

produce a considerable amount of runoff given the permeable nature of construction on 

ballast rather than paved or solid impervious surfaces. Runoff along the elevated portions 

of Segment 6B (AAA 8) would be captured and directed to designated drainage areas. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, of this Supplemental Draft EIS 

for a discussion of stormwater conveyance systems. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-18 

Furthermore, where AAA 8 would shift outside of the existing I-15 freeway corridor and 

into the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road (between Hacienda Avenue and 

Tropicana Avenue), the columns and median barrier would be placed in areas of existing 

impervious (paved) surfaces and Segment 6B as adjusted by AAA 8 would not impede 

local runoff potential. Figure S-3.6-8 in Section 3.6, Visual Resources, of this 

Supplemental Draft EIS depicts a simulation of the proposed AAA 8 in this area. 

Construction Period: Construction of the rail alignments, including implementation of 

the AAAs, may result in additional sources of polluted runoff from soil disturbances or 

construction equipment, which could impact water quality on and around the TCAs and 

limits of construction. 

Use Surface or Groundwater in Wasteful or Inefficient Manner Resulting in a Reduction 

in Water Availability 

Permanent Effects: The AAAs would not use surface or groundwater resources and no 

effects would occur during operation. 

Construction Period: Construction of the rail alignments with the AAAs would require 

water for concrete batching, washing vehicles and equipment, and dust control, similar to 

the rail alignments evaluated in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. The Applicant has not 

identified a source(s) of water from construction activities. It is assumed that water for 

construction will be obtained from existing commercially available sources such as water 

utility service providers in the project area. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The location and size of the Wigwam MSF has not changed and the construction and 

operation effects of the Wigwam MSF identified in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS 

relative to hydrology and water quality would remain unaltered. The Wigwam MSF would 

not impact any drainage, washes, or channels and would not be located within the 100-

year floodplain; thus, no construction or operation effects relative to water quality 

standards, drainage patterns, or flood flows would occur over what was assumed in 

Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. While the Wigwam MSF modification would result in 

an increase in impervious surface, it is assumed that the majority of the site would not be 

paved and that the increase in associated runoff would not be substantial. Water service 

for operation and construction of the MSF would be obtained from existing water utility 

providers. Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a 

discussion of water supply. 

Profile Modification 

The location of Segment 3B rail alignment would not change as a result of implementation 

of the Profile Modification and the construction and operation effects of Segment 3B 

identified in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS relative to hydrology and water quality 

would remain unchanged. Although the Profile Modification would result in a retained 

cut of about 8 feet below grade, no effects related to the groundwater table would occur 

due to the depth of the groundwater table (approximately 45 to 76 feet) at this location. 

As concluded in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS, Segment 3B would have the potential 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-19 

to violate water quality standards, exceed contaminant loadings, provide additional 

sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and 

operation; would not permanently alter the course or flow of existing drainages; could 

increase the size of the 100-year floodplain and impede or redirect flood flows; and would 

not result in a considerable increase in runoff. The Profile Modification does not change 

these impacts of Segment 3B as presented in Section 3.8.4.3 of the Draft EIS. While no 

water service would be required during operation of the rail alignment, water it is assumed 

that water for construction activities would be obtained from existing utility providers. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Utilities, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of water 

supply. 

3.8.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-9 and Mitigation Measure HYD11 identified in Section 3.8.5 of the Draft EIS would apply to the proposed project 

modifications and additions to address potential hydrologic and water quality related 

impacts described above. Mitigation Measure HYD-10 from Section 3.8.5 of the 

Draft EIS would not apply as it is specifically related to mitigating impacts associated with 

Autotransformers #7 and #11. No additional mitigation would be required for the project 

modifications and additions. The relevant mitigation measures from Section 3.8.5 of 

the Draft EIS are summarized below: 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-1 – Requires the incorporation of site-specific 

permanent water quality treatment devices and Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) to protect water quality. BMPs could include vegetated swales, traction 

sand traps, or settling basins and should be sized properly so that untreated 

stormwater does not reach the Mojave River or any washes along the rail 

alignment. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-2 – Requires implementation of construction-related 

best management practices. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-3 – Requires all action alternatives to comply with 

the NPDES Construction General Permit. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-4 – Requires implementation of a stormwater 

pollution prevention program. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-5 – Requires implementation of a spill prevention, 

control, and countermeasure plan to prevent accidental releases of chemicals that 

are stored on site and measures to use in case of a hazardous materials spill. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-6 – Requires the proper design of station and 

maintenance facility drainage systems to handle adequate flow. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-7 – Requires a reduction of encroachment into the 

designated 100-year floodplain by elevating the base-elevation of rail alignments, 

station, and maintenance facilities above the floodplain. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-8 – Prohibits the presence of construction 

equipment or construction materials within the designated 100-year floodplain. 
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-20 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-9 – Minimizes impact of OMSF 2 on water 

resources. 

 Mitigation Measure HYD-11 – Minimize impacts on water availability during 

construction activities. 

3.8.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

While mitigation would be incorporated to reduce construction and operational period 

effects to water resources, development of the project modifications and additions would 

result in permanent impacts to existing channels, streams, drainages, and intermittent 

washes whereby flows could be redirected. The project modifications and additions would 

also result in an overall increase in impervious surface, which could increase the 

stormwater runoff in the project region. 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

Southern California Logistics Airport

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Silver Lake

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Hydrology and Floodplains (1)

FIG

S-3.8-1

4

5

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 3 miles

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, 

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Troy Lake

Oxidation Ponds

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Geografika Consulting 06.015.10

4

5

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Hydrology and Floodplains (2)

FIG

S-3.8-2
Mojave National

Preserve

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

Watson

Wash

Kingston Wash

Black Tank Wash

A margosa River

Salt Creek

Tork D itch

Cedar Wash

Mescal Ditch

Oro Wash

Ivapan Ditch

West Valley Ditch

Tono ditch

Riggs Wash

Hot Wash

Indian Creek

Opah Ditch

Kingston Wash

Kingsto n Wash

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Ivanpah La

Wheaton Wash

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

Halloran Wash

4

5

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Hydrology and Floodplains (3)

FIG

S-3.8-3
TCA 14 

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Hydrology and Floodplains (4)

FIG

S-3.8-4
TCA 14 

Robindale MSF

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

W Sahara Lake

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 7 A

Hydrology and Floodplains (5)

FIG

S-3.8-5

Source: ICFI 2009, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Legend

Hydro Features

Water Bodies

Dry Lake

Streams

FEMA 100-year floodplain

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2.5 1.25

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications
DesertXpress 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 

September 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.8-26 

This page intentionally left blank
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-1 

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

This section summarizes the existing geological and soil conditions, describes the 

potential impacts as a result of the project modifications and additions, and presents 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Geologic and seismic related regulations and standards identified in Section 3.9.1 of the 

Draft EIS have not changed and remain applicable to the proposed project. 

The following text describes the geologic concerns identified within the areas of proposed 

modifications and additions. The affected environment relative to the proposed 

modifications and additions are described regionally first and then by segment. 

Regional Conditions 

Figures S-3.9-1 through S-3.9-3 show the proposed modifications and additions would 

be located in a seismically active region near active faults in California, similar to the 

features evaluated in Section 3.9.3 of the Draft EIS.

Figures S-3.9-4 and S-3.9-5 shows faults in the Nevada portion of the study area. 

Geologic maps indicate these as active or potentially active. However, activity on these 

faults is attributed to land subsidence, not tectonic activity (e.g. earthquakes). 1 

As shown in Figures S-3.9-6 through S-3.9-9, the project modifications and additions 

are in the same general geological areas discussed in Section 3.9.3 of the Draft EIS and 

therefore the regional geologic and hydrologic conditions have not changed. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Existing geological and soil conditions at VV3 would be the same as those discussed for 

the Victorville Stations which were presented as part of the Segment 1 discussion in 

Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft EIS. 

VV3 is outside of areas identified as having the potential for landslides, dam inundation, 

ground fissures, or shallow groundwater. Corrosive soils may be present and the area may 

be subject to settlement and expansive soils. Hard soils may exist at VV3, which may be 

difficult to excavate. 

VV3 is located in a seismically active area of California, where numerous active and 

potentially active faults have been mapped. VV3 would therefore be subject to seismicrelated hazards. 

 

1 Land subsidence occurs when large amounts of ground water have been withdrawn from certain types of 

rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The rock compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding 

the ground up. When the water is withdrawn, the rocks falls in on itself. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-2 

OMSF 2 

The location of OMSF 2 has not changed; the size of the site is about 21 acres smaller than 

the site reviewed in the Draft EIS. As the location is the same, the affected geological 

environment would not change from that presented in Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft EIS. 

Segment 2C 

The geologic environment of Segment 2C is the same as that discussed for Segment 2A 

and 2B in Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft EIS. Segment 2C would be closer to several fault 

lines than Segments 2A and 2B. Section 3.9.3.2 of the Draft EIS describes these faults. 

The Lenwood – Lockhart – Old Woman Springs fault and the Gravel Hills – Harper Lake 

fault are considered active or potentially active. Segment 2C would cross the Lenwood - 

Lockhart – Old Woman Springs fault line. Due to proximate active faults, the area of 

Segment 2C has a moderate to high probability of experiencing ground shaking and 

associated seismic effects. 

As Segment 2C crosses the Mojave River, it would have a high potential to encounter 

shallow groundwater. Due to the alluvial soils present in this area and the shallow 

groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is high. Expansive and corrosive soils could 

also be present in this area. 

Segment 4C 

Existing geological and soil conditions in the area of Segment 4C would be the same as 

those discussed for Segment 4B in Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft EIS. Conditions include 

a moderately steep to steep terrain near Mountain Pass where landslides are likely. This 

area may also contain hard rock that could be difficult to excavate. Due to proximate 

active faults, the area of Segment 4C has a moderate to high probability of experiencing 

ground shaking and associated seismic effects. Expansive and corrosive soils could be 

present. The potential for liquefaction, dam inundation, and shallow groundwater is low 

in this area. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Existing geological and soil conditions at the RSMSF site would be the same as those 

discussed for the Sloan Road MSF, since they are both located in the same region along 

Segment 5. Geological conditions at the Sloan Road MSF were presented as part of the 

Segment 5 discussion in Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft EIS. 

The RSMSF may be located near active faults and therefore has a potential for ground 

shaking and other seismic related activity. Expansive and corrosive soils could be present. 

The RSMSF has a moderate potential for settlement and may contain hard soils, which 

may be difficult to excavate. 

Although ground fissures have not been identified in this area, there is the potential for 

them to occur. Ground fissures in the area of Segment 5 are caused by differential stress 

resulting from regional and local subsidence associated with withdrawal of groundwater 

which may occur near faults in the Las Vegas Valley. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-3 

The potential for liquefaction, dam inundation, and shallow groundwater is low in this 

area. 

Frias Substation 

As the Frias Substation site would be located adjacent to the Segment 6 alignment, the 

geologic environment is the same as Segment 6 described in Section 3.9.3.6 of the Draft 

EIS. The Frias Substation site is also near several washes and could be located in an area 

with shallow groundwater and a moderate potential for liquefaction. Expansive and 

corrosive soils could be present. The Frias Substation site has a moderate potential for 

settlement and may contain hard soils, which may be difficult to excavate. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

AAAs 1 and 2: AAA 1 and 2 would shift portions of Segment 2A/2B within a region with 

high potential for shallow groundwater and liquefaction. The soils underlying these areas 

would have the potential for expansion and a moderate potential for landslides and 

settlement. Due to proximate active faults, the soils underlying these areas have a 

moderate to high probability of experiencing ground shaking and associated seismic 

effects. Expansive and corrosive soils could also be present in this area. The alignment 

adjustments associated with AAA 1 and 2 may also be underlain by crystalline bedrock, 

and other rock types that may be difficult to excavate. 

AAAs 3 through 6: AAA 3 through AAA 6 would shift portions of Segment 3B within a 

region facing a moderate potential for landslides and proximity to a projected dam 

inundation area . The earth underlying AAA 3 through AAA 6 may consist of hard rock. 

AAA 3 through 6 would shift portions of Segment 2A/2B within a region with high 

potential for shallow groundwater and liquefaction. There is also a moderate potential for 

settlement and potentially corrosive or expansive soils in these areas. 

AAAs 3 through 6 would shift portions of Segment 3B within an area where ground 

fissures have not been identified and where there is a moderate probability of 

experiencing ground shaking and associated seismic effects.. 

AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B within an area where 

there is a moderate possibility of encountering shallow groundwater, as these alignment 

adjustments cross a number of drainage features. The potential for liquefaction, 

expansive soils, settlement, and corrosive soils in the area is also moderate. The potential 

for ground shaking and landslides is low. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The Wigwam MSF Modification does not entail any change to the existing geological and 

soil conditions insofar as the location is essentially the same as the Wigwam MSF as 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. Section 3.9.2 of the Draft EIS presented geological 

conditions at the Wigwam MSF as part of the discussion of Segment 6. The Wigwam MSF 

site is underlain by alluvial deposits that are moderately to well consolidated to strongly 

cemented. The potential for liquefaction, expansive soils, settlement, and corrosive soils 

at the site is moderate. The potential for ground shaking and landslide is low. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-4 

Profile Modification 

The geologic setting in the area of the Profile Modification would be the same as that 

discussed for Segment 3 in Section 3.9.2 of the Draft EIS. In this particular location, 

however, dam inundation would not be likely as the Profile Modification is not located 

near a dam or in an area that would be flooded if a dam would fail. Seismic hazards, 

including fault rupture would also be less likely in this particularly location within 

Segment 3. 

3.9.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The methodology described in Section 3.9.2 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential effects of the project modifications and additions. This section is based upon 

research and analysis conducted as part of the Draft EIS.2 As geologic conditions are 

regional in nature and are not known to have changed in any substantial way since the 

publication of the Draft EIS, no additional geological studies were performed. 

3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table S-3.9-1 below shows the likelihood of potential geologic hazards relative to the 

proposed modifications and additions. The table uses a series of rating systems, ranging 

from 1 to 3: 

“1” signifies the known presence or greatest likelihood of the selected hazard (shaded) 

“2” signifies a moderate potential effect of the selected hazard. 

“3” signifies minimal or no presence of the selected hazard. 

The proposed modifications and additions would be constructed in compliance with 

safety/seismic regulations discussed in Section 3.9.1 of the Draft EIS, including existing 

building codes and regulations. 

 

2 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, DesertXpress Rail Line, Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Ninyo and Moore, 2007. 
DesertXpress 3.9 

August 2010 Suppleme

3.9-5 

Table S-3.9-1 Likelihood of Geologic Hazards 

Project Modification or Addition 

Potential Geotechnical Consequences 

Surface Fault 

Rupture

1

Ground Shaking

2

Liquefaction

3

Dam Inundation

4

Settlement(Natural 

& Fill Soils) 5

Corrosive Soils

6

Expansive Soils

7

Landslides

8

Excavation

9

Ground Fissures10

Shallow 

Groundwater11

VV3 and OMSF 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Segment 2C 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 Segment 4C 3 1 to 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 RSMSF 3 1 to 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Frias Substation 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 AAAs 1 and 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 AAAs 3 through 6 3 1 to 2 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 to 2 AAAs 7 and 8 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 Wigwam MSF Modification 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 Profile Modification 3 2 1 to 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 to 3 Source: Ninyo and Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 2007. Shaded cells show areas with high likelihoods for geotechnical hazards. 1Rating 1 = Route crosses active fault or very close to an active fault; Rating 2 = Route crosses potentially active fault; Rating 3 = Route crosses inactive fault or does not 2Rating 1 = Estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g to 0.6g; Rating 2 = Estimated PGA of 0.2g to 0.4g; Rating 3 = Estimated PGA of 0.1g to 0.2g. 3Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported shallow groundwater and potentially liquefiable soils; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially shallow groundwater and potentially liquefiable s

reported shallow groundwater and with potentially liquefiable soils. 

4Rating 1 = Areas of reported dam inundation; Rating 2 = Areas near reported potential dam inundation; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported potential for dam inundation. 5Rating 1 = Areas of reported compressible/collapsible soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for compressible/collapsible soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for comp6Rating 1 = Areas of reported corrosive soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for corrosive soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for corrosive soils. 7Rating 1 = Areas of mapped clay units or known expansive soils; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for expansive soils; Rating 3 = Areas with no potential for expansive soils8Rating 1 = Areas of known steep terrain with relatively higher potential landslide hazard; Rating 2 = Areas of potential landslide hazard; Rating 3 = Areas of little potential 9Rating 1 = Areas of reported hard rock or caliche with anticipated difficult excavation; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially difficult excavation; Rating 3 = Areas of no potential d10 Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported ground fissures in site vicinity; Rating 2 = Areas with potential for ground fissures; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported ground fissures11Rating 1 = Areas of known, reported shallow groundwater; Rating 2 = Areas of potentially shallow groundwater; Rating 3 = Areas with no reported shallow groundwater. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-6 

3.9.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-12 identified in Section 3.9.5 of the Draft 

EIS would apply to the proposed modifications and additions to address and limit the 

adverse effects of the potential geologic and soils related impacts described above. These 

include: 

• Mitigation GEO-1 – Surface Fault Rupture – Requires site specific surface 

fault rupture evaluations by a qualified geologist prior to construction so that in 

the event a fault-rupture hazard exists, the recommendations of the geologist can 

be implemented into the final design. 

• Mitigation GEO-2 – Ground Shaking – Requires site specific evaluation of 

the potential ground shaking hazard, which shall be performed by a qualified 

geologist during design development and prior to construction. 

• Mitigation GEO-3 – Liquefaction – Requires site specific evaluations of the 

potential liquefaction, which shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical 

engineer during design development and prior to construction. 

• Mitigation GEO-4 – Dam-Inundation – Requires the preparation of a 

detailed hydrologic evaluation by a qualified hydrologist during design 

development and prior to construction to assess the risks and potential effects of 

dam inundation. 

• Mitigation GEO-5 – Settlement – Requires a site specific geotechnical 

evaluation to be prepared by a qualified geologist to assess the settlement potential 

of the on-site natural soils and undocumented fill. 

• Mitigation GEO-6 – Corrosive Soils – Requires a subsurface evaluation to be 

performed by a qualified corrosion engineer prior to design and construction. 

• Mitigation GEO-7 – Expansive Soils – Requires a site specific subsurface 

evaluation, including laboratory testing, to be performed by a qualified geologist to 

evaluate the extent of which expansive soils are present along the alignment. 

• Mitigation GEO-8 – Landslides – Requires that surface reconnaissance and 

subsurface evaluations be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer during 

project design to evaluate the condition of slopes relative to the alignment and the 

potential for landslides and superficial slope failures. 

• Mitigation GEO-9 – Caliche/Hard Rock Excavation – Requires surface 

reconnaissance and subsurface evaluations to be performed by a qualified 

geotechnical engineer during project design to assess the potential to excavate soil. 

• Mitigation GEO-10 – Shallow Groundwater – Requires that a qualified 

geotechnical engineer assess groundwater conditions in the project area. In the 

event shallow groundwater is detected or suspected, mitigation techniques shall be 

incorporated into final design documents. 
DesertXpress 3.9 Geology and Soils 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.9-7 

• Mitigation GEO-11 - Tunneling - Requires that excavations for underground 

structures be performed with care to reduce the potential for lateral deflection of 

excavation sidewalls and/or shoring, which could also cause differential movement 

of structures located near the excavation. The ground surface and/or structures 

around the excavation shall be monitored for movement with a variety of 

instrumentation. 

• Mitigation GEO-12 – Ground Fissures – Requires that a qualified geologist 

conduct surface reconnaissance and prepare an evaluation of ground fissures 

during the design phase of the project. 

Table S-3.9-2 identifies the applicable mitigation measures for each project modification 

and addition. The mitigation measures require further evaluation of specific potential 

effects during or prior to project design. Recommendations of technical specialists shall 

be implemented. 

3.9.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All potential geologic and seismic hazards can be controlled successfully through the 

application of standard engineering methods and practices identified in the mitigation 

measures above. Following implementation of these mitigation measures, the project 

modifications and additions would not result in any residual impacts. 
DesertXpress 3

August 2010 Supplem

3.9-8 

Table S-3.9-2 Project Modifications and Additions - Mitigation Measure Applicability 

Project Modification and Addition 

Mitigation GEO1: Surface Fault 

Rupture 

Mitigation GEO2: Ground 

Shaking 

Mitigation GEO3: Liquefaction 

Mitigation GEO4: DamInundation 

Mitigation GEO5: Settlement 

Mitigation GEO6: Corrosive 

Soils 

Mitigation GEO7: Expansive 

Soils 

Mitigation GEO8: Landslides 

Mitigation GEO9: Caliche/Hard 

Rock 

Excavations 

Mitigation GEO10: Shallows 

Groundwater 

VV3 (both parking options) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

OMSF2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

Segment 2C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

Segment 4C NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

RSMSF NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, 

caliche 

Yes 

Frias Substation 

NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes NA Yes, 

caliche and hard rock 

Yes 

AAAs 1 and 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

AAAs 3 through 6 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

AAAs 7 and 8 NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes NA Yes, 

caliche and hard rock 

Yes 
DesertXpress 3

August 2010 Supplem

3.9-9 

Project Modification and Addition 

Mitigation GEO1: Surface Fault 

Rupture 

Mitigation GEO2: Ground 

Shaking 

Mitigation GEO3: Liquefaction 

Mitigation GEO4: DamInundation 

Mitigation GEO5: Settlement 

Mitigation GEO6: Corrosive 

Soils 

Mitigation GEO7: Expansive 

Soils 

Mitigation GEO8: Landslides 

Mitigation GEO9: Caliche/Hard 

Rock 

Excavations 

Mitigation GEO10: Shallows 

Groundwater 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes NA Yes, 

caliche and hard rock 

Yes 

Profile Modification 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, hard 

rock 

Yes 

Source: Ninyo and Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 2007. 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

Southern California Logistics Airport

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Faults and Earth Fissures (1)

FIG

S-3.9-1

4

5

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Geografika Consulting 06.015.10

4

5

Faults and Earth Fissures (2)

FIG

S-3.9-2

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Mojave National

Preserve

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5

Faults and Earth Fissures (3)

FIG

S-3.9-3

Las Vegas

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
TCA 14 

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Faults and Earth Fissures (4)

FIG

S-3.9-4

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers
TCA 14 

Robindale MSF

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 7 A

Faults and Earth Fissures (5)

FIG

S-3.9-5

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2.5 1.25

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications
SEGMENT 2A

SEGMENT 2B

SEGMENT 2A

SEGMENT 3A & B

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

EXPLANATION

Alluvium

Wash deposits

Wind-blown sand

10

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

0 5

Older lake deposits

Continental deposits

continental deposits

Unnamed Miocene 

Mesozoic metavolcanic

Older Alluvium

Well dissected

Cretacious or Jurassic

alluvial fans

quartz monzonite

rocks

diorite and minor gabbro

Jurassic hornblend

Lake deposits

VICTORVILLE STATION

SITE 3A / 3B

AND OMSF SITE 2

SEGMENT 2 C

ALIGNMENT

ADJUSTMENT

AREAS 1 AND 2

VICTORVILLE

STATION

SEGMENT 1

Source: Ninyo & Moore., 2007

Regional Geological Map (1) S-3.9-6

NORTH

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Geograka Consulting 06.08.10
SEGMENT 3A & B

0 5

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

10

EXPLANATION

Alluvium

Quaternary lake deposits

Pleistocene volcanic

Pleistocene nonmarine

Plio-Pleistocene nonmarine

Tertiary volcanic

Tertiary nonmarine

Mesozoic granitic

Paleozoic marine

ALIGNMENT

ADJUSTMENT

AREA 6

ALIGNMENT

ADJUSTMENT

AREAS 3, 4 AND 5

Source: Ninyo & Moore., 2007

Regional Geological Map (2) S-3.9-7

NORTH

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Geograka Consulting 06.08.10
SEGMENT 3A & B

SEGMENT 4A

SEGMENT 5A & B

EXPLANATION

Alluvium

Quaternary lake deposits

Earlier Precambrian metamorphic rocks

10

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

0 5

Volcanic rocks

Older alluvial deposits

Granitic rocks

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary

rocks

Mississippian Marine 

rocks

NORTH

SEGMENT 4B

SEGMENT 4C

Source: Ninyo & Moore., 2007

Regional Geological Map (3) S.3.9-8 DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Geograka Consulting 06.08.10
SEGMENT 5A & B

SEGMENT 6C

WIGWAM MSF

SEGMENT 7 A & B

SEGMENT 7C

10 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

0 5

Alluvium

Volcanic rocks

Bird Spring Formation

Goodsprings Dolomite

Monte Cristo Limestone

Sultan Limestone

EXPLANATION

Source: Ninyo & Moore., 2007

Regional Geological Map (4) S-3.9-9

NORTH

DesertXpress 

Supplemental EIS

RELOCATED SLOAN MSF,

SUBSTATION AND

UTILITY CORRIDOR

ALIGNMENT

ADJUSTMENT

AREA 7

FRIAS SUBSTATION

Geograka Consulting, 06.08.10

SEGMENT 6A & B

ALIGNMENT

ADJUSTMENT

AREA 8
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-1 

3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

This section describes the hazardous materials impacts related to the project 

modifications and additions and presents appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The regulations and standards identified in Section 3.10.1 of the Draft EIS have not 

changed and remain applicable to the proposed project. 

Regional Conditions 

The general hazardous risks associated with the 200-mile study area corridor have not 

changed since publication of the Draft EIS. In addition, the project modifications and 

additions would not introduce new operational effects related to use of hazardous 

materials at proposed maintenance facilities and elsewhere within the study area. 

However, hazardous materials may be present in or around some of the proposed project 

modifications and additions not previously evaluated in the Draft EIS. The likelihood of 

contamination in specific portions of the study area was ranked as high, moderate, or low 

based on the following descriptions: 

 High: This rank was given to property in the study area with known or probable 

contamination. An example of a property in this category would be a leaking 

underground storage tank (LUST) property where remediation had not been 

started or was not yet finished. 

 Moderate: This rank was given to property with potential or suspected 

contamination. Examples of properties in this category would be LUST properties 

in the vicinity of the study area that are in final stages of remediation or in postremediation monitoring. Any LUST properties adjacent to the site would be 

included in this category, regardless of case status (deed restrictions may exist for 

closed LUST cases). 

Another example of a “moderate” ranking would be a property within or adjoining 

the study area with known use or storage of hazardous materials which had 

received violation notices from an inspecting agency or where visual evidence of 

inadequate chemical and storage practices (such as significant staining) were 

observed but where no environmental assessments had occurred. 

Also included in the “moderate” category are facilities within or adjoining the study 

area where USTs are likely present, but that appeared to be abandoned by their 

former operators. 

 Low: This rank was given to property where use or storage of hazardous materials 

occurs but with no significant violations, known releases, or evidence of 

inadequate chemical-handling practices. Example properties would be active UST 

or dry cleaning facilities with no documented releases. Also included would be 

properties outside the immediate study area where remediation of previous 

releases had been completed. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-2 

Where no use or storage of hazardous materials in a particular area was identified, no 

potential effect is assumed. 

The classification of each property was based on the type of operation (current or 

historical), proximity to the project alignments, hydrogeologic conditions, field 

observations, and regulatory information. If a property was given a High or Moderate 

ranking, it is considered to have potential effects related to hazardous materials. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

A review of federal and state database listings for the area in which the VV3 site options 

(VV3A and VV3B) are proposed identified one facility listed on the State Permits Database 

located within 1⁄8 of a mile of the proposed station. This site is located at I-15 and Dale 

Evans Road and has an inactive County of San Bernardino hazardous waste special 

generator permit. Due to the status of this facility (where use or storage of hazardous 

materials occurs but with no known releases), this listing would be considered as having a 

low ranking of potential effects related to hazardous materials, and is not considered an 

environmental concern. 

OMSF 2 

The footprint of OMSF 2 has been reduced to 61 acres from 83 acres, as evaluated in the 

Draft EIS. However, the location of the OMSF 2 is the same as was evaluated in the Draft 

EIS. As stated in Section 3.10.3.1 of the Draft EIS, database and aerial photograph 

review, along with field reconnaissance, did not reveal evidence of significant hazardous 

material concerns in the area of the OMSF 2 site. 

Segment 2C 

A review of federal and state database listings identified five facilities within 1⁄8 of a mile of 

the Segment 2C alignment options as having a moderate potential for hazardous material 

contamination; these are shown on Figure S-3.10-1.

1 The first three sites, 1) the Exxon 

Mobil Oil Corporation (Station No. 1249) at 1600 East Main Street; 2)Shell Service Station 

at 1601 East Main Street, and 3) Chevron Station at 2890 Lenwood Road, are listed on 

both Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Leaking Underground 

Storage Tank (LUST) databases. Due to the proximity of these sites to the project, they 

would be considered an environmental concern. 

The fourth site, a former E-Z Serve at 1700 East Main Street, is listed on the LUST 

database as having a gasoline release affecting the aquifer used for the drinking water 

supply. According to the most recent (2009) groundwater monitoring report, this area is 

contaminated with chemicals associated with gasoline and would be considered an 

environmental concern. 

The fifth site, Terrible Herbst Inc 74 at 1710 East Main Street, is listed as having at least 

 

1 A supplemental Hazardous Materials Assessment (HMA) was prepared for Segment 2C. The analysis 

included a review of potential sites of concern within a 1/8-mile wide corridor based on an alignment running 

down the median of the I-15 freeway. This study area includes the entire I-15 freeway right of way and 

immediately adjacent land uses. As such the supplemental HMA covers both Segment 2C alignment options. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-3 

four LUSTs. Based on the review of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 

GeoTracker website, this facility has LUSTs. According to the website, a release of 

gasoline and fuel oxygenates affected the local aquifer used for drinking water. The 

regulatory status of this facility is “open-referred.” Based on the facility’s close proximity 

to the alignment and regulatory status, this facility would be considered an environmental 

concern. 

Segment 4C 

A review of federal and state database listings did not identify any facilities within 1⁄8 of a 

mile of Segment 4C. Two facilities between 1⁄2 and 1 mile from the alignment were listed 

in the environmental database review; however, neither facility would be of environmental 

concern. The first site, Primm Valley Resort and Casino at 31900 South Las Vegas 

Boulevard, located approximately 1⁄2 of a mile east the alignment, was listed on the LUST 

database. The report indicated that a gasoline release of approximately 25 gallons was 

reported in 2006 and affected soil only. The case was closed on July 20, 2007. Based on 

the distance from the alignment, media affected, and closure status, this facility would not 

be considered an environmental concern. The second site, Coloseum Mine at 1000 

Coloseum Mine Road, was determined to be the unmapped source listed as a small 

quantity generator under the RCRA generators database. This site had no violations, has a 

low ranking of potential effects related to hazardous materials, and would not be 

considered an environmental concern. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The RSMSF site would be located on the east side of the I-15 corridor, approximately nine 

miles south of Sloan Road, and two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF. A review of 

federal and state database listings for the RSMSF site did not identify any sites of concern 

within 1⁄8 of a mile of proposed modification. 

Frias Substation 

The proposed 1.5-acre Frias Substation site would be located outside of the area previously 

evaluated in the HMA prepared for the Draft EIS. A review of federal and state database 

listings for the Frias Substation site did not identify any sites of concern within 1⁄8 of a 

mile of the proposed modification (see Appendix S-C).2

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would shift portions of Segment 2A/ 2B within areas 

previously evaluated in the HMA prepared for the Draft EIS. Table 3.10-5 of the Draft 

EIS identified six sites within 1⁄8 of a mile of Segments 2A and 2B as having a moderate to 

high ranking of potential effects related to hazardous materials. These same sites would 

pose similar potential hazardous material risks to the alignment adjustments associated 

with AAAs 1 and 2. 

 

2 EDR environmental database search conducted April 2010. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-4 

AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would shift portions of Segment 3B within areas 

previously evaluated in the HMA prepared for the Draft EIS. Table 3.10-7 of the Draft 

EIS identified two sites within 1⁄8 of a mile of Segments 3B as having a moderate ranking 

of potential effects related to hazardous materials. These same sites would pose potential 

hazardous material risks to the alignment adjustments associated with AAAs 3 through 6. 

AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B within areas previously 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. Table 3.10-13 of the Draft EIS identified nine sites within 1⁄8

of a mile of Segment 6B as having a moderate ranking of potential effects related to 

hazardous materials. These same sites would pose potential hazardous material risks to 

the alignment adjustment areas within Segments 6B. 

Wigwam Avenue MSF Modification 

The Wigwam Avenue MSF Modification would be located within Segment 6B. Table 

3.10-13 of the Draft EIS identified nine sites within 1⁄8 of a mile of Segment 6B as having 

a moderate ranking of potential effects related to hazardous materials. However, none of 

the identified sites within Segment 6B would be within 1⁄8 of a mile of the proposed 

Wigwam Avenue MSF site. 

Profile Modification 

The Profile Modification entails locating a portion of Segment 3B within a retained cut, 

without a shift in the location of the alignment. The Draft EIS did not identify any sites 

within 1⁄8 of a mile of Segment 3B that would pose potential hazardous material risks to 

the profile modification area. 

3.10.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

This Supplemental Draft EIS uses the same methodology as was used in Sections 3.10.1 

and 3.10.2 of the Draft EIS in the review of potential effects related to hazardous 

materials. 

Construction Period – Structures Built Prior to 1980 

Demolition of structures built prior to 1980 could expose the public and/or the 

environment to hazardous materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing 

material. 

Operational Period --- Storage of Hazardous Materials 

Operation of the project modifications and additions will include such activities as train 

operations, track maintenance, and equipment maintenance. Within maintenance facility 

sites, it is anticipated that some hazardous materials, including fuels, lubricants, solvents, 

paints, compressed gases, and associated waste products would be stored and/or staged in 

buildings and storage tanks (above and below ground). Equipment such as paint booths, 

sumps, clarifiers, and wastewater treatment units may also be used at the maintenance 

facilities. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-5 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

Construction activities associated with the project features (including the changes and 

modifications examined in this Supplemental Draft EIS) may encounter contaminated 

soils and/or groundwater or other previously identified hazardous materials that must be 

removed, disposed of, and remediated. Contaminated soils and groundwater are 

anticipated to be found in the following locations in the project area:

1) On and/or near properties identified above as being of moderate to high 

environmental concern. 

2) Within and/or near existing or abandoned railroad corridors, where 

herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals may be found in soils and/or 

groundwater. 

3) Within or near existing freeway corridors, where petroleum hydrocarbons and 

aerially deposited lead may be found in soils and/or groundwater. 

In addition to the potential adverse effects associated with known or suspected areas of 

contaminated soil and/or groundwater, additional adverse effects may result if previously 

unidentified hazardous materials were encountered during construction of any of the 

project modifications and additions. 

In addition to the HMA that was prepared for the Draft EIS, information in this section 

was drawn from supplemental hazardous materials reports that examined the proposed 

locations of the VV3A and VV3B site options, the Segment 2C alignment options, Segment 

4C, and the RSMSF (see Appendix S-C).3,

4 The HMA that was prepared for the Draft 

EIS covered those lands now proposed for OMSF 2, the Alignment Adjustment Areas, and 

the Frias substation, and thus, no supplemental information was needed for these 

features. 5 

3.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions per the potential effects related to 

project construction, project operation, and existing soil and/or groundwater 

contamination within the project area. 

 

3 Ninyo & Moore (2009a). Hazardous Materials Assessment: Proposed Desert Xpress Rail Line Segment 4, 

Options C and D, Victorville 3 Station. 

4 Ninyo & Moore (2009b). Hazardous Materials Assessment: Proposed Desert Xpress Rail Line Segment 2, 

Alternative C, Sloan Substation.

5 Ninyo & Moore (2007). Hazardous Materials Assessment: Proposed Desert Xpress Rail Corridor. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-6 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Construction Period – Structures Built Prior to 1980 

The VV3 site options are traversed by electric utility lines constructed prior to 1980, but 

there would be no demolition of these lines and thus no hazards related to demolition. 

Therefore, VV3 would not have the potential to result in impacts related to the demolition 

of structures built prior to 1980. 

Operational Period --- Storage of Hazardous Materials 

The VV3 site options would not involve the use or storage of significant quantities of 

hazardous materials. Any storage of hazardous materials at VV3 would be similar to what 

would be stored at either of the other two Victorville Station site options as identified and 

discussed in Section 4.10.4 of the Draft EIS. As such, VV3 would not result in adverse 

effects related to hazardous materials during project operation. No new adverse effects 

would occur. 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

VV3 is located in close proximity to the I-15 freeway corridor, where petroleum 

hydrocarbons and aerially deposited lead may be found in soils and/or groundwater. Any 

hazardous materials encountered during the construction process for VV3 would require 

safe handling and disposal to avoid a potential adverse environmental effect. 

OMSF 2, Relocated Sloan MSF, and Wigwam MSF Modification 

Construction Period – Structures Built Prior to 1980 

Project modifications propose to locate portions of the Wigwam Avenue MSF site on 

existing businesses between the end of West Ford Avenue and the I-15 freeway, which 

could result in the displacement and/or demolition of minor commercial structures. 

However, based on a review of the Clark County assessor’s records, none of the existing 

improvements in this area were constructed prior to 1980.6 As such, it is unlikely that 

these structures would have lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials that 

would represent an environmental hazard. 

None of the remaining MSF facility modifications (OMSF 2 or RSMSF) considered in this 

Supplemental Draft EIS would be on sites containing any such structures. 

Operational Period --- Storage of Hazardous Materials 

As with the other Las Vegas area MSF site options indentified in the Draft EIS, it is 

anticipated that some hazardous materials, including fuels, lubricants, solvents, paints, 

compressed gases, and associated waste products would be stored and/or staged in 

buildings and storage tanks (above and below ground) at the OMSF 2, RSMSF, and 

Wigwam MSF Modification sites. Equipment such as paint booths, sumps, clarifiers, and 

 

6 Real Property Parcel Record Search: Parcels 177-17-308-002 and -003; and 177-17-404-014. Clark County 

Assessor Records and Maps. Available at: 

http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/assessor/pages/disclaim.aspx; Last accessed, May 21, 2010. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-7 

wastewater treatment units may also be used at the maintenance facilities. Similar to the 

other MSF site options, the OMSF 2, RSMSF and Wigwam MSF Modification sites will 

require the safe handling, use, storage, and disposal of these materials. 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

The OMSF 2, RSMSF, and Wigwam MSF Modification sites are located in close proximity 

to the I-15 freeway corridor, where petroleum hydrocarbons and aerially deposited lead 

may be found in soils and/or groundwater. Any hazardous materials encountered during 

the construction process for these MSF facilities would require safe handling and disposal 

to avoid a potential adverse environmental effect. 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, and Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Construction Period – Structures Built Prior to 1980 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, and the AAAs would not require the demolition of existing 

structures and therefore would not have the potential to result in adverse effects related to 

the demolition of structures built prior to 1980. 

Operational Period --- Storage of Hazardous Materials 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, and the AAAs would not involve the use or storage of significant 

quantities of hazardous materials and therefore would not result in adverse effects related 

to hazardous materials during project operation. 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

Segment 2C and the AAAs are located near properties identified above as being of 

moderate to high environmental concern. Segment 4C is not located on or near any site 

that would pose an environmental risk. 

Portions of Segment 2C and Segment 4C, as well as the AAAs are located in close 

proximity to the I-15 freeway corridor, where petroleum hydrocarbons and aerially 

deposited lead may be found in soils and/or groundwater. 

Any hazardous materials encountered during the construction process for these 

alignments would require safe handling and disposal to avoid a potential adverse 

environmental effect. 

Frias Substation and Profile Modification 

Construction Period – Structures Built Prior to 1980 

Construction of the Frias Substation and Profile Modification would not require the 

demolition of existing structures. Therefore, neither the Frias Substation nor the Profile 

Modification would have the potential to result in adverse effects related to the demolition 

of structures built prior to 1980. 
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-8 

Operational Period --- Storage of Hazardous Materials 

The Frias Substation and the Profile Modification would not involve the use or storage of 

significant quantities of hazardous materials. As such, neither the Frias Substation nor 

the Profile Modification would result in adverse effects related to hazardous materials 

during project operation. 

Contaminated Soil/Groundwater 

The Frias Substation and Profile Modification are not located on or near any site that 

would pose an environmental risk. As such, neither the Frias Substation nor the Profile 

Modification would result in adverse effects related to existing soil and/or groundwater 

contamination within the project area. 

3.10.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 identified in Section 3.10.5 of the Draft 

EIS would be applied to all project modifications and additions to address and limit the 

adverse effects of the potential hazardous material impacts described above. 

Table 3.10-16 of the Draft EIS identifies the applicable mitigation measures by segment. 

These measures are also intended to apply to any project features (stations, maintenance 

facilities, etc.) located within each segment. For example, any mitigation measures 

applicable to Segment 1 are also applicable to the VV3 and OMSF 2 sites. 

3.10.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

All potential effects related to hazardous materials can be controlled successfully through 

the application of standard safety planning methods and practices identified in the 

mitigation measures above. Following implementation of the mitigation measures 

identified above, the project modifications and additions would not result in any residual 

impacts. 
TCA4

TCA3C

Segment 2A / 2B

Modified Segment 2

Alignment (2C)

Alignment

Modification Area 1

EXXON MOBIL OIL CO.

1600 Main St.

E-Z SERVE

1700 East Main St.

TERRIBLE HEARST

1710 East Main St.

SHELLSERVICE STATION

1601 East Main St.

Modified

Segment 2

Alignment (2C)

0 1,600 3,200

Feet

CHEVRON STATION

2890 Lenwood Rd.

Modified

Segment 2

Alignment (2C)

0 550 1,100

Feet

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

#0

Additional Alignment Modifications

Alignment Deviation Areas

Hazardous Sites of Environmental

Concern - Segment 2C

Source: Geografika Consulting, 11/14/2009.

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS S-3.10-1
DesertXpress Hazardous Materials

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.10-10 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-1 

3.11 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

This section provides an update of the existing air quality conditions along the proposed 

rail corridor, analyzes the potential effects of the modifications and additions, and 

presents appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The proposed project would be located within two regional air quality jurisdictions: the 

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District in California, and the Clark County 

Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management in Nevada. These 

jurisdictions correspond with two air basins relative to the project, the Clark County Air 

Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin. 

Air basins are found to be in or out of “attainment” status based on compliance with 

Federal standards for regulated air pollutants. The Mojave Desert Air Basin is still in 

moderate nonattainment of ozone (O3) and inhalable particulate matter (PM10). The Clark 

County Air Basin is still in nonattainment of O3 and serious non-attainment of carbon 

monoxide (CO) and PM10. 

The affected environment relative to air quality remains as discussed in Section 3.11.3.3

of the Draft EIS. However, as noted below, updated baseline conditions information 

became available in the Victorville area and in Clark County. In addition, included below 

is a correction of the baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Regional Conditions 

Table 3.11-5 of the Draft EIS presented air quality monitoring data in Victorville from 

2005 until 2007. Since publication of the Draft EIS, air quality data for 2008 and 2009 

has become available. Table S-3.11-1 below provides recent data to supplement the 

information presented in the Draft EIS. 

Table 3.11-6 of the Draft EIS presented air quality monitoring data in Clark County from 

2005 until 2007. Since publication of the Draft EIS, air quality data for 2008 and 2009 

has become available. Table S-3.11-2 below provides recent data to supplement the 

information in Table 3.11-6 of the Draft EIS. 

None of the updated data changes the attainment status for either air basin. 

Of note, 2008 and 2009 measurements of PM10in Victorville are generally consistent with 

measurements taken in 2005 and 2006. In 2007, measurements of PM10 spiked at this 

monitoring station, but 2009 measurements are the lowest of the 5 years evaluated. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Glo

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-2 

Table S-3.11-1 Summary of 2008 and 2009 Air Quality Data at Victorville, Park Avenue Station 

Pollutant Standards 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ozone (O3) State Standard (1-hr avg 0.09 ppm; 8-hr avg 0.08 ppm) National Standard (8-hr avg 0.075 ppm) Maximum concentration 1-hr period (ppm) 0.131 0.136 0.107 0.109 Maximum concentration 8-hr period (ppm) 0.107 0.105 0.090 0.098 Days state 1-hr standard exceeded 16 9 7 16 Days national 8-hr standard exceeded 33 28 27 30 Days state/national 8-hr standard exceeded 53 47 45 59 Carbon Monoxide (CO)  State Standard (8-hr avg 9 ppm)  National Standard (8-hr avg 9 ppm) Maximum concentration 8-hr period (ppm) 1.63 1.56 1.61 1.04 Days state/national 8-hr standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)  State standard (1-hr avg 0.25 ppm; Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm)  National standard (Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm)Maximum 1-hr concentration 0.077 0.079 0.071 0.074 Annual average 0.019 0.020 0.018 0.016 Days state standard exceeded a 0 0 0 0 Suspended Particulates (PM10)  State standard (24-hr avg 50 μg/m3)  National standard (24-hr avg 150 μg/m3) 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Glo

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-3 

Pollutant Standards 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Maximum State 24-hr concentration 57.0 56.0 339.0 72.0 Maximum National 24-hr concentration 61.2 62.0 358.0 77.0 State annual average 26.1 30.5 36.0 n/a National annual average 28.9 33.0 38.4 27.0 Days exceeding state standard 1 2 4 2 Days exceeding national standard 0 0 1 0 Suspended Particulates (PM2.5)  National standard (24-hr avg 35 μg/m3) Maximum 24-hr concentration 27.0 22.0 28.0 17.0 State annual average -- 10.3 9.7 n/a National annual average 9.7 10.4 9.7 n/a Days exceeding national standard b 0 0 0 0 Notes: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a Number of exceedances based on California ambient air quality standards applicable during period shown (0.25 ppm). Standard was changed to 0.18 ppm in February 2007, to be applied to 2007. b Number of exceedances based on national ambient air quality standards applicable during period shown (65 μg/m3). Standard was changed to 35 μg/m3 in November 2006, to be applied to 2007. Source: California Air Resources Board (2008a), compiled by ICF Jones & Stokes, September 2008; California Air Resources Board (2010a), compiled by ICF International, May 2010. CARB Site 36306 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Glo

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-4 

Table S-3.11-2 Summary of 2008 and 2009 Air Quality Data Clark County Monitoring Stations 

Pollutant Standards 2005 2006 2007 2008 2Ozone (O3) [Orr, JD Smith]aNational standard (1-hr avg 0.125 ppm) National standard (8-hr avg 0.075 ppm) Maximum concentration 1-hr period (ppm) 0.113 0.109 0.112 0.089 nMaximum concentration 8-hr period (ppm) 0.098 0.09 0.079 0.077 nDays national 1-hr standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 nDays national 8-hr standard exceeded 0 9 4 3 nCarbon Monoxide (CO) [Orr] National standard (1-hr avg 35 ppm) National standard (8-hr avg 9 ppm) Maximum concentration 1-hr period (ppm) 5.1 4.8 4.5 3.2 nMaximum concentration 8-hr period (ppm) 4.2 3.9 3.4 2.1 nDays national 1-hr standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 nDays national 8-hr standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 nNitrogen Dioxide (NO2) [JD Smith] National standard (annual avg 0.053 ppm) Annual average concentration 0.075 0.072 0.224 0.016 nDays national standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 nSuspended Particulates (PM.10) [Orr] National standard (24-hr avg 150 μg/m3) Maximum 24-hr concentration 75 94 103 72 Days national standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Glo

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-5 

Pollutant Standards 2005 2006 2007 2008 2

Suspended Particulates (PM2.5) [Sunrise Acres] National standard (annual avg 15 μg/m3) National standard (24-hr avg 35 μg/m3) Annual average concentration 10.01 9.41 10.29 9.07 nMaximum national 24-hr concentration 35 30.7 32.1 22.5 nDays national standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 nNotes: a Orr station began monitoring O3 during year 2006. Year 2005 concentration from JD Smith station. Years 2006 and 

2007 concentrations from Orr station. 2008 and 2009 data from Orr and JD Smith stations. ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: USEPA 2008c, compiled by ICF Jones & Stokes, September 2008; USEPA 2010c, compiled by ICF International, May 2010.
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-6 

Greenhouse Gases

GHG emissions, measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent gases (or CO2e), 

represent emissions from daily vehicle traffic on the I-15 corridor within the respective air 

basins. 

Following publication of the Draft EIS, FRA noted an error regarding baseline GHG 

emissions which caused existing CO2e emissions from vehicle trips to be understated. 

Table S-3.11-3 below shows corrected GHG emissions which replaces the information 

presented in Table 3.11-4 in the Draft EIS. 

Table S-3.11-3 Year 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Air Basin CO2e Emissions, Metric Tons Per Year 

Mojave Desert Air Basin 2,310,285 

Clark County Nevada 963,797 

Total Annual Emissions 3,274,082 

Note: CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, June 2010. 

3.11.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology as described in Section 3.11.2 of the Draft EIS was used to 

evaluate potential effects of the project modifications and additions. The analysis focuses 

on potential regional and localized impacts on air quality. Pollutant burdens generated by 

on-road (vehicles), off-road (trains), and stationary (electric power generation) sources for 

the two technology options were combined and compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Localized impacts for California were calculated and evaluated using CALINE4 and Emfac 

2007 emissions factors; while such impacts for Nevada were calculated and evaluated 

using CAL3QHC and Mobile 6 emissions factors. GHG emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were calculated using the formulas provided in 

the California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Reporting EntityWide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 2.2. GHG emissions are reported in terms of 

CO2e. Changes in the amounts of CO2e emissions as a result of the project alternatives 

were estimated on a statewide basis for both California and Nevada. Emission burdens 

were projected for the years 2013 and 2030. 

3.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions and their potential to result in 

adverse effects to air quality. Temporary, short-term adverse air quality effects can result 

from project construction activities, specifically with exhaust emissions (including GHGs) 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-7 

from construction equipment and truck haul trips, and with fugitive dust from soil 

disturbance activity.1

Regional Operations Effects 

As in Section 3.11.4 of the Draft EIS, the project modifications and additions were 

analyzed for air quality effects under two potential technology options: DEMU and EMU. 

The No Action Alternative is used to compare the relative impacts and benefits of the 

proposed project improvements. The No Action Alternative assumes that no new 

passenger rail system to divert vehicular travel between the southern California region and 

Las Vegas would be built. Trips between southern California and Las Vegas would 

continue to occur under current modal splits. 

Tables S-3.11-4 through S-3.11-8 below show the criteria pollutant and CO2e emissions 

for the No Action Alternative and the action alternatives taking into account the proposed 

project modifications and additions for the years 2013 and 2030. The analysis takes into 

the account the differing air quality effects of the two technology options (diesel and 

electric) and presents findings in terms of applicable air basins. 

Since publication of the Draft EIS, two factors have affected the calculations of air quality 

pollutant and GHG emissions used to determine the air quality impacts provided in the 

Draft EIS: 1) the location of VV3 relative to VV2, which was assumed for air quality 

calculations in the Draft EIS, and 2) the correction of a GHG calculation error for existing 

and future No Action Alternative Conditions. 

Tables S-3.11-4 through S-3.11-8 below provide updated air pollutant and GHG 

emissions and replace the information previously presented in Section 3.11.4 of the 

Draft EIS. The following tables show that inclusion of the project modifications and 

additions do not have a substantial effect on direct impacts to air quality. 

 

1 The Draft EIS characterized construction related impacts to air quality and GHG emissions as “indirect.” 

This was an error. In this Supplemental Draft EIS, such impacts are properly noted as direct, temporary 

construction impacts. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-8 

Table S-3.11-4 Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, No 

Action Alternative, 2013 and 2030 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissions, 

tons per yeara ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Year 2013 

 Mojave Desert Air Basin 342 2,408 7,372 15 170 156 1,464,461 

 Clark County Nevada 930 1,348 18,990 18 61 31 970,312 

 Total Annual Emissions 1,272 3,756 26,362 33 231 187 2,434,773 

Year 2030

 Mojave Desert Air Basin 197 941 3,895 20 176 162 1,977,278 

 Clark County Nevada 882 769 29,504 35 105 48 1,807,732 

 Total Annual Emissions 1,079 1,710 33,399 55 281 210 3,785,010 

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, May 2010. 

Table S-3.11-5 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Mojave Desert Air Basin, 2013 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissions, 

tons per yeara ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

DEMU Technology Option 

 Railway Emissions 34 621 573 43 33 31 116,449 

 Mobile-source Emissions (61) (428) (1,311) (3) (30) (28) (260,358) 

 Net Emissions (27) 193 (738) 40 3 3 (143,909) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 -- 100 100 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No Yes No N/A No No N/A 

EMU Technology Option

 Railway Emissions 1 75 13 8 3 2 47,463 

 Mobile-source Emissions (76) (530) (1,621) (3) (37) (34) (322,115) 

 Net Emissions (75) (455) (1,608) 5 (34) (32) (274,652) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 -- 100 100 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No No No N/A No No N/A 

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, May 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-9 

Table S-3.11-6 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, 2030 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissions, 

tons per yeara ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

DEMU Technology Option 

 Railway Emissions 56 1,007 928 70 54 49 188,728 

 Mobile-source Emissions (60) (289) (1,195) (6) (54) (49) (606,711) 

 Net Emissions (4) 718 (267) 64 (0) (0) (417,983) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 100 70 70 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No N/A 

EMU Technology Option

 Railway Emissions 1 118 21 12 4 4 75,122 

 Mobile-source Emissions (77) (366) (1,516) (8) (69) (63) (769,715) 

 Net Emissions (76) (248) (1,495) 4 (65) (59) (694,593) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 100 70 70 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No N/A 

Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, May 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-10 

Table S-3.11-7 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, Clark County Air Basin, 2013 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissions, 

tons per yeara ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

DEMU Technology Option 

 Railway Emissions 27 482 86 11 17 16 28,195 

 Mobile-source Emissions (91) (132) (1,853) (2) (6) (3) (94,697) 

 Net Emissions (64) 350 (1,767) 9 11 13 (66,502) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 -- 100 100 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No Yes No N/A No No N/A 

EMU Technology Option

 Railway Emissions <1 18 3 2 1 1 11,497 

 Mobile-source Emissions (104) (151) (2,130) (2) (7) (4) (108,808) 

 Net Emissions (104) (133) (2,127) <1 (6) (3) (97,311) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 -- 100 100 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No No No N/A No No N/A 

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, May 2010.