August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3-1 

3.0 Regulatory Setting 

3.1 REGULATORY SETTING 

The regulatory setting governing the affected environment of the DesertXpress project, 

including the new project features, has not substantially changed since the publication of 

the Draft EIS. However, some environmental resource areas, including growth, hydrology 

and water quality, and climate change, have seen minor shifts and/or amendments to the 

regulatory statutes. This section focuses on the regulations and planning documents that 

have been added or updated since publication of the Draft EIS. For all other regulations 

and standards that have not changed since the Draft EIS, refer to the specific 

environmental resource discussions within Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment, 

Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIS. 

3.1.1 GROWTH

Southern Nevada Regional Policy Plan 

As stated in Section 3.2.1.3 of the Draft EIS, Clark County and the cities of Boulder City, 

Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas comprise the Southern Nevada Regional 

Planning Coalition (SNRPC). The SNRPC was created to focus on the rapid growth of 

Clark County and the effects of this growth on education, health care, the natural 

environment, public safety, recreation and culture, and transportation. A summary of the 

SNRPC Southern Nevada Regional Policy Plan, as discussed below, was mistakenly 

omitted from Section 3.2.1.3 of the Draft EIS, and has been added to the list of 

Regulations and Standards governing the affected environment of the project, including 

the new project features. 

In 1997, the Nevada Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 493 requiring communities in the 

Las Vegas Valley to come together to produce a “regional policy plan” through designated 

Regional Planning Coalitions. As the Regional Planning Coalition for the Las Vegas 

Valley, the SNRPC is charged with crafting a regional plan that promotes the efficient use 

of land within existing urban areas, allows for the conversion of rural lands to other uses 

in a well-planned fashion, and promotes sustainable growth. In 2001, the SNRPC 

published the final Southern Nevada Regional Policy Plan, which includes regional 

planning guidelines that will be followed by Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, 
DesertXpress 3.0 Regulatory Setting and Affected Environment 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r a f t E I S 

3-2 

Boulder City, Clark County, the Clark County School District, regional and state agencies, 

and public utilities.1

 These guidelines address: 

 Conservation, Open Space, and Natural Resource Protection 

 Population Forecasts 

 Land Use 

 Transportation 

 Public Facilities 

 Air Quality 

 Infill Development 

The SNRPC subsequently sought to continue the initiatives within the Southern Nevada 

Regional Policy Plan by holding a series of Regional Growth Summit Workshops in the 

winter and spring of 2003. The Regional Growth Summits were designed to provide a 

forum for the region’s elected officials to have an informed and facilitated discussion, 

which included an identification of principles and outcomes for moving forward in future 

growth planning and implementing actions. A summary of the workshops was published 

by SNRPC in 2004.2 

3.1.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

California Watershed Improvement Act of 2009 

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

(California Water Code, Division 7) was amended to include the provisions of the 

California Watershed Improvement Act of 2009. Under the Watershed Improvement Act, 

each county, city, or special district that is a permittee or co-permittee under a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal separate storm 

sewer systems may develop a watershed improvement plan that addresses major sources 

of pollutants in receiving water, stormwater, urban runoff, or other surface runoff 

pollution within the watershed to which the plan applies. The principal purpose of a 

watershed improvement plan is to implement existing and future water quality 

requirements and regulations by identifying opportunities for stormwater detention, 

infiltration, use of natural treatment systems, water recycling, reuse, and supply 

augmentation. 

 

1 Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (2001). Southern Nevada Regional Policy Plan, 

http://www.snrpc.org/Reports/s_nevada_plan1.pdf. 

2 Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (2004). Regional Growth Summits Report.

http://www.snrpc.org/Reports/SNRPCReport.pdf. 
DesertXpress 3.0 Regulatory Setting and Affected Environment 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r a f t E I S 

3-3 

As of March 2010, no known watershed improvement plans have been published for the 

watersheds surrounding the project area. 

3.1.3 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

In October 2009, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued a 

Final Rule for mandatory reporting of green house gas (GHG) emissions. This Final Rule 

applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and 

manufactures of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires 

annual reporting of emissions. The Final Rule went into effect on December 29, 2009, 

with data collection to begin on January 1, 2010, and the first annual reports due in March 

2011. 

This rule does not regulate the emission of GHGs; it only requires the monitoring and 

reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for those sources above certain thresholds.3 EPA 

adopted a Final Endangerment Finding for the six defined GHGs on December 7, 2009 

which was published in the Federal Register as a final rule on December 15, 2009.4 The 

Endangerment Finding is required before EPA can regulate GHG emissions under Section 

202(a)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The regulations are in response to the U.S. 

Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 

497 (2007), where the Court held that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases 

from new motor vehicles. 

 

3 US EPA, October 30, 2009. 40 CFR Parts 98 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule. 

4 US EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, December 15, 2009. (74 Fed. Reg. 66496.) 
DesertXpress 3.0 Regulatory Setting and Affected Environment 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r a f t E I S 

3-4 

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

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-1 

3.1 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

This section pertains to the land use implications of the project modification and 

additions. The section also includes an analysis of the potential community effects, 

including a environmental justice, and describes related mitigation measures. 

3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Land use and community impact regulations and standards governing the affected 

environment of the DesertXpress project, including the new project features, have not 

changed since publication of the Draft EIS and thus remain applicable to the project 

modifications and additions. Refer to Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Draft EIS for a 

discussion of land use and community impact regulations and standards. 

Regional Conditions 

The general community demographics of Victorville, Lenwood, Barstow, Yermo, Baker, 

Sloan, and the Las Vegas metropolitan area have not changed since publication of the 

Draft EIS. No new environmental justice community designations have been established 

since publication of the Draft EIS since the 2000 Census data is used to identify 

environmental justice census blocks. 

Figures S-3.1-1 through S-3.1-5 show the existing land ownership within the vicinity of 

the project modifications and additions. Figures S-3.6-6 through S-3.1-10 show the 

existing land use designations of pertinent land use planning documents. Figure S-3.1-

11 shows the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Multiple Use Classifications within the 

vicinity of the project modifications and additions. Figures S-3.1-12 and S-3.1-13

identify the environmental justice census groups within the project region. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

VV3 is located on the west side of I-15 within the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County. 

Figure S-3.1-1 shows the land ownership within the vicinity of VV3. Approximately 10 

percent of the VV3 site (combined physical footprint for VV3A and VV3B site options) is 

owned by the Federal Government and managed by the BLM; the remaining 90 percent is 

under private ownership. 

The proposed site for VV3 is currently undeveloped and vacant, with the Victorville Refuse 

Disposal Site located nearby. Overhead electric transmission lines, operated by the Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), cross over the eastern portion of the 

VV3A site plan, while the VV3B site plan excludes this existing LADWP utility corridor . 

Figure S-3.1-6 shows the land use designations on and within the vicinity of VV3. The 

San Bernardino County General Plan designates the area proposed for VV3 for residential 

and institutional uses. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-2 

The VV3 site is located within BLM’s West Mojave Plan, which defines a regional strategy 

for conserving plant and animal species and their habitats and an efficient, equitable, and 

cost-effective process for complying with threatened and endangered species laws.1

 The 

BLM, however, has not assigned a Multiple Use Classification to the VV3 site. The BLM 

established Multiple Use Classifications to specify the type of use permitted on the land 

base upon the sensitivity of resources within the geographic area. 

VV3 would also be located near several BLM mining claims in the mountainous area north 

of the site. Dirt roads leading away from Dale Evans Parkway provide access to BLM 

mining claims in this area. The actual location and physical footprint of the mining 

activities is not recorded by BLM and is thus not available for detailed analysis. 

Figure S-3.1-12 shows the location of the VV3 site which is within two census blocks 

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

impacts. 

OMSF 2 

Since the publication of the Draft EIS, there has been no change to the location, land 

ownership pattern, or existing land uses at the OMSF 2 site. OMSF 2 would still be 

located on and surrounded by undeveloped lands. Figure S-3.1-1 illustrates the land 

ownership for the OMSF 2 site and Figure S-3.1-6 shows the land use designations on 

and surrounding the OMSF 2 site. Figure S-3.1-12 shows that OMSF 2, as revised, 

would not be located within an environmental justice census block. 

 Segment 2C 

Segment 2C would travel through the communities of Lenwood, Barstow, and Yermo 

along the I-15 freeway corridor. Segment 2C would be located on lands within the 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way. Adjacent lands are a 

combination of private lands and lands under the management of the BLM. Figure S3.1-2 shows the land ownership within the vicinity of the Segment 2C. Due to the scale of 

Figure S-3.1-2, it is difficult to show the precise boundary of the Caltrans right-of-way 

(ranging generally from 300 to 500 feet in width) for the I-15 freeway corridor. For more 

information refer to Appendix S-A-1, which contains detailed plan and profile drawings 

for Segment 2C. 

Existing lands immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor outside of Lenwood, Barstow, and 

Yermo are primarily undeveloped and vacant. Within these communities, existing 

commercial, residential, and industrial developments are located immediately adjacent to 

both sides of the I-15 freeway corridor, and thus the proposed Segment 2C rail alignments. 

 

1 BLM, Land Use Planning. West Mojave Plan. 2006. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-3 

Figure S-3.1-7 shows the land use designations along Segment 2C. Segment 2C would be 

located within the BLM West Mojave Plan. There is no BLM Multiple Use Classification 

for lands in the vicinity of Segment 2C. 

As shown in Figure S-3.1-12, Segment 2C would cross through two census blocks 

meeting the criteria for evaluation of environmental justice impacts. 

Segment 4C 

Segment 4C would be located in an undeveloped area of the desert, traversing through the 

Clark Mountain range. As shown on Figure S-3.1-3, Segment 4C would be located on 

lands under the ownership of the BLM and the State of California. The northern portion 

of Segment 4C would parallel an existing utility corridor, with overhead electric 

transmission lines above ground and several utilities underground. 

Figure S-3.1-8 shows the land use designations in the vicinity of Segment 4C. Within 

California, San Bernardino County has designated lands within the vicinity of Segment 4C 

for institutional use. Within Nevada, Clark County has designated lands within the 

vicinity of Segment 4C for residential use. Segment 4C would be located within the BLM 

Northern and Eastern Mojave Plan area. 

As shown in Figure S-3.1-11, Segment 4C would traverse through BLM land designated 

for Multiple-Use Classes under the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. Segment 4C 

would travel through lands designated as Class M and Class L. Class M lands provide for a 

wide variety of uses, including mining, livestock grazing, recreation, energy, and utility 

development, as well as to conserve desert resources. Class L lands are managed to 

provide for generally lower-intensity, carefully controlled multiple use of resources 

(including limited human use), while ensuring that sensitive natural, scenic, ecological, 

and cultural resource values are not significantly diminished. 

As shown on Figure S-3.1-12, Segment 4C would also traverse one census block with a 

minority population that meets the criteria for evaluation of environmental justice 

impacts. All of the Segment 4 alignment options would cross this census block, which 

covers an area north of I-15 of about 40 miles in length, where there are no concentrated 

areas of human settlement. Notably, the census block group excludes the only substantial 

community in the vicinity of Segment 4 (the community of Baker), which is about 30 miles 

east of the various Segment 4 rail alignment routings. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The Relocated Sloan MSF (RSMSF) site is located on the east side of I-15, about 9 miles 

south of Sloan Road. The RSMSF site is located on BLM managed lands. Figure S-3.1-4

shows the current land ownership on and within the vicinity of the RSMSF site. Adjacent 

land uses include undeveloped, vacant lands. The closest residential development is 

located 9 miles to the north. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-4 

Clark County has designated the RSMSF site for residential land uses. The RSMSF is also 

located within the BLM Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Planning Area. 

Figure S-3.1-9 shows the land use designations on and within the vicinity of the RSMSF. 

The BLM has not designated a Multiple Use Classification for the RSMSF site or 

surrounding lands. 

As shown in Figure S-3.1-13, the RSMSF site is not located within or adjacent to any 

census blocks meeting environmental justice criteria. 

Frias Substation 

As shown on Figure S-3.1-5, the Frias Substation site is located on lands under the 

management of the BLM. The Frias Substation site is undeveloped and vacant. Existing 

land uses surrounding the site include overhead electric transmission lines (owned by 

Nevada Energy) immediately to the north, single-family residential homes to the north 

and west, and the I-15 freeway corridor to the east. Dean Martin Drive is located between 

the two portions of the Frias Substation site. 

The Frias Substation is located within Clark County’s Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan, 

which is part of the Clark County Comprehensive Plan. Figure 3.2-4 of the Draft EIS 

shows the location and boundary of the Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan. 

Figure S-3.1-10 shows the Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan designations for the Frias 

Substation site. The Enterprise Regional Land Use Plan designates the eastern portion of 

the Frias Substation site as Business and Design Research Park. The Enterprise Regional 

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

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

Management Plan Area. 

As shown in Figure S-3.1-13, the Frias Substation site is not located within a census 

block meeting environmental justice criteria. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

AAAs1 through 8 would involve only a minor shifting of the rail alignment or profile for 

Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. Table S-3.1-1 summarizes the land 

ownership, adjacent land uses, land use designations, and environmental justice 

communities for each AAA. 

AAAs 1 through 7: AAAs 1 through 7 would not shift the rail alignments into any new 

land use designations or new types of adjacent land uses than what was presented in the 

Draft EIS. 

AAAs 1 through 7 would not shift the rail alignments through any environmental justice 

census blocks not previously evaluated for each respective rail alignment in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-5 

Table S-3.1-1 Existing Land Use Summary – AAAs 

AAAs and 

Affected 

Segment 

Land 

Ownership 

Adjacent Land Uses Land Use 

Designations 

Environmental 

Justice 

Census Block 

AAA 1 

(Segment 2A/2B) 

Private Residential, Commercial, 

Vacant 

Residential, 

Commercial, Institutional 

None 

AAA 2 

(Segment 2A/2B) 

BLM, Private Residential, Commercial, 

Vacant 

Residential, Institutional None 

AAA 3 

(Segment 3B) 

BLM, Private Vacant, Transportation 

Corridor 

Residential, Institutional 1 – Minority 

AAA 4 

(Segment 3B) 

Private Vacant, Transportation 

Corridor 

Residential 1 – Minority 

AAA 5 

(Segment 3B) 

BLM, Private Vacant, Transportation 

Corridor 

Residential, Institutional 1 – Minority 

AAA 6 

(Segment 3B) 

BLM Vacant, Transportation 

Corridor 

Institutional 1 - Minority 

AAA 7 

(Segment 6B) 

BLM, Private Vacant, Transportation 

Corridor 

Residential, Planned 

Development/Mixed-Use 

None 

AAA 8 

(Segment 6B) 

Private Commercial, Industrial, 

Hotel/Motel, 

Transportation Corridor 

Commercial 1 - Minority 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

AAA 8: AAA 8 would shift portions of the Segment 6B rail alignment outside of the 

Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) right-of-way for I-15 and into a Clark 

County owned right-of-way on Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. AAA 8 would diverge 

from the NDOT right-of-way in 3 locations: 

 Between West Sunset Road and West Patrick Lane 

 Between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue 

 Between Tropicana Avenue to St. Harmon Avenue 

However, AAA 8 would not shift the rail alignment into any new land use designations or 

new types of adjacent land uses than what was presented in the Draft EIS. South of East 

Sunset Road, AAA 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B within Clark County’s Enterprise 

Regional Land Use Plan and would be located on and adjacent to lands designated for 

residential, industrial, and civic use. North of East Sunset Road, AAA 8 would shift 

portions of Segment 6B within Clark County’s Winchester/Paradise Land Use Plan near 

industrial, commercial, and planned development land use designations.2 The draft 

version of the Winchester/Paradise Land Use Plan was published in May 2010 and has not 

yet been formally adopted by Clark County. 

 

2 Winchester/Paradise Land Use Plan, Clark County, April 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-6 

Adjacent land uses include commercial, industrial, and limited residential developments. 

Where AAA 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B outside of NDOT right-of-way between 

Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue, the rail alignment would be located within the 

median of a local transportation corridor – Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. 

AAA8 would shift portions of Segment 6B within census blocks meeting the minority and 

poverty population criteria for evaluation of environmental justice impacts. As shown in 

Figures 3-1.19 and 3-1.20 of the Draft EIS, Segment 6B would cross three 

environmental justice census blocks, two of which meet the minority population criteria, 

and the third meeting the poverty criteria. The alignment shift associated with AAA8 

would not alter Segment 6B’s traversing of these census blocks. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

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

Wigwam MSF site has not changed. As such, the existing land ownership and land use 

designations have not changed from what is presented in Section 3.1.3.2 the Draft EIS. 

Figure S-3.1-5 illustrates the land ownership for the Wigwam MSF site and Figure S3.1-10 shows the land use designations on and surrounding the Wigwam MSF site. As 

shown in Figure S-3.1-13, the Wigwam MSF site is not located within a census block 

meeting the criteria for evaluation of environmental justice impacts. 

Profile Modification 

The Segment 3B profile modification would not relocate the rail alignment from its 

location previously evaluated in Section 3.1.3.2 of the Draft EIS. While the Profile 

Modification would result in a vertical change in the elevation of the rail alignment to a 

depressed section, no horizontal change in the location of the rail alignment would occur. 

Refer to Section 3.1.3 of the Draft EIS for a discussion of the existing and designated 

land uses within the vicinity of Segment 3B. 

3.1.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The methodology described in Section 3.1.3.3 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential land use and environmental justice impacts of the project modifications and 

additions. Table S-3.1-2 shows the compatibility of various land use types for each of the 

proposed project modifications and additions. Table S-3.1-3 shows the applicable 

compatibility of land use designations for each of the project modifications and additions. 

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

modifications and/or additions: 

 Interfere with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses 

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

 Cause displacement of a significant number of local residents 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-7 

 Disrupt or sever community interactions or otherwise divide an established 

community 

The analysis also considers impacts to environmental justice communities. A census block 

meeting the criteria for environmental justice analysis is defined as having a low-income 

population of greater than 25 percent or a minority population greater than 50 percent of 

the total community population. A census block also meets the criteria for environmental 

justice analysis if the low-income and/or minority population is more than 10 percentage 

points higher than the city or county average. In order to identify census blocks meeting 

these criteria, the 2000 Census block groups within a two-mile radius were examined. 

Table S-3.1-2 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

Project Feature Type Level of Compatibility 

High Medium Low 

Rail Alignments, Utility 

Corridors 

Transportation corridors, 

utility corridors, 

institutional land uses, 

vacant/undeveloped 

lands, airports, BLM 

Multiple Use Class I 

designated land 

Agricultural lands, medium 

to high intensity 

commercial development, 

hotels/casinos, 

administrative/professional 

uses, BLM Multiple Use 

Class M designated land 

Residential land uses, 

habitat/open space 

conservation areas, 

schools, hospitals, 

parks/recreational use, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

L and C designated land 

Stations/Maintenance 

Facilities, Temporary 

Construction Areas 

Commercial/industrial 

land uses, business 

parks, transportation 

corridors, utility 

corridors, agricultural 

lands, 

vacant/undeveloped 

lands, airports, landfills, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

I designated land 

Residential land uses, 

BLM Multiple Use Class M 

designated land 

Habitat/open space 

conservation areas, 

schools, 

parks/recreational use, 

BLM Multiple Use Class 

L and C designated land 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

Table S-3.1-3 Compatibility with Land Use Designations 

Project Feature Type Level of Compatibility 

High Medium Low 

Rail Alignments, Utility 

Corridors 

Institutional/Public 

Facilities, Industrial, 

Restrictive, 

Hotel/Casino, 

Desert/Mountain 

Commercial, Agricultural, 

Business and Design 

Research 

Residential 

Stations/Maintenance 

Facilities, Temporary 

Construction Areas 

Institutional/Public 

Facilities, Commercial, 

Industrial, Hotel/Casino, 

Commercial, Business 

and Design Research 

Residential, Restrictive Agricultural 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-8 

An adverse effect related to environmental justice would occur if: 

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

and/or low-income population; or 

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

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

population. 

STB issued a declaratory order on June 25, 2007 regarding STB’s authority under 49 

U.S.C. 10901. In this order, STB found the project to be exempt from state and local land 

use and environmental regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) and local/regional zoning ordinances. Therefore, similar to the action 

alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS, the project modifications and additions would not 

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

Notwithstanding, an analysis of consistency with existing land use designations was 

conducted. 

The project would be allowed under various county land use designations and zoning 

districts because it is a transportation facility that will be available to the public. The San 

Bernardino General Plan specifically allows public transportation uses in various land use 

districts.3 The project modifications and additions would not change this determination. 

Additionally, Clark County planning staff indicated that there are no goals or policies 

within the Clark County Comprehensive Plan that would specifically limit construction or 

implementation of the project features.4

3.1.3 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 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

VV3 would not interfere with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses insofar as 

adjacent lands are undeveloped and vacant. VV3 would have high compatibility with the 

existing vacant land uses. 

 

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

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

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-9 

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans 

VV3 would have high compatibility with the institutional land use designations and low 

compatibility with the residential land use designations. 

VV3A would place parking areas under an existing overhead electrical utility corridor 

owned and operated by LADWP. Parking may result in a conflict with LADWP’s utility 

corridor. The VV3B site option would avoid the LADWP utility corridor by placing 

parking areas north and west of the station building. See Section 3.4.4.6 for further 

discussion of this issue. 

VV3 would be located immediately adjacent to access roads for several BLM mining claims 

located to the north of the site. Access to the dirt roads that extend from Dale Evans 

Parkway and provide access to the BLM mining claims north of the VV3 site would be 

maintained. 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents and/or Disrupt or Sever 

Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established Community 

VV3 would be constructed on currently vacant land and would not displace any residence 

or business or sever an established community. 

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

Population 

VV3 would be located within two census blocks meeting the minority and low-income 

population criteria for evaluation of environmental justice impacts. However, VV3 would 

be located in a portion of these census blocks that is currently undeveloped. There are no 

residences or community facilities within 1 mile of the VV3 site. Thus, VV3 would not 

present potential direct or indirect adverse effects to environmental justice communities. 

OMSF 2 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Land Use and the Community 

Since the location of the facility has not changed and the size of the facility has been 

reduced, the potential land use impacts of the OMSF 2 facility would be the same as those 

discussed in Section 3.1.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Segment 2C 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

Segment 2C would be located within the existing I-15 freeway corridor and therefore has 

no direct effect on the functioning of adjacent lands. Intensifying the use of the I-15 

freeway corridor would have a medium to low compatibility with the adjacent 

industrial/commercial and residential developments, respectively. Within Barstow, the 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-10 

Segment 2C Side Running alignment option could result in greater interference with the 

adjacent land uses due to its slightly closer placement to the existing urban development 

north of the I-15 freeway. 

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans 

Because both alignment options for Segment 2C would be located within the existing 

Caltrans right-of-way for the I-15 freeway corridor, Segment 2C would not result in direct 

conflicts with applicable land use plans and designations. However, the Segment 2C 

alignment options would result in an intensification of the use of the I-15 corridor. This 

intensification could result in minor conflicts with land use designations, particularly in 

areas designated for residential use. 

Notably, the Segment 2C alignment options would avoid potential conflicts associated 

with Segment 2A/2B which would traverse lands designated by the City of Barstow for 

Industrial Park development in Lenwood (located on the west side of Lenwood Road north 

of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway tracks). 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents 

Since the Segment 2C alignment options would be located within the I-15 corridor, 

Segment 2C would not displace any residence or business. 

Segment 2C could result in indirect noise effects associated with the high-speed train 

passby. The Segment 2C Side Running alignment option would have the potential for 

slightly greater indirect noise impacts since the rail alignment would be in closer 

proximity to the existing residential developments. Refer to Section 3.12, Noise and 

Vibration, for a discussion of noise effects associated with the Segment 2C alignment 

options. 

Disrupt or Sever Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established 

Community 

Barstow is already divided by the I-15 freeway corridor. Several local roadways span over 

the I-15 freeway. Because Segment 2C would be located within the I-15 right of way and 

involve no changes to local roadways, it would not contribute to further severance of the 

community or otherwise disrupt community interactions. 

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

Population 

Through Barstow, Segment 2C would cross through two census blocks identified as having 

low-income and minority populations that meet the criteria for evaluation of 

environmental justice impacts. However, Segment 2C would not result in the 

displacement of any residence or business. Existing populations within these census 

blocks are already exposed to substantial transportation infrastructure (i.e., I-15) and the 

associated traffic, noise, air quality, and aesthetic effects. Segment 2C would intensify the 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-11 

use of the I-15 freeway corridor which could result in increased indirect effects on these 

populations in the form of increased noise and air pollution levels. Noise impacts would 

be similar under both technology options under consideration (DEMU or EMU). When 

comparing existing and expected future air quality conditions through the entire project 

corridor, both the DEMU and the EMU options would result in beneficial air quality 

impacts relative to taking no action, insofar as both would divert automobile traffic to 

train use. However, the EMU option would result in substantially greater beneficial 

effects on local air quality relative to the DEMU option due to the avoidance of air quality 

effects related to the diesel fuel need to operate the high-speed trains. Overall, no adverse 

effect on environmental justice populations would occur. 

Segment 4C 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Land Use and the Community 

Segment 4C would have high compatibility with the existing vacant lands and high to low 

compatibility with the institutional and residential land use designations, respectively. 

Segment 4C would also have high compatibility with the BLM Class M lands and low 

compatibility with the BLM Class L lands. Segment 4C would not displace any residence 

or business, nor sever an established community due to the undeveloped nature of the 

area it would cross. Segment 4C would have similar effects on environmental justice 

populations as Segment 4B because it traverses through the same census block. However, 

development within this census block is sparse and is concentrated well outside the 

vicinity of the Segment 4 rail alignment options. No adverse effect on environmental 

justice populations would occur. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

The RSMSF would not interfere with the normal function of adjacent land uses due to the 

undeveloped and vacant nature of the surrounding area. The RSMSF would have high 

compatibility with the existing vacant land uses.

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans 

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

response to public comment from the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA). 

The CCDOA identified potential adverse conflicts between the Sloan Road MSF as 

evaluated in the Draft EIS and the proposed “super arterial” that would provide vehicular 

access to the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport near Primm. As a result, 

the Applicant relocated the RSMSF approximately 2 miles south of the Sloan Road MSF to 

avoid potential conflicts with future planned airport-related uses. The RSMSF would have 

high compatibility with the existing undeveloped, vacant lands and low compatibility with 

the residential land use designations under the Clark County Comprehensive Plan. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-12 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents and/or Disrupt or Sever 

Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established Community 

The RSMSF would be located on land currently vacant and undeveloped and therefore 

would not result in the displacement of any residence or business or community 

severance. 

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

Population 

The RSMSF would not be located within an environmental justice census block and would 

therefore not result in any direct or indirect adverse effects to an environmental justice 

community. 

Frias Substation 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

As the Frias Substation would be located on vacant land, the substation would have high 

compatibility with existing lands on the proposed site. However, the Frias Substation 

would have medium compatibility with the residential development approximately 300 

feet to the north and south. 

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans 

The Frias Substation would have medium compatibility with the residential land use 

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

Business and Design Research land use designations to the east of Dean Martin Drive. 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents and/or Disrupt or Sever 

Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established Community 

While the Frias Substation would be within proximity of existing single family homes, the 

site itself is currently vacant. Development of the Frias Substation would not result in the 

displacement of any residence or business nor sever an established community. Further, 

due to its location south of existing residential developments, the Frias Substation would 

not place a barrier or built feature between existing groups of homes and/or businesses. 

The Frias Substation would not interrupt the access along Dean Martin Drive. Thus, no 

adverse effects would occur in regards to displacement or community severance. 

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

Population 

The Frias Substation would not be located within an environmental justice census block 

and would therefore not result in any direct or indirect adverse effects to an 

environmental justice community. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-13 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Conflict with Adjacent Land Uses and Land Use Plans and Displacement and 

Community Severance 

The AAAs would not present any changes in land use compatibility and would not result in 

the displacement of any residence or business or severance of an existing community. A 

summary of the AAAs is provided below. 

 AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would move Segment 2A/2B about 200 feet to the 

south and thus farther away from residential areas north of the Mojave River on 

Poplar Street in the greater Barstow area. This adjustment would slightly improve 

the compatibility with existing adjacent residential and commercial land uses. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would shift portions of Segment 3B 

immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor between Yermo and Baker, without 

incurring any additional land use changes. These adjustments would occur well 

outside of any established communities and thus have no impact relative to 

severance or community disruption. 

 AAA 7: AAA 7 would shift Segment 6B to the outside (western) edge of the 

freeway right of way so as to better accommodate potential future widening of I-15. 

Nearly all of the land adjacent to the west of Segment 6B is designated for 

residential use. The only area proximate to Segment 6B currently in residential 

use is north and west of Robert Trent Jones Lane, a minimum distance of 1,000 

feet from the I-15 corridor. Due to this distance, the modified rail alignment would 

not result in any interference with existing land uses nor in any community 

severance or disruption. 

 AAA 8: AAA 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B outside of the NDOT right-ofway and into the adjacent Clark County right-of-way on Dean Martin 

Drive/Industrial Road. This adjustment would have high compatibility with the 

existing industrial developments, medium compatibility with the hotels/motels 

and commercial developments, and low compatibility with the nearby residential 

developments. 

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

compatibility with the commercial and high compatibility with the industrial land 

use designations with implementation of AAA 8. 

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

commercial, residential, and hotel/motel developments, the adjustment associated 

with AAA 8 would remain within existing transportation corridors and no 

residential or business displacements would occur. Where the alignment 

adjustment would traverse within the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

Road (between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue), access to existing 

roadways and properties would be maintained. Therefore, no severance of an 

existing community would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-14 

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

Population 

 AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would not shift portions of Segment 2A/2B within 

an environmental justice census block and would not result in any direct or 

indirect adverse effects to an environmental justice community. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would shift portions of Segment 3B within 

the same two environmental justice census blocks as those identified for Segment 

3B in the Draft EIS. Since the alignment adjustments would continue to follow the 

existing I-15 corridor, they would not introduce substantial new impacts to 

environmental justice areas to those analyzed in the Draft EIS. 

 AAA 7: AAA 7 would not shift portions of Segment 6B within an environmental 

justice census block and would not result in any direct or indirect adverse effects to 

an environmental justice community. 

 AAA 8: AAAs 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B within the same 

environmental justice census block as identified for Segment 6B in the Draft EIS. 

Since the alignment adjustment would continue to be located within existing 

transportation corridors (I-15 and Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road), they 

would not introduce substantial new impacts to environmental justice areas. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Interference with Normal Functioning of Adjacent Land Uses 

The location of the Wigwam MSF has not changed since publication of the Draft EIS. The 

Wigwam MSF Modification would maintain high compatibility with adjacent industrial 

uses, but medium compatibility with nearby residential uses. 

Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans 

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

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

would maintain high compatibility with Clark County’s planned development/mixed-use 

land use designations and medium compatibility with the commercial land use 

designations. 

Cause Displacement of a Significant Number of Local Residents 

The modification of the trackway connection to the Wigwam MSF (from the northern end 

to the southern end) would result in the displacement of one additional business not 

previously affected by the Wigwam MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. The Wigwam MSF 

Modification would continue to result in the displacement of the Southwest Rock and 

Landscape business (3020 West Wigwam Avenue) and would further result in the 

displacement of the Little Baja Garden and Design business (3033 West Ford Avenue). 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-15 

Disrupt or Sever Community Interactions or Otherwise Divide an Established 

Community 

The Wigwam MSF Modification would not result in division or severance of an existing 

community, consistent with the conclusion in the Draft EIS. Access within the vicinity of 

the Wigwam MSF would not be altered. 

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

Population 

The Wigwam MSF would not be located within an environmental justice census block and 

would not result in any direct or indirect adverse effects to an environmental justice 

community. 

Profile Modification 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Land Use and the Community 

The Segment 3B Profile Modification would not relocate the rail alignment from its 

location previously evaluated in Section 3.1.3 of the Draft EIS. While the Profile 

Modification would result in a vertical change in the elevation of the rail alignment to a 

depressed section, no horizontal change in the location of the rail alignment would occur. 

Thus, there is no change to the land use and community impacts in regards to the Profile 

Modification. 

3.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIS would be applied to the project 

additions and modifications to reduce any adverse land use or environmental justice 

effects. Specifically, mitigation identified in the sections of the Draft EIS cited below 

would be applicable to the project modifications and additions to further reduce potential 

indirect effects on adjacent land uses and environmental justice populations. Measures 

identified in these sections of the Draft EIS include: 

 Section 3.4.5, Utilities: Avoidance or minimization of conflict with existing 

utility infrastructure (including coordination with existing utility providers). 

 Section 3.5.5, Traffic: The addition of signalization and/or lanes to the 

intersection approaches. 

 Section 3.6.5, Visual Resources: Use of aesthetically pleasing materials for 

the rail alignment that minimize reflectivity, use of architecture and colors and the 

Victorville Station that reflect the surrounding desert landscape, design or signage 

at the Victorville Station to reflect the scale and character of the site and 

surroundings, use of contour grading, orderly construction site management, 

minimization of light spillover during construction, and use of visual screening 

construction areas as appropriate. 
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-16 

 Section 3.11.5, Air Quality: Use of best management dust control practices to 

minimize air quality impacts during construction. 

 Section 3.12.7, Noise: Installation of noise barriers, use of sound and vibration 

reducing materials, relocation of crossovers or special track work, property 

acquisitions, limited construction times, limited locations of construction related 

activities, and use of sounds-reducing construction equipment. 

3.1.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The incorporation of mitigation measures would mitigate permanent effects related to 

project construction and operation. However, even with this mitigation, the project 

additions and modifications would nonetheless result in the permanent conversion of 

lands to transportation uses. 
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

Land Ownership (1)

FIG

S-3.1-1

Geografika Consulting 06.07.10

4

5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

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 06.07.10

4

5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Land Ownership (2)

FIG

S-3.1-2
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

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

Geografika Consulting 06.07.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Land Ownership (3)

FIG

S-3.1-3
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 06.07.10

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

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Land Ownership (4)

FIG

S-3.1-4
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

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.08.10

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 B vl d

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

Land Ownership (5)

FIG

S-3.1-5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Department of Defense

National Parks Service

Private

State of California

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2 1.25 .5

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
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 06.07.10

4

5

Land Use / Zoning Designation (1)

FIG

S-3.1- 6

Legend

Land Use Designation (California)

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Desert and Mountain

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space Contracts

Residential

Restrictive

Other

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

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006
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 06.07.10

4

5

Land Use / Zoning Designation (2)

FIG

S-3.1-7

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Use Designation (California)

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Desert and Mountain

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space Contracts

Residential

Restrictive

Other

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
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

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

Geografika Consulting 06.07.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5

Legend

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Land Use Designation (California)

Administrative and Professional

Agricultural

Commercial

Desert and Mountain

Industrial-Manufacturing

Institutional/Annual Exemption

Open Space Contracts

Residential

Restrictive

Other

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Land Use / Zoning Designation (3)

FIG

S-3.1.8
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 06.17.10

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

Land Use / Zoning Designation (4)

FIG

S-3.1-9

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

 DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

Zoning Designation (Nevada)

Civic

Administrative and Professional

Public Facility

Industrial-Manufacturing

Residential

Commercial

Planned Development/Mixed Use

Commercial/Residential Transition
TCA 14 

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Robindale MSF

Stonewater Park

Western

Trails Park

Bob Baskin Park

Mary Dutton Park

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.17.10

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 B vl d

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

Western

Trails

Park

Segment 7 A

Land Use / Zoning Designation (5)

FIG

S-3.1-10

DesertXpress Alignments

Ancillary Facility Sites

Legend

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)

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

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles NORTH

0 2 1

Miles

Zoning Designation (Nevada)

Civic

Administrative and Professional

Public Facility

Industrial-Manufacturing

Residential

Commercial

Planned Development/Mixed Use

Commercial/Residential Transition

Open Space
Yermo Barstow

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 4A

Segment 3A

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 4B

Segment 2A

Segment 4C

1 inch equals 13 miles NORTH

Source: Bureau of Land Management,

California Desert Conservation Area Land

Use Plan, 1999; DesertXpress 2007 FIG

S-3.1-11 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Multiple Use

Classifications, California Desert Conservation Area

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.07.10

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 1 5 0

Miles

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Map 1 of 1

Death Valley NP

Victorville

Las

Vegas

1 inch = 3.5 miles

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2B

Mojave National Preserve

(National Parks Service)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2C

Victorville

Station Site 3

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Relocated Sloan MSF / Substation

Site; Frias Substation Site, Wigwam MSF

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

OMSF Site 2

Legend

California Desert Conservation Area

Class I Intensive Use

Class M Moderate Use

Class L Limited Use

Class C Controlled Use

Private, State and Other

Federally Managed Lands

CDCA Boundary

County Lines

Military Boundary

Planning Units

Other Features

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Additional Alignment Modifications

National Park Boundary

Competitive Even Corridor

#

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Yermo Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Victorville

OMSF Site 1 Victorville

Site 1

Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Victorville

Segment 2C

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 1

Segment 3B

Segment 4A

Segment 3A

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 2A

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 4B

Segment 4C

Segment 2C

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2B

and U

Profile

Modification

Area

60710103002

6071013006

60710103003

60710103007

60710121001

1

2

Locator Map

Map 1

Legend

1 inch equals10.5 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

Environmental Justice: California (1)

FIG

S-3.1-12

Geografika Consulting 06.17.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 1 5 0

Miles

0 2 10 0

Kilometers

Environmental Justice Data

Minority Population

60700000001 Census Block Number

Poverty Level

Census Block Groups That Meet

Environmental Criteria For:

Victorville

OMSF Site1 Victorville

Site 1

TCA 1A

TCA 2

15

TCA 1B

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Helendale

Victorville

60710117002

60710091029

60710091047

60710121004

60710098002

60710098003

60710099011

60710099012

Helendale Rd

Corwin

Bryman

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

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

TCA 4

15

Ol d H wy 58

247

Pipeline Rd

60710094003

60710095006

60710095005

60710094002

60710095004

60710095001

60710120001

60710095002

60710120005 607101200002

6071012004

Segment

2A / 2B

Lenwood

Barstow 60710094001

60710121001

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

58

Mojave River

Segment 2C

TCA 2C1
Primm

Jean

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Wigwam MSF

Robindale MSF Las Vegas Southern Station

Las Vegas Central Station A

Las Vegas Downtown Station

Las Vegas Central Station B

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 6C

Segment 6A & 6B

Segment 4C

Relocated Sloan MSF, Substation

and Utility Corridor

60710103002

1

2

Locator Map

Map 1

Legend

1 inch equals10.5 miles

NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

Environmental Justice: Nevada (1)

FIG

S-3.1-13

Geografika Consulting 06.17.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 5 2.5

Miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

Environmental Justice Data

Minority Population

60700000001 Census Block Number

Poverty Level

Census Block Groups That Meet

Environmental Criteria For:

Wigwam MSF

160 15

Las Vegas

Downtown Station

Las Vegas

Central Station A

TCA 15

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

Tropicana Ave

Russell Rd

TCA 17

Charleston Blvd

15

W. Saraha

515

Segment 7A

Ford

30003015

Las Vegas

Central Station B

Segment 6A

Segment 7B

Robindale Ave MSF

Segment 6B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Segment 6C

30002013

30002031

30002033

30009002

30008002

30006003

30011004

30011003 30012003

30020001 30019021

30019012

30012002

30019011

30014003

30014004

30013004 30013002

30010046

30024041

30024042

30024031

30024052

30024051

30023003

30023002

30026021

30029563

30022031

30022041

30022042

30022053

30029551

30022051

30022052

30029541

30027023

215

Sunset Rd

Warm Springs Rd

TCA 22

30001014

30001052

30010041 30010044

30010034

30029121

30027021

30028072

30013003

30024032

30026031

30026032

30028321

30029251

30009001

30011001

30011002

30013005

30013001

30014005

30024061

30026022

30077022

30028161

30029562

30029481 30029123

30029542

30022032

30011045

30022011

30026011

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

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

Frias

Substation
DesertXpress 3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts 

September 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.1-30 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-1 

3.2 GROWTH 

This section discusses the potential growth-inducing effects that could result from the 

project modifications and additions. 

3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The federal, state, and local regulations related to population, household, and employment 

growth identified in Section 3.2.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed since publication of 

the Draft EIS and remain applicable to the project modifications and additions. However, 

growth projections and forecasts within the regional and local planning documents have 

been modified since publication of the Draft EIS. As a result, an updated discussion is 

provided below including information regarding growth projections for the project region. 

In addition, Chapter 3.0, Regulatory Setting, of this Supplemental Draft EIS includes 

a summary of the Southern Nevada Regional Policy Plan, which includes regional 

planning guidelines that will be followed by Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, 

Boulder City, Clark County, the Clark County School District, regional and state agencies, 

and public utilities. A summary of the regional plan was not previously included in the 

Draft EIS. The policies and guidelines included in the Southern Nevada Regional Policy 

Plan do not affect the analysis in Section 3.2.4 of the Draft EIS. 

Regional Conditions 

San Bernardino County 

The Draft EIS used the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2005 

growth projections, which were the most current available projections at the time of 

publication. In 2008, SCAG released updated growth projections for the County and the 

incorporated cities within the County. 

For San Bernardino County, SCAG’s 2008 Growth Projections estimate a population 

increase of about 1.1 million people, or nearly 59 percent, between 2005 and 2030. This 

projection is larger than previously reported in Section 3.2.3.1 of the Draft EIS, which 

assumed an increase of 700,000 people between the same time period. 

As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 of the Draft EIS, the DesertXpress project would be 

located in the “Desert Region” of San Bernardino County. SCAG has not updated its 

growth projections specific to the Desert Region of San Bernardino County since 

publication of the Draft EIS. Therefore, the information presented in the Draft EIS 

regarding the Desert Region remains the most current projections at the regional level. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-2 

City of Victorville 

Since publication of the Draft EIS, SCAG updated its growth projections for the City of 

Victorville as part of its 2008 projections. SCAG’s 2008 Growth Projections continue to 

project substantial increases in population, household, and employment growth, but 

slightly less employment growth than was forecast previously. 

Table S-3.2-1 lists SCAG’s 2008 Growth Projections for Victorville. The data forecast a 

population increase of 52 percent for Victorville between 2005 and 2020, with an 

additional increase of 22 percent by 2030. This is larger than SCAG’s forecasted 

population growth for San Bernardino County (31 percent from 2005 to 2020 and an 

additional 15 percent from 2020 to 2030). 

Table S-3.2-1 also shows growth projections for households in Victorville. Similar to 

population, the number of households in Victorville is expected to increase. SCAG 

projects an increase of 61 percent in the number of households from 2005 to 2020 and an 

additional increase of 21 percent by 2030 in Victorville. The number of households in 

Victorville is expected to increase at a faster rate than in San Bernardino County as a 

whole, which indicates projected concentrated growth in the Victorville area. 

SCAG projects the number of jobs in Victorville will also increase substantially. 

Specifically, SCAG’s 2008 projections estimate a 75 percent increase in jobs between 2005 

and 2020 (from about 31,000 in 2005 to around 55,000 by 2020). 

Table S-3.2-1 City of Victorville Growth Projections 

Year 

Population / Percent 

Growtha Households / Percent Growtha Employment / Percent Growtha

2005 (actual)b 90,913 NA 27,108 NA 31,425 NA 

2010 106,649 +17.3 32,392 +19.5 41,280 +31.4 

2015 122,205 +14.6 38,919 +20.2 49,131 +19.0 

2020 138,023 +12.9 43,766 +12.5 55,044 +12.0 

2025 153,376 +11.1 48,421 +10.6 61,972 +12.6 

2030 168,134 +9.6 52,775 +9.0 69,861 +12.7 

Source: SCAG Projections, 2008. 

a Percent Growth from last measured year (5-year increments) 

b Growth projections in the Draft EIS were based upon SCAG 2005 projections. The 2005 data has been revised to reflect 

the historic 2005 demographics rather than an estimate. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-3 

Clark County 

According to updated growth projections, the population growth estimates for Clark 

County between 2005 and 2030 have slightly decreased since publication of the Draft EIS. 

The growth projection data included in Section 3.2.3.1 of the Draft EIS for Clark County 

was obtained from the UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research, which provided 

the most recent growth projections at the time of the publication of the Draft EIS. Since 

publication of the Draft EIS, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 

Nevada (RTC) published updated growth projections as part of their Regional 

Transportation Plan. The Comprehensive Planning Department of Clark County also 

updated its growth projections since publication of the Draft EIS. These more recent 

growth projections for Clark County identify a slower growth rate than previously 

anticipated. 

Table S-3.2-2 summarizes the estimated population and housing growth projections 

within the County for the period of 2005 to 2030. According to the Comprehensive 

Planning Department of Clark County, the County is anticipated to grow from 1.8 million 

in 2005 to 2.7 million in 2020 and 3.1 million by 2030. This represents a 50 percent 

increase from 2005 to 2020 and an additional 15 percent increase by 2030 under the 

updated growth projections. This is a slight downward adjustment when compared to 

predictions outlined in the Draft EIS, which projected a 62 percent increase between 2005 

and 2020 and additional 16 percent by 2030. 

Table S-3.2-2 Clark County Growth Projections 

Year 

Population / Percent 

Growtha Households / Percent Growtha Employment / Percent Growtha

2005 (actual) 1,815,700 NA 796,255 (year 

2009) NA 966,725 NA 

2010 2,122,000 +16.9 822,480 +3.3 1,081,521 +11.9 

2015 2,446,000 +15.3 948,062 +15.3 1,150,648 +6.4 

2020 2,715,000 +11.0 1,053,325 +11.1 1,198,169 +4.1 

2025 2,933,000 +8.0 1,136,821 +7.9 1,243,209 +3.8 

2030 3,126,000 +6.6 1,211,627 +6.6 1,299,167 +4.5 

a Percent Growth from last measured year (5-year increments) 

Source: Comprehensive Planning Department of Clark County, 2009; Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 

Nevada, Regional Transportation Plan FY 2006-2030 Final Draft, 2006 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-4 

The Clark County household growth forecasts have also been slightly reduced since 

publication of the Draft EIS. According to the Comprehensive Planning Department of 

Clark County, there were an estimated 796,255 households in the County in 2009, with an 

average of 2.58 people per household. The number of households within Clark County is 

expected to increase by 52 percent between 2009 and 2030, for an anticipated total of 

1,212,418 households. 1 

Table S-3.2-2 summarizes the employment projections in Clark County. According to 

the RTC, there were 966,725 jobs in Clark County in 2005. According to their projections, 

employment is expected to increase to 1,198,169, or by 24 percent, by 2020 and an 

additional eight percent by 2030. 

City of Las Vegas 

None of the project modifications and additions would be located within the City of Las 

Vegas. However, since the publication of the Draft EIS, some growth projections for the 

City of Las Vegas have been revised through the year 2020. 

In February 2010, the City of Las Vegas updated its growth projections within the 

Population Element of its 2020 Master Plan to show a slower rate of growth than assumed 

in Section 3.2.3.1 of the Draft EIS. The growth rate has been adjusted to reflect the 

economic downturn in 2009 and the substantially slower rate of development of vacant 

lands over the last few years. 

3.2.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

Consistent with the analysis in Section 3.2.4 of the Draft EIS, the evaluation of growth 

effects is focused on areas immediately surrounding the proposed station and 

maintenance facilities. Growth inducing effects are foreseeable only around station and 

maintenance facilities, as they serve as the only “interfaces” of the project where 

passengers would board or exit trains and where the vast majority of DesertXpress 

employees would be based. 

An adverse, direct growth effect would occur if the anticipated growth associated with the 

project changes would exceed growth projections at local and/or regional levels. An 

adverse, indirect growth effect would occur if the project modification and additions 

would involve the removal of obstacles to growth, result in negative growth impacts to 

local and/or regional economic vitality, and or positive or negative growth in population 

numbers or patterns. 

 

1 2030 household information obtained by dividing the projected 2030 population by the person per 

household average of 2.58. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-5 

3.2.3 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, OMSF 2, Relocated Sloan MSF, and Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Growth 

VV3, OMSF 2, the RSMSF, and the Wigwam MSF modification would result in the same 

direct and indirect growth effects as the station and maintenance facilities evaluated in 

Section 3.2.4 of the Draft EIS. These station and maintenance facility additions and 

modifications merely alter the footprint of these sites, not the program of their expected 

uses or employment capacity of each facility. The same number of temporary construction 

employees as identified in the Draft EIS would be utilized during the construction of these 

facilities. Additionally, the same number of permanent jobs as identified in the Draft EIS 

would be created by these facilities at project buildout. 

VV3, OMSF2, RSMSF and Wigwam MSF modification would not alter the finding the 

Draft EIS that the project would result in beneficial effects on local employment and 

growth and would not be anticipated to result in a significant relocation of construction 

workers from outside of the project area to inside the project area. The permanent 

increase in jobs with project operation would also not exceed the projected employment 

growth for the area, as the facilities would continue to represent less than one percent of 

all anticipated job growth in 2030. 

Indirectly, VV3, OMSF 2, the RSMSF, and the modified Wigwam MSF would not alter the 

conclusion in the Draft EIS that the project would result in beneficial environmental 

consequences on growth in the surrounding community by increasing economic vitality, 

employment opportunities, and the potential for transit oriented development. 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, Frias Substation, Alignment Adjustment Areas, and 

Profile Modification 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Growth 

The new rail alignments (the Segment 2C alignment options or Segment 4C), the AAAs, 

the Profile Modification, and the Frias Substation would not have any “interface” that 

would result in either a direct or indirect change in population, households, or jobs. 
DesertXpress 3.2 Growth 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.2-6 

3.2.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

As none of the project modifications and additions would result in a substantial direct or 

indirect change in population, households, or jobs, no mitigation measures would be 

required. 

3.2.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The project modifications and additions would not result in any adverse growth impacts. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.3-1 

3.3 FARMLANDS AND GRAZING LANDS 

This section describes the potential effects of the project modifications and additions on 

farmlands and grazing lands within the project area. 

3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to farmlands and grazing lands identified in Section 

3.3.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed and remain applicable to the proposed project. 

Prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance within the project area are found 

only in isolated locations near Segment 1, 2, and 3. None of the proposed project 

modifications or additions are located on or within close proximity to lands designated as 

Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, or 

Unique Farmland1

 or lands under a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the selection 

of the 2C Action Alternative would avoid farmlands otherwise impacted by Segment 

2A/2B. 

As shown on Figure S-3.3-1, VV3, OMSF 2, and Segment 4C would be located on BLM 

grazing allotment areas. None of the other project modifications or changes would be 

located on BLM grazing allotments. 

3.3.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology as described in Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS was used to 

evaluate direct and indirect effects. Direct effects would occur on any farmland or grazing 

land that would be crossed by the rail alignment or on sites proposed for stations or other 

permanent facilities. Indirect effects were assumed to occur within a 37.5 foot buffer on 

either side of the rail alignment, as a result of parcel severance (blocking water resources 

for livestock) or cutting off access to a farmed or grazed parcel. 

3.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

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

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. However, none of 

the proposed project modifications or additions are located on or within close proximity to 

lands designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of 

Local Importance, or Unique Farmland2 As such, the discussions below focus only on 

potential effects to grazing land. 

 

1 San Bernardino County Important Farmland, 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California 

Department of Conservation. 

2 San Bernardino County Important Farmland, 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California 

Department of Conservation. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.3-2 

Victorville Station Site 3 and OMSF 2 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Grazing Land 

VV3 and OMSF 2 would be located on lands under BLM grazing allotments and would 

result in the permanent conversion of grazing lands to other uses. VV3 would 

permanently affect about 205 acres of grazing land, as compared to approximately 100 

acres for both VV1 and VV2. With the reduced footprint of OMSF2, the permanently 

affected acreage of grazing land would be reduced to about 61 acres. Neither VV3 nor 

OMSF2 would result in additional indirect impacts to grazing lands because they would 

not cut off livestock access to available water sources, as no water sources would be 

covered or blocked by the project. 

Segment 2C, Relocated Sloan MSF, Frias Substation, Alignment Adjustment 

Areas, Wigwam MSF Modification, and Profile Modification 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Grazing Land 

Segment 2C, RSMSF, Frias Substation, AAAs, Wigwam MSF Modification, and Profile 

Modification would not be located on BLM grazing allotments. These project 

modifications and additions would therefore have no affect on farmlands or grazing lands. 

Segment 4C 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Grazing Land 

Figure S-3.3-2 shows the location of Segment 4C in relation to the joint NPS/BLM 

grazing allotment in this area. Segment 4C would result in the direct conversion of 

grazing lands to other uses. Segment 4C would directly affect approximately 176 acres of 

grazing land. In addition, Segment 4C could result in indirect impacts by cutting off 

livestock access to available water sources or result in the removal of livestock fencing, 

which would allow livestock to trespass, become lost, or potentially struck by vehicles on 

nearby roadways, including I-15. According to the NPS, the primary water sources for 

cattle within this allotment area are located within the Northern Unit of the Mojave 

National Preserve.3 Segment 4C could thus form a barrier within the allotment, 

concentrating cattle closer to the water sources and thus resulting in overuse of the 

Mojave National Preserve for grazing activities. 

As such, implementation of Segment 4C could result in potentially direct and indirect 

adverse effects related to grazing lands and activities. 

3.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures FAR-3 and FAR-4 identified in Section 3.3.5 of the Draft EIS 

would apply to VV3, OMSF 2, and Segment 4C to reduce potentially adverse effects related 

to grazing land. Mitigation Measure FAR-3 would ensure the provision of livestock 

access to water and Mitigation Measure FAR-4 would require new fencing and/or gate 

modifications. 

 

3 Personal communication with Larry Whalon, National Park Service. 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.3-3 

However, Mitigation Measures FAR-3 and FAR-4 would not specifically address the 

impacts associated with Segment 4C and so Mitigation Measure FAR-5 has been 

added. In addition, FRA has added Mitigation Measure FAR-6 as an alternative to 

Mitigation Measures FAR-3, 4, and 5. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-5: Provide Adequate Cattle Access in Areas of the 

Joint NPS/BLM Grazing Allotment (Segment 4C)4. Prior to issuance of the permit 

to construct, the project sponsor shall prepare revised plans for Segment 4C which include 

adequate cattle crossings to allow movement of cattle within the joint NPS/BLM grazing 

allotment. The location, number and design of the crossings shall be reviewed and 

approved by the General Manager of the Mojave National Preserve. 

Mitigation Measure FAR-6: Purchase Grazing Allotment (VV3, OMSF2, 

Segment 4C). Prior to issuance of the permit to construct, the project sponsor shall 

purchase the rights to the grazing allotment(s) directly affected by VV3, OMSF2, and 

Segment 4C and discontinue grazing activities. The purchase of the rights and 

discontinuing of grazing activities shall be reviewed and approved by the BLM and the 

General Manager of the Mojave National Preserve as appropriate. 

3.3.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Mitigation Measure FAR-5 would minimize impacts to grazing lands and associated 

indirect effects on grazing in the joint NPS/BLM grazing allotment. Mitigation 

Measure FAR-6 would avoid grazing impacts entirely through compensation for existing 

grazing rights and the removal of the lands from grazing use. However, even with 

mitigation, the project would result in the direct conversion of grazing lands to 

transportation uses. 

 

4 Mitigation Measure FAR 5 would not be required if Mitigation Measure FAR 6 is implemented. 
Yermo Barstow

Baker

Primm

Jean

Mountain

Pass

Halloran

Springs

Victorville OMSF

SIte Option 1

Victorville

Site 2

Victorville OMSF

Site Option 2

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Victorville

Segment 2B

Victorville Site 1

Segment 2A / 2B Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Victorville

Site 3A/3B

Segment 1

Segment 3B Segment 4A

Segment 3A

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 4B

Segment 2A

Segment 2C

Segment 4C

1 inch equals 13 miles

NORTH

Source: BLM 2008, DesertXpress 2007,

ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006

BLM Grazing Allotments

FIG

S-3.3-1

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 10 5

Miles

0 20 10

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Death Valley NP

Victorville

1

Las

Vegas

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville

Station

Site 3A/3B

arry Rd

Dale Ev

Boulder Rd

15

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4 B

Segment 4 A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12 TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 5

TCA 4

TCA 3

Segment 2A/2B

TCA 2C1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the Median Option

for Segment 2C.

15

Segment 2C

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Profile Modification Area

15

Legend

BLM Grazing Allotment

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 3

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Text Project Modifications and Additions
TCA 10

TCA 18

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 4C3

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C4

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C5

Primm

Mountain

Pass

Segment 5 B

Segment 4 B

Segment 4 C

Segment 4 A

Kessler

Springs

Allotment

Jean

Lake

Allotment

Clark

Mountain

Allotment

Valley

View

Allotment

Valley

View

Allotment

Valley

Wells

Allotment

Valley

Wells

Allotment

Clark

Mountain

Allotment

1 inch equals 13 miles

NORTH

Source: BLM 2008, DesertXpress 2007,

ESRI 2005, NAIP 2003-2006

Segment 4C, BLM Grazing Allotments

FIG

S-3.3-2

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

40

Mojave NPRES

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

0 3 1.5

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Locator Map

Death Valley NP

Victorville

1

Las

Vegas

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Mojave National Preserve

Legend

BLM Grazing Allotment

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 3

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Text Project Modifications and Additions
DesertXpress 3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands

September 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.3-6 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-1 

3.4 UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES 

This section identifies the potential affect of the project modifications and additions on 

utilities and emergency service systems and associated service providers operating in the 

study area. The utilities evaluated in this section include electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater facilities, and solid waste providers. Emergency services evaluated in this 

section include police, fire, and emergency response. The analysis also covers potential 

physical impacts to existing pipelines and electrical transmission infrastructure. 

3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to utilities and emergency services identified in 

Section 3.4.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and 

remain applicable to the proposed project. 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater, solid waste, police services, and fire and emergency services for the project 

modifications and additions. Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery 

systems that would be crossed by the project modifications and additions. A discussion of 

each project modification and addition relative to these utility service providers and 

delivery systems is provided below. 

Table S-3.4-1 Utility/Service Providers Necessary 

Project 

Modifications 

& Additions 

Electricity 

and Gas 

Service 

Water 

Supply 

and 

Service 

Sewage and 

Wastewater 

Solid 

Waste 

Police 

Services 

Fire and 

Emergency 

Response 

Services 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(VV3A and 

VV3B) 

SCE 

SGC 

VWD VVWRA Victorville 

Landfill 

SBCSD SBCFD 

OMSF 2 SCE 

SGC 

VWD VVWRA Victorville 

Landfill 

SBCSD SBCFD 

Segment 2C SCE 

SGC 

N/A N/A N/A SBCSD 

CHP 

SBCFD 

BFPD 

Segment 4C SCE 

SGC 

N/A N/A N/A SBCSD 

CHP (near I-15) 

SBCFD 

Frias Substation Nevada 

Energy 

SGC 

N/A N/A N/A METRO CCFD 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-2 

Project 

Modifications 

& Additions 

Electricity 

and Gas 

Service 

Water 

Supply 

and 

Service 

Sewage and 

Wastewater 

Solid 

Waste 

Police 

Services 

Fire and 

Emergency 

Response 

Services 

Relocated 

Sloan MSF 

Nevada 

Energy 

SGC 

LVVWD CCWRD or 

private 

septic 

system 

Apex 

Regional 

Landfill 

METRO CCFD 

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Areas 

SCE 

Nevada 

Energy 

SGC 

N/A N/A N/A AAAs 1 – 2: 

SBCSD, BPD, 

CHP 

AAAs 3- 6: 

SBCSD, CHP 

AAAs 7 – 8: 

METRO, NHP 

AAAs 1 – 2: 

SBCFD, 

BFPD 

AAAs 3 – 6:

SBCFD 

AAAs 7 – 8:

CCFD, LVFR 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Nevada 

Energy 

SGC 

LVVWD CCWRD Apex 

Regional 

Landfill 

METRO CCFD 

Profile 

Modification 

SCE 

SGC 

N/A N/A N/A SBCSD 

CHP 

SBCFD 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

Notes: BFPD – Barstow Fire Protection District; BPD – Baker Police Department ; CCFD – Clark County Fire Department; 

CCWRD – Clark County Water Reclamation District; CHP – California Highway Patrol; LVFR – Las Vegas Fire and Rescue; 

LVVWD – Las Vegas Valley Water District; METRO – Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; NHP – Nevada Highway 

Patrol; SBCSD – San Bernardino County Sherriff’s Department; SBCFD – San Bernardino County Fire Department; SCE – 

Southern California Edison; SGC – Southwest Gas Corporation; VVWRA – Victorville Valley Wastewater Reclamation 

Authority; VWD – Victorville Water District. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-3 

Table S-3.4-2 Potential Utility Crossings 

Project 

Modifications & 

Changes 

Utility Crossings 

VV3A Electrical Transmission

 LA Department of Water and Power 

VV3B None 

OMSF 2 None 

Segment 2C Natural Gas

 Mojave-Kern Pipeline 

 SGC Pipelines 

 Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline

Communications/Fiber Optic

 No information available from Caltrans. Potential Communications/Fiber Optic 

lines could exist in the vicinity

Electrical Transmission 

 SCE 

 PG & E

Water

 Mojave River Pipeline 

Segment 4C Natural Gas

 Mojave-Kern Pipeline 

 Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline 

Specific communication, electrical transmission, petroleum, water, and sewer line 

crossings outside of the I-15 corridor are not known. However, conflicts with 

utilities are likely to exist especially in the northern part of the alignment which is 

located adjacent to an existing utility easement. 

RSMSF None 

Frias Substation Natural Gas

 Southwest Gas Corporation Pipelines 

 Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline

Communications/Fiber Optic

 AT&T Communications Nevada 

 Sprint Central Telephone 2 

 COX Communication, Las Vegas 

 Sprint Nevada 

Electrical Transmission

 Nevada Energy

Water

 Las Vegas Valley Water

Sewage

 Clark County Water Reclamation District 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-4 

Project 

Modifications & 

Changes 

Utility Crossings 

Alignment 

Adjustment Areas 

AAAs 1 – 2 

(Segment 

2A/2B) 

Electrical Transmission

 SCE 

 PG & E 

 LA Department of Water and Power 

Regional Water

 Mojave River Pipeline 

 Sewage/Stormwater 

 Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority North Apple Valley Inceptor 

(Sewage only) 

AAAs 3 – 6 

(Segment 

3B) 

Electrical Transmission

 SCE 

 LA Department of Water and Power 

AAAs 7 – 8 

(Segment 

6B) 

Natural Gas

 SGC Pipelines 

 Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline 

Communications/Fiber Optic

 AT&T Communications Nevada 

 Sprint Central Telephone 2 

 Electric Lightware 

 COX Communication, Las Vegas 

 IDA Communications 

 Level 3 Communications 

 Nextlink Nevada 

 Sprint Nevada 

Electrical Transmission

 Sierra Pacific/Nevada Power 

Regional Water

 Las Vegas Valley Water District 

Sewage/Stormwater

 Clark County Water Reclamation District 

 Clark County Flood Control District 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Electrical Transmission

 Nevada Energy 

Profile Modification Natural Gas 

 Kern River Gas Pipeline 

 Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline

Electrical Transmission 

 SCE 

 LA Department of Water and Power 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010 

Regional Conditions 

Construction and operation of the action alternatives require electricity, water, and other 

public utilities. In addition, action alternatives trigger the need for such public services as 

police protection, and fire/emergency response services. 

The proposed modifications and additions would need the same kinds of utilities as those 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-5 

identified in Section 3.4.3 of the Draft EIS. Table S-3.4-3 summarizes the types of 

utilities needed to serve the project modifications and additions. In addition, Table S3.4-3 identifies the types of utilities that could be crossed by the proposed modifications 

and additions, leading to potential utility conflicts. The utility crossings would also be 

similar to those identified in Section 3.4.3.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Table S-3.4-3 Summary of the Regional Environment 

Proposed Modifications 

and Additions 

Utilities/Services Needed Possible Utility Crossings 

Stations and Maintenance 

Facilities 

Victorville Station Site 3 

(VV3A and VV3B) 

OMSF 2 

Relocated Sloan 

MSF(RSMSF) 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Electricity and Gas 

Water Supply and Service 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Stormwater 

Solid Waste 

Police Services 

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

Electrical transmissions at 

VV3A and Wigwam MSF 

Modification sites 

Rail Alignments 

Segment 2C 

Segment 4C 

Alignment Adjustments 

Profile Modification 

Electricity (EMU option) 

Police Services 

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

Pipelines 

Communications/Fiber Optic 

Electrical Transmission 

Regional Water Pipelines 

Frias Substation Electricity (EMU Option) 

Police Services 

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

Pipelines 

Communications/Fiber Optic 

Electrical Transmission 

Water and Sewer Pipelines 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater, solid waste, police services, and fire and emergency services for VV3 under 

both parking options. Currently, no stormwater conveyance systems are present on the 

VV3 site for either parking option. 

The Victorville Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) would be responsible 

for providing wastewater services to VV3. However, the VV3 site is currently outside of 

the established VVWRA service area. The VVWRA service area would need to be 

expanded to serve the VV3 site. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by 

VV3 under both parking options. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-6 

Figure S-2-6 of Chapter 2, Alternatives shows that the parking lot for VV3A would be 

located directly below electrical transmission lines. These transmission lines are owned by 

the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). VV3B is configured so that 

parking would be located north of the station building which would avoid areas under the 

existing utility lines. 

OMSF 2 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater, solid waste, police services, and fire and emergency services for OMSF 2. The 

same utility service providers identified in Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft EIS would serve 

OMSF 2 since only the size, not the location, of OMSF 2 has been modified. 

The VVWRA would be responsible for providing sewage and wastewater services to OMSF 

2. However, the OMSF 2 site is currently outside of the established VVWRA service area 

and a service area expansion would be required to serve the OMSF 2 site. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

There are no utility transmission and/or distribution facilities that cross the OMSF 2 site. 

Electrical transmission lines owned by the LADWP would be located west of the OMSF 2 

site. 

Segment 2C 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, police 

services, and fire and emergency services for Segment 2C. As a rail alignment, no water, 

wastewater, or solid waste service would be required. Stormwater conveyance systems are 

present within the median of the I-15 freeway. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by 

Segment 2C. Segment 2C would cross and/or overlap with the Kinder Morgan CalNev 

Pipeline. The pipeline transports gasoline, oil, and jet fuel from refineries in Southern 

California to Las Vegas. Near Yermo, Segment 2C would also cross the Mojave-Kern 

Pipeline, an interstate gas pipeline. Furthermore, Segment 2C would be located beneath 

electrical transmission lines near the cities of Lenwood and Barstow. Segment 2C would 

cross the Mojave River Pipeline near the Mojave River as well as various underground 

telecommunications lines. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-7 

Segment 4C 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, police 

services, and fire and emergency services for Segment 4C. As a rail alignment, no water, 

wastewater, or solid waste service would be required. Where Segment 4C parallels the 

existing I-15 freeway near Mountain Pass there are existing stormwater conveyance 

systems within the median of I-15. No stormwater conveyance systems exist in the 

undeveloped portions of Segment 4C north of Mountain Pass. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by 

Segment 4C. Portions of Segment 4C within the I-15 freeway corridor (the westernmost 

portions, where the alignment is similar to Segment 4B) would cross two major interstate 

pipelines, specifically the Kern River Gas Pipeline and Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline. 

Segment 4C would also have the potential to cross communication lines located in areas 

where the rail alignment would be located within the I-15 freeway corridor. Furthermore, 

the northern portion of Segment 4C would be located adjacent to an existing utility 

easement with similar underground utility conveyances, including telephone, electrical, 

water, natural gas, and petroleum, and electrical transmission lines. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater, solid waste, police services, and fire and emergency services for the RSMSF 

site. No stormwater conveyance systems are present on the RSMSF site. 

The RSMSF would be located outside of the Clark County Water Reclamation District’s 

(CCWRD) service area. Therefore, the service area of CCWRD would need to be expanded 

in order to provide service to the RSMSF. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

There are no utility transmission and/or distribution facilities that cross the RSMSF site. 

Frias Substation 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, police 

services, and fire and emergency services for the Frias Substation site. As a substation 

with no permanent employees, no water, wastewater, or solid waste service demand would 

occur at this site. No stormwater conveyance systems are present on the Frias Substation 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-8 

site, but existing drainages are located to the north and south of the Frias Substation site 

that cross under the I-15 freeway to the east. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by 

the Frias Substation site. The Frias Substation footprint does not contain any known 

utilities. However, the Frias Substation would include 25 kilovolt (kV) electrical lines that 

would cross underground, below an existing overhead Nevada Energy electricity line. The 

underground feeder lines would then cross into the I-15 right of way to deliver electricity 

to the train. The Frias Substation would also have aboveground connections to the ArdenTolson electric transmission line, operated by Nevada Energy, south of the site. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, police 

services, and fire and emergency services for Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAA) 1 

through 8. As a rail alignment, no water, wastewater, or solid waste service would be 

required for the AAAs. Existing stormwater conveyance systems are located in portions of 

the I-15 freeway corridor. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

AAAs 1 through 8 would not be located in areas with new utility delivery systems not 

previously identified for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in the Draft EIS. 

The AAAs would not create any new utility crossings. Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the 

physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by the rail alignments with 

implementation of the AAAs. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, water, 

wastewater, solid waste, police services, and fire and emergency services for the Wigwam 

MSF modification. The same utility service providers identified in Section 3.4.3.1 of the 

Draft EIS would serve the Wigwam MSF site since the orientation not the location of the 

Wigwam MSF has been modified. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility delivery systems that would be crossed by 

the modified Wigwam MSF. Although not identified in Section 3.4.3.2 of the Draft EIS, 

the Wigwam MSF site would be located beneath an existing Nevada Energy electric 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-9 

transmission line. This line cuts diagonally across the proposed site. The Wigwam MSF 

modification would not require altering or otherwise impact this line. 

Profile Modification 

Utility Service Providers 

Table S-3.4-1 summarizes the utility service providers for electricity and gas, police 

services, and fire and emergency services for the Profile Modification. The same utility 

service providers identified in Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft EIS would serve the Profile 

Modification since the depth of the rail alignment (within a depressed section), not the 

location, of the 1.3 mile portion of Segment 3B has been modified. 

Physical Utility Delivery Systems 

Since the Profile Modification would not cross any new service or utility areas not 

previously evaluated for Segment 3B in the Draft EIS, the Profile Modification would cross 

the same utility transmission and/or distribution facilities as Segment 3B as identified in 

Section 3.4.3.2 of the Draft EIS. Table S-3.4-2 summarizes the physical utility 

delivery systems that would be crossed by Segment 3B with implementation of the Profile 

Modification. 

3.4.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology described in Section 3.4.2 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential utility and emergency service effects of the project modifications and additions. 

Consistent with the methodology identified in the Draft EIS, the project modifications and 

additions would result in adverse effects if: 

 Utility or service demands of the action alternative exceeded the existing or 

planned capacity of existing or planned utility and service systems, or 

 The action alternative would physically interrupt or otherwise constrain or impede 

existing utilities distribution systems. 

3.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Victorville Station Site 3 

Electricity and Gas Service 

Under either technology option (DEMU or EMU), VV3 would require electrical energy for 

station operations. Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS noted that Southern California 

Edison (SCE) reports sufficient equipment and facility conditions to serve the existing and 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-10 

future needs of the project’s passenger station in Victorville.1 Southwest Gas Corporation 

(SGC) has provided a “will-serve” letter for the project. 2 SGC states that current 

operating conditions are sufficient to serve existing needs plus those associated with the 

project. Therefore, the electrical and gas demands that would be created by VV3 would 

not exceed the capacity of service providers. Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of 

this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of energy use associated with the project 

modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

VV3 would generate demand for water associated with restrooms, restaurant/food service 

uses, and landscaping. As discussed in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, the Applicant 

provided estimates of water needs for a Victorville Station site option combined with an 

OMSF site option. The combined station and maintenance facilities would require 

approximately 3.3 acre-feet of water per year (AFY). It is assumed that VV3 would 

generate the same demand for water as the Victorville Station site options evaluated in the 

Draft EIS, as the station size and types of uses would be comparable. Although the size of 

OMSF 2 has been reduced since publication of the Draft EIS, there is no change in its 

proposed function. Therefore, the change to the size of OMSF 2 has no bearing on the 

amount of water needed. 

Water necessary to serve the needs of customers and workers at VV3 and OMSF 2 is 

determined by the Victorville Water District (VWD), the local water service provider. 

VWD computes estimated water usage based on gross acreage of a property and the type 

of land use at the property. Specifically, for the type of land use closest to the proposed 

station and maintenance facilities, VWD assumes each acre of development (no matter 

what use is proposed) would generate approximately 1,800 gallons per day of water 

demand. 

According to VWD’s water generation rates, VV3 and OMSF 2 would yield a daily usage of 

approximately 461,700 gallons of water per day (about 1.4 acre-feet per day or about 511 

AFY). This estimate likely overstates water demand for several reasons. Except for 

proposed buildings, most of the land associated with these facilities would be used for 

parking, train tracks, or undeveloped areas where water usage would be minimal. 

Despite this potential overestimation of water use, the VWD has indicated that it would 

have adequate water supplies to serve the needs of VV3 and OMSF 2 since the daily water 

demands of the station would be small in comparison to VWD’s overall water production. 

Although VWD would have adequate water supply to serve VV3 and OMSF 2, there are no 

existing pipelines that could deliver water to the VV3 site currently available. 

 

1 Nancy Jackson, Southern California Edison. Personal communication, January 16, 2007. 

2 Letter from Southwest Gas Corporation, June 12, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-11 

Consultation with VWD following the publication of the Draft EIS clarified that the 

construction of VV2, VV3, and OMSF 2 would not be adequately served by existing water 

facilities due to their distance from existing water mains. The nearest existing water 

facility to VV2, VV3 and OMSF 2 is approximately 7 miles south at a substantially lower 

elevation. The existing main does not extent far enough to serve the station sites or the 

OMSF. Therefore, VV3 and OMSF 2 would require the construction and/or expansion of 

new water facilities, including storage facilities, wells, and/or transmission and 

distribution pipelines. 

Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS noted that a water supply assessment would be required 

before the eventual use of any of the Victorville station and OMSF options. This 

assessment would determine the size and extent of new water facilities needed. This 

requirement continues to apply to the project modifications and additions. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Similar to water demands, the sewage and wastewater demands for VV3 (for both parking 

options) are considered in combination with OMSF 2, consistent with the evaluation of the 

Victorville Station site options in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS. 

VV3 and OMSF 2 would generate wastewater associated with anticipated water usage. 

According to the VVWRA, the station and maintenance facilities would not create a 

substantial need for additional wastewater equipment, facilities, or personnel. In its 2005 

Sewerage Facilities Plan Update, as well as a policy adopted in August 2005 regarding 

anticipated community growth, VVWRA acknowledges the robust growth projections 

forecast for the Victor Valley area. Specifically, the sewerage plan anticipates the City of 

Victorville’s population will double between 2005 and 2025 and that wastewater flows 

from the City would more than double over the same period.3 As the VVWRA facility 

planning assumes robust growth projections in the Victor Valley area; VV3 and OMSF 2 

would be served by existing or planned VVWRA facilities. 

Although VVWRA has adequate capacity to serve the station and maintenance facility, 

land underlying VV3 and OMSF 2 would need to be annexed to the VVWRA, as this land is 

currently outside of the VVWRA boundaries. Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS identified 

a similar annexation requirement for VV2 and OMSF 2. 

Stormwater 

VV3 is located in an undeveloped area without existing stormwater conveyances or 

stormwater providers. Any necessary drainage features would need to be provided on site. 

Solid Waste 

 

3 VVWRA 2005 Sewerage Facilities Plan, p. 1-3. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-12 

VV3 under both parking options would generate waste from employees and/or 

passengers. Since the projected number of employees or passengers at VV3 would not 

change from what was considered in the Draft EIS, the solid waste generation projections 

contained in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS remains accurate. The Victorville Landfill 

reports sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by VV3.

Police Services 

VV3 would be located in the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBCSD) service 

area. The SBCSD anticipates that current and projected staffing would be sufficient to 

serve VV3.4 

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Draft EIS, the San 

Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) has indicated that the implementation of 

any of the Victorville Station site options (VV1, VV2, VV3A, or VV3B) would require 

additional staffing, training, equipment, vehicles, and facilities to adequately serve the 

project in the event of an emergency. The SBCFD also expressed concern of emergency 

access.5 As a result, VV3 would result in new adverse effects from exceeding the capacity 

of the fire department. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The VV3 site options would result in varying effects to utility infrastructure crossings. 

VV3A: VV3A surface parking areas would be located directly underneath an electrical 

transmission corridor owned and operated by LADWP. According to LADWP guidelines 

for vehicle parking, vehicles cannot be left under the overhead electrical utility lines for 

more than 24 hours. Most vehicle parking at VV3A is expected to extend for more than 24 

hours, because rail passengers would likely be traveling to Las Vegas for more than one 

day. The Applicant is pursuing a lease agreement with LADWP, which would allow long 

term parking under the utility lines and ensure compliance with LADWP regulations to 

maintain access to and normal operation of the electric transmission lines. 

VV3B: The VV3B station layout avoids use of the lands under the overhead LADWP 

lines, locating surface parking to areas northwest of the station building. This site option 

was included in the event the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with LADWP to 

allow for long-term parking beneath the electric transmission lines. 

 

4 Dan Riser, Operations Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Personal communication, 

October 9, 2009. 

5 Pat A. Dennen, San Bernardino County Fire Department. Personal Communication, November 2, 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-13 

OMSF 2 

Electricity and Gas Service 

While the OMSF 2 footprint has been reduced, OMSF 2 would continue to have the same 

functions as identified in the Draft EIS. Electrical and gas demands would not exceed the 

capacity of the service providers. Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this 

Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of energy use associated with the project 

modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

Consistent with the evaluation of water supply and service in Section 3.4.4.2 in the 

Draft EIS, the estimated water demand associated with OMSF 2 has been considered in 

combination with the Victorville Station site option. Refer to the heading “Victorville 

Station Site 3” above for a discussion of the combined water demand and associated 

effects for VV3 and OMSF 2. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Consistent with the evaluation of sewage and wastewater in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft 

EIS, the wastewater generation associated with OMSF 2 has been considered in 

combination with the Victorville Station site option. Refer to the discussion under 

heading “Victorville Station Site 3” above for a discussion of the combined wastewater 

generation and associated effects for VV3 and OMSF 2. 

Stormwater 

Since the location of OMSF 2 has not changed since the Draft EIS, effects related to 

stormwater would be the same as presented in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS. Any 

necessary drainage features would need to be provided on site. 

Solid Waste 

OMSF 2 would generate waste from employees and/or passengers. Since the projected 

number of employees or passengers at OMSF 2 would not change as a result of the 

reduced footprint, the solid waste generation projections contained in Section 3.4.4.2 of 

the Draft EIS would be applicable and no adverse effects would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-14 

Police Services 

Consistent with the conclusion for OMSF 2 in the Draft EIS, the SBCSD anticipates that 

current and projected staffing would be sufficient to serve OMSF 2 and no adverse effects 

would occur with regard to police service.6 

Fire and Emergency Services 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Draft EIS, SBCFD has 

indicated that the project as a whole, including OMSF 2, would require additional staffing, 

training, equipment, vehicles, and facilities to adequately serve the project in the event of 

an emergency. The SBCFD also expressed concern of emergency access.7 The SBCFD’s 

comments are similar to all project features, individually and collectively. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

As shown in Table S-3.4-2, OMSF 2 would not have the potential to cross any utility 

lines. As a result, no interruption or impediment of utility services would occur. 

Segment 2C 

Electricity and Gas Service 

Electricity would be needed to power the trains if the EMU technology option is 

implemented. The electric service providers have indicated they would be able to provide 

sufficient electricity to meet this demand.8 SGC indicated that current natural gas 

operating conditions are sufficient to serve the project.9 Additionally, the Segment 2C 

alignment options would not substantially alter the amount of energy needed to operate 

the action alternatives as evaluated in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS and no new 

environmental effects would occur. 

Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of 

energy use associated with the project modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

As a rail alignment, the Segment 2C alignment options would not generate demand for 

water. There would not be any landscaping nor any other water related use associated 

with the rail segments that would create an ongoing demand for water. The new rail 

 

6 Dan Riser, Operations Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Personal communication, 

October 9, 2009. 

7 Pat A. Dennen, San Bernardino County Fire Department. Personal Communication, November 2, 2009. 

8 Nancy Jackson, Southern California Edison, Personal Communication, January 16, 2007. 

9 Southwest Gas Corporation, Personal Community, June 12, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-15 

alignments and alignment adjustments would therefore not result in any water service 

issues and no effects would occur. Refer to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water 

Quality, of this Supplemental Draft EIS for a discussion of construction related water use. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since the Segment 2C alignment options would not generate demand for water, there 

would be no resultant wastewater generation and no required wastewater services. No 

effects related to sewage or wastewater treatment would occur. 

Stormwater 

The Segment 2C alignment options would be located within or adjacent to the I-15 freeway 

corridor and could tie into the existing stormwater discharge systems associated with I-15. 

Solid Waste 

The Segment 2C rail alignment would not generate solid waste. Daily maintenance-of-way 

activities may be required to dispose of waste items that may have strayed onto the tracks. 

However, this amount of waste is expected to be incidental/negligible. Therefore, the 

Segment 2C alignment options would not result in any effects from exceeding solid waste 

disposal capacity. 

Police Services 

The SBCSD anticipates that current and projected staffing would be sufficient to serve the 

Segment 2C alignment options.10 However, portions of Segment 2C next to the I-15 

freeway corridor would introduce the concern that a catastrophic event, such as a train 

derailment, could result in a blockage of the I-15 freeway. Segment 2C would include 

crash barriers at all supporting columns or bridges to reduce effects to I-15 during 

potential train derailment. 

Fire and Emergency Services 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Draft EIS, the SBCFD 

indicated that the Segment 2C alignment options, as well as Segment 2A and Segment 2B, 

would require additional staffing, training, equipment, vehicles, and facilities to 

adequately serve the project in the event of an emergency. 

The SBCFD also expressed concern of the rail alignment within the I-15 freeway median.11 

While the Segment 2C alignment options would incorporate cross-median emergency 

 

10 Dan Riser, Operations Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Personal communication, 

October 9, 2009. 

11 Pat A. Dennen, San Bernardino County Fire Department. Personal Communication, November 2, 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-16 

access, the SBCFD expressed concern that the use of the median with the rail alignment 

would affect the SBCFD’s ability to use the median during an emergency response. 

The portion of the Segment 2C alignment options through Barstow would be served by the 

Barstow Fire Protection District (BFPD). The BFPD has indicated that present staffing 

levels are insufficient to meet present demands. The BFPD indicates that a new facility 

north of the Mojave River would be required to meet acceptable emergency response 

times in the area. Existing and future staff also would need to be trained for fire and other 

emergencies that might be associated with a high-speed passenger train.12 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The Segment 2C alignment options would cross existing utility conveyance systems. The 

I-15 freeway corridor contains utility infrastructure, such as overhead electrical and 

telephone lines. Consultation with utility providers during the preparation of the Draft 

EIS indicated that no major conflicts are anticipated with the proposed rail alignment 

running beneath electrical and telephone transmission lines, provided appropriate 

measures are taken. 

Segment 4C 

Electricity and Gas Service 

Electricity would be needed to power the trains if the EMU technology option is 

implemented. Electric service providers have indicated they would be able to provide 

sufficient electricity to meet this demand.13 As Segment 4C is 8 miles longer than its 

Segment 4 counterparts as evaluated in the Draft EIS, additional energy would be needed 

to propel the train over this distance. Although more energy will be needed than 

identified in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, energy demand would not exceed regional 

supply capacity. With regard to natural gas, SGC indicates that natural gas service would 

be available to serve the project, but that connection to the local natural gas system in 

Nevada could incur fees that would be required for the Applicant.14 No adverse effects 

would occur. Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this Supplemental draft EIS for a 

discussion of energy use associated with the project modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

As a rail alignment, Segment 4C would not generate demand for water. There would not 

be any landscaping nor any other water related use associated with the rail segments that 

would create an ongoing demand for water. Segment 4C would therefore not result in any 

 

12 Barstow Fire Protection District, Personal Communication, April 2008. 

13 Nancy Jackson, Southern California Edison, Personal Communication, January 16, 2007. 

14 Southwest Gas Corporation, Personal Communication, June 12, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-17 

water service issues and no effects would occur. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since Segment 4C would not generate demand for water, there would be no resultant 

wastewater generation and no required wastewater services. No effects related to sewage 

or wastewater treatment would occur. 

Stormwater 

Where Segment 4C would be adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor, there would be an 

opportunity to tie into the existing stormwater discharge systems associated with I-15. 

Where Segment 4C would traverse through undeveloped areas north of Mountain Pass, 

new stormwater conveyance may be required. 

Solid Waste 

Daily maintenance-of-way activities may be required to dispose of waste items that may 

have strayed onto the tracks. However, this amount of waste is expected to be 

incidental/negligible. Therefore, Segment 4C would not result in any effects from 

exceeding solid waste disposal capacity. 

Police Services 

The SBCSD anticipates that current and projected staffing would be sufficient to serve 

Segment 4C.15 Response times to Segment 4C would be affected by the lack of access 

roads to the proposed rail alignment. After Segment 4C exits the I-15 freeway corridor via 

a tunnel through the Clark Mountains, it would traverse lands without public rights-ofway; reaching the alignment would therefore be challenging if not impossible for 

conventional modes of transportation. As the Segment 4C alignment routing does not 

include public interfaces such as passenger stations, the need for police services would 

likely be required only in limited and emergency circumstances. 

Fire and Emergency Response Services 

Segment 4C would be located in the SBCFD service area. SBCFD indicated that existing 

services are inadequate to serve the project as a whole, including Segment 4C. Project 

features, inclusive and collectively, would require additional staffing, training, equipment, 

vehicles, and facilities to adequately serve the remote area in the event of an emergency. 

Specific to Segment 4C, a new station facility may be needed near Mountain Pass due the 

segment’s distance from an existing SBCFD fire station. 

 

15 Dan Riser, Operations Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Personal communication, 

October 9, 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-18 

The SBCFD also expressed concern regarding access to the rail tracks where the rail 

alignment would be outside the I-15 freeway corridor or within a tunnel, as it may be 

difficult to pinpoint the exact location of the train in the event of an emergency. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS noted that Segment 4B would conflict with a proposed 

solar project located to the west of Ivanpah Dry Lake. Because of this potential conflict, 

the Applicant proposed Segment 4C, which avoids the conflicts with the proposed solar 

project. 

Notwithstanding, Segment 4C has the potential to conflict with other utilities. Segment 

4C is located parallel to, but outside of, an existing utilities corridor. Segment 4C could 

result in physical conflicts with these utilities as they travel to and from the corridor. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Electricity and Gas Service 

The change in the location of the RSMSF would not affect the amount of energy that 

would be needed to operate this maintenance facility, as compared to the evaluation in 

Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS. Nevada Energy would provide electricity to the 

RSMSF. SGC has indicated that natural gas service would be available, but that 

connection to the local natural gas system could incur fees that would be required for the 

Applicant.16

Water Supply and Service 

At the direction of Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), a water consumption rate 

based on an assumed commercial land use and property size was used to determine water 

demands. LVVWD requested that water demand flow rates be estimated based on 

maximum day gallons per minute (gpm). Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS indicated that 

the largest Las Vegas MSF site would be 10 acres in size, with a resultant water demand of 

48.4 AFY. The RSMSF would be 9.1 acres in size and thus comparable to the water 

demand assumption for the MSFs in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS. The LVVWD 

indicated that the water demand projection would be within estimations for water use 

within their service area.17 LVVWD has also established a “water commitment” 

application process. 

While adequate water supply would be available for the RSMSF, the LVVWD indicated 

that there is not adequate infrastructure to bring water to the RSMSF. Based on 

additional consultation with the LVVWD following the publication of the Draft EIS, it was 

 

16 Barbara Demaree, Southwest Gas Corporation. Personal communication, June 18, 2008. 

17 LVVWD, Personal Communication, June 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-19 

identified that both the Sloan Road MSF and the RSMSF would require the extension and 

construction of new water facilities and pipelines to serve them. Notably, the LVVWD has 

plans to extend water infrastructure from the metropolitan Las Vegas area to the vicinity 

of the Jean Heliport and the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) beginning as 

soon as 2011. However, this infrastructure is not currently in place and the Sloan Road 

MSF and the RSMSF would require the creation of one or more connections to the 

planned expanded facilities. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

The RSMSF would generate wastewater from water usage. Based on additional 

consultation with CCWRD following the publication of the Draft EIS, CCWRD indicated 

that current services do not extend to either the Sloan Road MSF or the RSMSF. These 

MSF sites are approximately 5 to 7 miles, respectively, south of the nearest existing 

municipal sewer line. Therefore, implementation of the Sloan Road MSF or the RSMSF 

would require the extension of sewer lines to connect with the existing service system or 

the construction of a septic system pursuant to CCWRD regulations. 

Stormwater 

The RSMSF is located in an undeveloped area without existing stormwater conveyances or 

stormwater providers. Any necessary drainage features would need to be provided on site. 

As no connections to stormwater services would occur, the RSMSF would not affect the 

ability of stormwater providers to serve their service area. 

Solid Waste 

The RSMSF would generate waste from employees and/or passengers. Since the projected 

number of employees or passengers at the RSMSF would be the same as the assumptions 

for the Las Vegas MSFs in the Draft EIS, the solid waste generation projections contained 

in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS would be applicable. The Apex Landfill would have 

sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated at the RSMSF and no adverse 

effects would occur. 

Police Services 

Based on additional consultation with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 

(METRO)18 following publication of the Draft EIS, METRO indicated that there has been a 

temporary suspension on the hiring of additional police officers due to the economic 

downtown. Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS noted that although METRO is not 

considered understaffed, it is seeking to hire more personnel to meet local initiatives and 

 

18 The Draft EIS defined the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department as both METO and LVMPD. For the 

purposes of this Supplemental Draft EIS, the acronym METRO will be used in reference to the Las Vegas 

Metropolitan Police Department. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-20 

it is not anticipated that the project would impact service to the community.19 With the 

hiring freeze, the primary concern expressed by the METRO following publication of the 

Draft EIS was that of police services for the Las Vegas Station site options because an 

emergency event could draw officers away from the existing needs of the community and 

that additional officers may be required. 20 Thus, it is not anticipated that the RSMSF 

would introduce any new environmental effects beyond those identified in Section 

3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Fire and Emergency Services 

Based on additional consultation with the Clark County Fire Department (CCFD) 

following publication of the Draft EIS, the CCFD identified several changes to their 

department. The CCFD indicated that the Clark County’s Heavy Rescue Team and the 

Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team were decommissioned since publication 

of the Draft EIS. 21 Similar to the concerns identified in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, 

the CCFD indicated that new staff, equipment, and most likely, a new station would still be 

required as a result of the project, including the project modifications and additions. 

However, the changes in the location of the Sloan Road MSF would not alter employment 

projections or otherwise change operating characteristics of either of these facilities in a 

way that would change the fire emergency response effects identified in Section 3.4.4.2

of the Draft EIS. The RSMSF would actually be 2 miles closer to the nearest fire and 

police stations than the Sloan Road MSF analyzed in the Draft EIS. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

As shown in Table S-3.4-3, the RSMSF would not have the potential to cross any utility 

lines. As a result, no interruption or impediment of utility services would occur. 

Frias Substation 

Electricity and Gas Service 

The Frias Substation would be needed to connect the project to a source of electrical 

power. Nevada Energy would provide electricity to the Frias Substation, through a 

connection to the adjacent electric transmission lines. SGC has indicated that natural gas 

service would be available, but that connection to the local natural gas system could incur 

fees that would be required for the Applicant.22 The substation would not change the 

amount of energy needed by the action alternatives and would be required to operate the 

 

19 Las Vegas Police Department, Personal Communication, January 2007. 

20 A.J. Delap, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, June 18, 2010. 

21 Girard Page, Senior Deputy Fire Chief, Clark County Fire Department. Personal communication, June 8, 

2010. 

22 Barbara Demaree, Southwest Gas Corporation. Personal communication, June 18, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-21 

EMU technology option if either the Wigwam or Robindale MSFs are selected. Therefore, 

no new environmental effects would occur. 

Water Supply and Service 

The Frias Substation would not require water supply or service and no effects would occur. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since the Frias Substation would not require or use water, there would be no wastewater 

generation. No wastewater service would be required and no effects would occur. 

Stormwater 

The Frias Substation is located in an undeveloped area without existing stormwater 

conveyances or stormwater providers. Any necessary drainage features would need to be 

provided on site. As no connections to stormwater services would occur, the Frias 

Substation would not affect the ability of stormwater providers to serve their service area. 

Solid Waste 

The Frias Substation would not generate solid waste and would not result in any effects to 

solid waste service or the capacity of landfills. 

Police Services 

Based on additional consultation with the METRO following publication of the Draft EIS, 

METRO indicated that there has been a temporary suspension on the hiring of additional 

police officers due to the economic downtown. Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS noted 

that although METRO is not considered understaffed, it is seeking to hire more personnel 

to meet local initiatives and it is not anticipated that the project would impact service to 

the community.23 The primary concern expressed by the METRO was that of police 

services for the Las Vegas Station site options in that an emergency event could draw 

officers away from the existing needs of the community and that additional officers may be 

required. 24 As a substation, it is not anticipated that the Frias Substation would require 

general police service. 

 

23 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Personal Communication, January 2007. 

24 A.J. Delap, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, June 18, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-22 

Fire and Emergency Services 

As previously discussed, the CCFD identified several changes to their department. Similar 

to the concerns identified in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, the CCFD indicated that 

new staff, equipment, and most likely, a new station would still be required as a result of 

the project, including the project modifications and additions. 25 However, the Frias 

Substation would not create new adverse effects since the employment projections or 

operating characteristics of the project would not be altered. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The Frias Substation would connect directly to existing overhead electrical lines in the 

area and would provide electrical service to the project. There are no known utility 

conflicts associated with construction or operation of the Frias Substation. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Electricity and Gas Service 

Electrical energy would be needed to power the trains if the EMU technology option is 

implemented. The electricity service providers have indicated they would be able to 

provide sufficient electricity to meet this demand. Implementation of AAAs would not 

substantially alter the amount of energy needed to operate the action alternatives as 

evaluated in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS and no new environmental effects would 

occur. SGC has indicated that natural gas service would be available, but that connection 

to the local natural gas system in Nevada could incur fees that would be required for the 

Applicant.26 Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this Supplemental draft EIS for a 

discussion of energy use associated with the project modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

The AAAs would not result in any change in demand for water for their associated rail 

alignments. There would not be any landscaping nor any other water related use 

associated with the rail segments that would create an ongoing demand for water. The 

AAAs would therefore not result in any water service issues and no effects would occur. 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since the AAAs would not generate demand for water, there would be no resultant 

wastewater generation and no required wastewater services. No effects related to sewage 

or wastewater treatment would occur. 

 

25 Girard Page, Senior Deputy Fire Chief, Clark County Fire Department. Personal communication, June 8, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-23 

Stormwater 

AAAs 1 and 2 would be located in areas outside of the I-15 freeway corridor and would 

have the potential to require new stormwater conveyances or connections to existing 

systems (unless they are constructed on ballast, which would reduce the amount of 

stormwater runoff associated with the rail alignment). AAAs 3 through 8 would be 

adjacent to the I-15 freeway and could tie into the existing stormwater discharge systems 

associated with I-15. 

Solid Waste 

The AAAs would not result in any change to solid waste generation relative to their 

associated rail alignments. Daily maintenance-of-way activities may be required to 

dispose of waste items that may have strayed onto the tracks. However, this amount of 

waste is expected to be incidental/negligible. Therefore, the AAAs would not result in any 

effects from exceeding solid waste disposal capacity. 

Police Services 

The AAAs would only result in minor shifts to portions of Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, 

and Segment 6B and would not alter the police service effects nor introduce any new 

environmental effects related to police services. The effects identified for Segment 2A/2B, 

Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS would remain. 

Fire and Emergency Services 

The AAAs would only result in minor shifts to portions of Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, 

and Segment 6B and would not alter the fire and emergency service effects nor introduce 

any new environmental effects. The effects identified for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, 

and Segment 6B in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS would remain. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The AAAs would not change the nature of the utility conflicts that would occur during 

construction of the rail segments. Accounting for the AAAs, Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, 

and Segment 6B would continue to cross or be in close proximity to a number of utilities, 

including gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, water/wastewater infrastructure, and 

communications/fiber-optic lines. AAA 1 occurs within Segment 2A/2B, in the vicinity of 

a known crossing of the Mojave Kern Pipeline. The resultant change to the rail alignment 

may modify the precise location where the rail alignment and the pipeline intersect. With 

AAA 8, Segment 6B would leave the I-15 right of way in three places and could conflict 

with overhead utility lines and drainage features in these areas. 

 

26 Barbara Demaree, Southwest Gas Corporation. Personal communication, June 18, 2008. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-24 

Although the types of conflicts from the alignment adjustments would be similar in 

number and nature to those discussed in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, the physical 

location of utility conflicts may be different. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Electricity and Gas Service 

The modification to the orientation of the Wigwam MSF would not affect the amount of 

energy that would be needed to operate this facility. The modified Wigwam MSF would 

result in the same energy and natural gas demand as the Wigwam MSF evaluated in 

Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS and no new environmental effects would occur. 

Water Supply and Service 

Since only the orientation of the Wigwam MSF has been changed since publication of the 

Draft EIS, the assumed water demand would be the same as presented in Section 

3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS. LVVWD reports adequate water supply and infrastructure to 

serve the Wigwam MSF.27

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since only the orientation of the Wigwam MSF has been changed since publication of the 

Draft EIS, the estimated wastewater generation would be the same as presented in 

Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS. The CCWRD and LVPWD would have adequate 

capacity to serve the Wigwam MSF. 

Stormwater 

Since the location of the Wigwam MSF has not changed since the Draft EIS, the effects 

related to stormwater would be the same as presented in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft 

EIS. Any necessary drainage features would need to be provided on site. 

Solid Waste 

Since the size and employment capacity of the Wigwam MSF has not changed since the 

Draft EIS, the effects related to solid waste would be the same as presented in Section 

3.4.4.2 in the Draft EIS. No adverse effects related to solid waste generation or landfill 

capacity would occur with the modification. 

 

27 LVVWD, Personal Communication, June 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-25 

Police Services 

Since the location of the Wigwam MSF has not changed since the Draft EIS, the effects 

related to police services would be the same as presented in Section 3.4.4.2 in the Draft 

EIS. It is not anticipated that the Wigwam MSF modification would affect the ability of 

the METRO or Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) to provide police service. 

Fire and Emergency Services 

As previously discussed, the CCFD identified several changes to their department. Similar 

to the concerns identified in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, the CCFD indicated that 

new staff, equipment, and most likely, a new station would still be required as a result of 

the project, including the project modifications and additions. 28 However, the Wigwam 

MSF modification would not create new adverse effects since the employment projections 

or operating characteristics of the project would not be altered. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

Portions of the Wigwam MSF site would be located under an electric transmission line.

Profile Modification 

Electricity and Gas Service 

As the Profile Modification would place a portion of the Segment 3B rail alignment within 

a retained cut, no change to the required electricity and gas service as identified in 

Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS would occur. No new environmental effects would 

occur. Please also see Section 3.13, Energy, of this Supplemental draft EIS for a 

discussion of energy use associated with the project modifications and additions. 

Water Supply and Service 

The Profile Modification would not generate demand for water. There would not be any 

landscaping nor any other water related use associated with the rail segments that would 

create an ongoing demand for water. The Profile Modification would therefore not result 

in any water service issues and no effects would occur. 

 

28 Girard Page, Senior Deputy Fire Chief, Clark County Fire Department. Personal communication, June 8, 

2010. 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-26 

Sewage and Wastewater 

Since the Profile Modification would not generate demand for water, there would be no 

resultant wastewater generation and no required wastewater services. No effects related 

to sewage or wastewater treatment would occur. 

Stormwater 

With the Profile Modification, this portion of Segment 3B would be situated within a 

retained cut and would not have the ability to tie into the existing I-15 stormwater 

drainage system because the rail alignment would be below grade. However, it is assumed 

that the rail alignment would be constructed on ballast and would not generate substantial 

amounts of stormwater runoff. 

Solid Waste 

The Profile Modification would not generate solid waste. Daily maintenance-of-way 

activities may be required to dispose of waste items that may have strayed onto the tracks. 

However, this amount of waste is expected to be incidental/negligible. Therefore, the 

Profile Modification would not result in any effects from exceeding solid waste disposal 

capacity. 

Police Services 

The Profile Modification is located in the same physical footprint as Segment 3B in the 

Draft EIS and therefore introduces no additional effects related to police services. 

Fire and Emergency Services 

The Profile Modification is located in the same physical footprint as Segment 3B in the 

Draft EIS and therefore introduces no additional effects related to fire and emergency 

services. 

Utility Infrastructure Crossings 

The Profile Modification is located in the same physical footprint as Segment 3B in the 

Draft EIS and therefore introduces no additional utility conflicts. 

3.4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The mitigation measures identified in Section 3.4.5 of the Draft EIS would be applied to 

the project modifications and additions to avoid, minimize, and mitigation for any adverse 

effects related to utilities and emergency services. These mitigation measures would also 

be applied to the project modifications and additions to reduce any new adverse effects 

related to utilities and emergency services. The relevant mitigation measures from the 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-27 

Draft EIS are summarized below: 

 Mitigation Measure 1 would require the payment of connection and/or 

service/user/tipping fees, would be applied to all Las Vegas area MSF site options, 

VV3 (both parking options), and OMSF 2 to reduce effects related to connections 

to water facilities. 

 In addition to the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, Mitigation 

Measure 2, which is intended to minimize water usage through the incorporation 

of water-saving devices and drought-tolerant landscaping, would be applied to VV3 

(both parking options), and continue to be applied to OMSF 2, to reduce effects 

related to water supply. 

 Mitigation Measure 3 would be applied to the RSMSF Site to ensure a water 

commitment from the LVVWD during the design phase of the project. 

 Mitigation Measure 4 would apply to rail segments within the freeway rightsof-way, including the rail alignments, alignment adjustments, and the Profile 

Modification. This mitigation measure would require that the Applicant 

coordinate with the state transportation agencies in California and Nevada to 

ensure that the proposed rail alignments connect to existing freeway stormwater 

conveyance devices. 

 Mitigation Measure 5 would be applied to all proposed modifications and 

additions, which would require that the project develop appropriate stormwater 

conveyance structures/systems at station and maintenance facility sites. 

 Mitigation Measure 6 would continue to be applied to all proposed 

modifications and additions, which would require the payment of impact fees for 

fire and emergency services. The Applicant would be required to pay a fair share 

development impact fee for improving the fire service and emergency response 

level to a level proportionate to the project’s impact. 

 Mitigation Measure 7 would also be applied to all proposed modifications and 

additions, which would require the development of an emergency operations plan 

for the rail alignments, which would address concerns of accessing the rail 

alignments outside of the I-15 corridor. 

 Mitigation Measure 8 would be applied to all of proposed modifications and 

additions, which would avoid or minimize conflicts with existing utility 

infrastructure crossings. 

3.4.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The incorporation of mitigation measures would minimize permanent effects related to 

the adequate provision of services and conflicts from utility crossings. Where proposed 

modifications and additions require the expansion of utility infrastructure, their location 

would be determined during the final design phase of the project. If additional facilities 
DesertXpress 3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.4-28 

were located outside of the footprint of the project features or were fundamentally 

different in nature to previous proposals, separate environmental review of the water 

facilities’ construction and operation would be required. Additionally, if groundwater 

wells or other sources of water are considered during project operation or construction, 

development of these features would be subject to subsequent environmental review. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-1 

3.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

This section identifies the potential effect on traffic and transportation within the project 

area as a result of the project modifications and additions and discusses the related 

mitigation measures. 

3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to traffic and transportation identified in Section 

3.5.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and thus 

remain applicable to the proposed project. 

Victorville Station Site 3

VV3A and VV3B parking options differ only in terms of parking configuration. 

Therefore, the study assumes equivalent traffic levels for both. Furthermore, traffic 

going to and from VV3A and VV3B would use the same roadways, intersections, and 

station access points. 

Study Area Roadways and Intersections 

The Dale Evans Parkway interchanges with I-15 would provide the only access to and 

from the VV3 site. Currently, this roadway has a single travel lane in each direction. On 

the east side of I-15, Dale Evans Parkway extends to the City of Apple Valley about five 

miles to the southeast. However, on the west side of I-15, the paved portion of Dale 

Evans Parkway terminates after a few hundred feet, and Dale Evans Parkway continues 

to the northwest as a dirt road, providing access into the nearby mountains. Owing to 

relatively low traffic volumes in this area, intersections in the area are stop-sign 

controlled (unsignalized). 

The following existing intersections in the station vicinity have been identified for 

analysis: 

 Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 Northbound (NB) Ramps 

 Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 Southbound (SB) Ramps 

Figure S-3.5-1 shows existing lane geometry at the Victorville study intersections. 

Evening peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at these study intersections 

on Thursday, May 28, 2009. Figure S-3.5-2 presents these volumes in Intersection 

Level of Service (LOS) for the weekday PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) for the 

study intersections. Table S-3.5-1 indicates that both study area intersections currently 

operate at acceptable conditions (LOS A). 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-2 

Table S-3.5-1 Intersections Level of Service - Existing Conditions LOS 

Intersection Traffic Control 

Existing Conditions 

LOS Delaya

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps / Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalizedb A (NB)c 9.3 

2 I-15 Southbound Ramps / Dale Evans Parkway Unsignalizedb A (SB)c 9.8 

Source: AECOM, 2009. 

a

 Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

b

 LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

c

 SB=Southbound, NB=Northbound 

Study Area Ramp Junctions 

The term “ramp junction” refers to both “merge” areas where on-ramps enter freeways, 

and “diverge” areas where cars prepare to exit freeways via off-ramps. For the freewayramp junctions, the Highway Capacity Manual methodology determines the LOS based 

on density of vehicles in the area of the freeway directly downstream or upstream of the 

studied ramps (presented in passenger cars per mile per lane, or pc/mi/ln). Table 3.5-

2 of the Draft EIS presents the definitions for LOS values for ramp junctions. The 

planned transportation improvements assumed under the Draft EIS were also used in 

this analysis, and are incorporated into the forecasts for both the No Action Alternative 

and the Action Alternatives in the 2030 scenario. 

A ramp junction analysis was performed to calculate the existing LOS conditions of the I15 on- and off-ramps to Dale Evans Parkway. 

Table S-3.5-2 shows that under existing conditions, the I-15 NB ramp junctions operate 

at an acceptable LOS B, and the SB ramp junctions operate at an acceptable LOS C. 

Table S-3.5-2 Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions 

Location LOSa 

Density of Ramp 

(pc/mi/ln) 

1 I-15 NBb Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway B 16.0 

2 I-15 SBb Off-ramp to Dale Evans Parkway C 26.6 

3 I-15 NBb On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway B 16.1 

4 I-15 SBb On-ramp from Dale Evans Parkway C 26.3 

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 

a

 LOS = Level of Service 

b

 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

OMSF2, Relocated Sloan MSF, and Wigwam MSF Modification 

The revised OMSF2 site, RSMSF site, and the Wigwam MSF Modification would not 

result in changes to the anticipated number of workers at the MSF/OMSF facilities 

considered in Section 3.5.4 of the Draft EIS. Furthermore, these modifications and 

additions would not result in any changes in access points from the local roads that 

would affect traffic patterns. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-3 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Profile 

Modification 

Segment 2C and Segment 4C would not include any interface with passengers or 

employees (e.g. station or maintenance facility) nor create any at-grade crossings or 

require modification or changes to existing local roadways. 

Likewise, the eight proposed AAAs and Profile Modification involve shifts of the location 

of the proposed rail alignment but would not include any interface with passengers or 

employees. 

Frias Substation 

The Frias substation would be unmanned and therefore would not generate any new 

vehicle trips during project operations. 

3.5.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

Rail Ridership Study 

In response to the proposed VV3 station alternative, a Supplemental Traffic Impact 

Assessment (TIA) was prepared by AECOM in April 2010. The 2010 TIA supplements 

the TIA that was prepared for the project and was included as Appendix E in the Draft 

EIS. The new 2010 TIA is included in this document as Appendix S-B. 

The 2010 TIA only addresses the affects from VV3, as the remainder of the project 

modifications and additions would not include any interface with passengers or 

employees (e.g. station or maintenance facility) nor create any at-grade crossings or 

require modification or changes to existing local roadways. 

The Draft EIS ridership projections were calculated assuming VV2 as the southern 

terminus of the route. Since VV3 is 4.5 miles further north from southern California 

population centers than VV2, the ridership forecasts were reviewed to determine the 

potential impact of VV3 on ridership. The review determined the location of VV3 would 

result in a less than one percent decrease in ridership. Given this minimal change in 

anticipated ridership, approximately the same number of vehicles would be traveling to 

and from the VV3 station as would travel to the other station options. Vehicle travel time 

to access the VV3 station would be three to four minutes longer than trips to VV1 or VV2 

for vehicles coming from southern California, which would not substantially increase 

overall vehicle travel time for travelers from southern California.1

 At the same time, 

VV3’s closer proximity to Las Vegas would result in slightly reduced train trip times, 

partially offsetting longer automobile trips. Given this, the TIA prepared for VV3 

assumes the same level of traffic to and from the station as assumed for the other station 

site options. 

 

 

1 Stantec Consulting Services, April 13, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-4 

Notably, ridership forecasts differ between the EMU and DEMU technology options. 

The EMU technology offers higher speeds, larger trains, and shorter travel times than 

the DEMU and therefore would attract more riders than the slower, less frequent DEMU 

option. The EMU is thus anticipated to attract a higher level of ridership than the 

DEMU, which translates to higher traffic volumes to and from passenger stations. 

Scenarios Evaluated 

Two horizon years were selected for the traffic analysis: 2013 and 2030. The year 2013 

was selected because it is the year the DesertXpress high speed passenger train is 

expected to begin operations. The year of 2030 was also selected to evaluate cumulative 

conditions because it is about 20 years after the start of construction, and because it was 

the farthest year in the future for which regional travel forecasts were available for the 

metropolitan Las Vegas area. 

The same LOS thresholds for the Victorville area used in Section 3.5.2.2 the Draft EIS 

are used here. According to the City of Victorville and the San Bernardino County 

Congestion Management Plan, the LOS at the study intersections for this analysis would 

be considered unacceptable if it falls below LOS D or adds five percent or more to the 

peak hour traffic volumes of an intersection. 

3.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Victorville Station Site 3 

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on Intersections 

Figures S-3.5-3 and S-3.5-4 show that the intersection geometry would change 

between 2013 and 2030, respectively, when station access roads are constructed. Dale 

Evans Parkway is the only existing street that would serve the proposed VV3 station site. 

Figure S-3.5-5 shows the overall trip distribution for the station. 

The following intersections were evaluated under future conditions with VV3: 

 Intersection 1: I-15 NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 2: I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 3: Station Access #1/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 4: Station Access #2/Dale Evans Parkway 

 Intersection 5: Future Street/Dale Evens Parkway 

 Intersection 6: Future Street/Station Access #3 

 Intersection 7: Future Street/Station Access #4 

 Intersection 8: Future Street/Station Access #5 

Tables S-3.5-3 and S-3.5-4 show future conditions at the intersections listed above 

under baseline conditions for the DEMU and EMU option respectively. 

 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-5 

DEMU Technology Option

Existing Plus DEMU – Adverse Effects: When compared to existing conditions, 

the DEMU option would have an adverse effect on two study area intersections: the I-15 

NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway intersections. 

As shown in Table S-3.5-5, LOS at both of these intersections would deteriorate from 

an acceptable to unacceptable level, resulting in an adverse effect. Section 3.5.5 below 

provides mitigation. 

2013 Plus DEMU – Adverse Effects: The addition of traffic generated by the DEMU 

option to 2013 Baseline Conditions would change the LOS from acceptable to 

unacceptable at three study area intersections, resulting in adverse effects. The affected 

intersections would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway, and Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway intersections. Section 3.5.5

below provides mitigation. As shown in Table S-3.5-5, all other study intersections 

would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. 

2030 Plus DEMU – Adverse Effects: The addition of traffic generated by the 

DEMU option to 2030 Baseline Conditions would change LOS from acceptable to 

unacceptable at three study area intersections, resulting in adverse effects. The affected 

intersections would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway, and Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway intersections. Section 3.5.5

below provides mitigation. As shown in Table S-3.5-5, all other study intersections 

would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. 

EMU Technology Option

Existing Plus EMU – Adverse Effects: When compared to existing conditions, the 

EMU option would have an adverse effect on two study area intersections: the I-15 NB 

Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway and I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway intersections. As 

shown in Table S-3.5-6, LOS at both of these intersections would deteriorate from an 

acceptable to unacceptable level, resulting in an adverse effect. Section 3.5.5 below 

provides mitigation. 

2013 Plus EMU – Adverse Effects: The addition of traffic generated by the EMU 

option to 2013 Baseline Conditions would change LOS from acceptable to unacceptable 

at five study area intersections, resulting in adverse effects. The affected intersections 

would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, 

Station Access #1/Dale Evans Parkway, Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway, and Future 

Street/Station Access #4 intersections. Section 3.5.5 below provides mitigation. As 

shown in Table S-3.5-6, all other study intersections would continue to operate at 

acceptable LOS. 

2030 Plus EMU – Adverse Effects: The addition of traffic generated by the EMU 

option to 2030 Baseline Conditions would change LOS from acceptable to unacceptable 

at three study area intersections, resulting in adverse effects. The affected intersections 

would be the I-15 NB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, I-15 SB Ramps/Dale Evans Parkway, 

and Future Street/Dale Evans Parkway intersections. Section 3.5.5 below provides 

mitigation for these cumulative effects. As shown in Table S-3.5-6, no cumulative 

effects would occur at the other study intersections since they would continue to operate 

at acceptable LOS. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traf

August 2010 Supplem

3.5-6 

Table S-3.5-3 Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline plus DEMU- LOS Conditions on Local Streets 

Intersection Existing Conditionsa 

Existing Conditions Plus DEMU Conditionsa

2013 Baseline Conditionsa

2013 Baseline Plus DEMU Conditionsa

2030 BaseliConditionsa

LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS D

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps & Dale Evans Parkway A (NB)c 9.3 F(NB)c 163.4 B (NB)c 12.0 F(NB)c 586.3 C 32 I-15 Southbound Ramps & Dale Evans Parkway A (SB)c 9.8 F(SB)c 115.3 C (NB)c 15.5 F(SB)c 666.9 C 23 Station Access #1 & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA B(NB)c 12.6 NA NA C(NB)c 19.3 NA N4 Station Access #2 & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA A(NB)c 9.6 NA NA B(NB)c 11.7 NA N5 Future Street & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA A(NB)c 9.1 C (SB)c 16.0 F(NB)c 2028.4 D 46 Future Street & Station Access #3d NA NA A(WB)c 9.3 B (EB)c 11.9 C(EB)c 21.7 A 77 Future Street & Station Access #4d NA NA A(WB)c 9.0 B (EB)c 13.2 D(EB)c 27.6 B 18 Future Street & Station Access #5 NA NA A(WB)c 8.7 NA NA B(WB)c 11.5 NA N

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: a) LOS and Delay reported for worst approach b) Delay reported in seconds per vehicle c) NB = Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB=Westbound d) Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 and 2030 Baseline conditions e) Signalization of all intersection occurs only under 2030 Baseline conditions Bold text indicates unacceptable conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traf

August 2010 Supplem

3.5-7 

Table S-3.5-4 Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline plus EMU- LOS Conditions on Local Streets 

Intersection Existing Conditionsa 

Existing Conditions Plus EMU Conditionsa

2013 Baseline Conditionsa

2013 Baseline Plus EMU Conditionsa

2030 BaseliConditionsa

LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS D

1 I-15 Northbound Ramps & Dale Evans Parkway A (NB)c 9.3 F(NB)c 529.5 B (NB)c 12.0 F(NB)c --- C 32 I-15 Southbound Ramps & Dale Evans Parkway A (SB)c 9.8 F(SB)c 567.8 C (SB)c 15.5 F(SB)c --- C 23 Station Access #1 & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA C(NB)c 19.4 NA NA F(NB)c 65.1 NA N4 Station Access #2 & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA B(NB)c 10.4 NA NA B(NB)c 13.0 NA N5 Future Street & Dale Evans Parkway NA NA A(NB)c 9.5 C (SB)c 16.0 F(NB)c --- D 46 Future Street & Station Access #3d NA NA A(WB)c 9.8 B (EB)c 11.9 D(EB)c 29.9 A 77 Future Street & Station Access #4d NA NA A(WB)c 9.4 B (EB)c 13.2 E(EB)c 40.7 B 18 Future Street & Station Access #5 NA NA A(WB)c 8.8 NA NA B(WB)c 12.0 NA N

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: a) LOS and Delay reported for worst approach b) Delay reported in seconds per vehicle c) NB = Northbound, SB=Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB=Westbound d) Intersections 6 and 7 are T-intersections under 2013 and 2030 Baseline conditions e) Signalization of all intersection occurs only under 2030 Baseline conditions Bold text indicates unacceptable conditions. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-8 

Table S-3.5-5 I-15/Dale Evans Parkway Ramp Junction Level of Service – 

2013 Conditions 

Ramp Junction 

2013 Baseline 

2013 Baseline Plus 

DEMU 

2013 Baseline 

Plus EMU 

LOSa Density of 

Ramp LOSa Density of 

Ramp LOSa Density of Ramp 

1 

I-15 NBb

 Off-ramp to Dale Evans 

Parkway B 18.8 C 23.4 C 25.3 

2 

I-15 SBb

 Off-ramp to Dale Evans 

Parkway D 28.8 D 29.0 D 29.1 

3 

I-15 NBb

 On-ramp from Dale 

Evans Parkway B 18.8 C 22.2 C 23.6 

4 

I-15 SBb

 On-ramp from Dale 

Evans Parkway D 29.6 D 30.2 D 34.8 

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 

a

 LOS = Level of Service 

b

 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

Table S-3.5-6 I-15/Dale Evans Parkway Ramp Junction Level of Service – 

2030 Conditions 

Ramp Junction 

2030 Baseline 

2030 Baseline Plus 

DEMU 

2030 Baseline Plus 

EMU 

LOSa Density of Ramp LOSa Density of Ramp LOSa Density of Ramp 

1 

I-15 NBb

 Off-ramp to Dale 

Evans Parkway D 28.2 D 32.0 D 33.5 

2 

I-15 SBb

 Off-ramp to Dale 

Evans Parkway E 35.5 E 35.6 E 35.7 

3 

I-15 NBb

 On-ramp from Dale 

Evans Parkway D 29.1 D 32.4 D 33.7 

4 

I-15 SBb

 On-ramp from 

Dale Evans Parkway F 41.6 F 42.2 F 46.5 

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 

a

 LOS = Level of Service 

b

 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-9 

Ramp Junction Analysis 

All traffic accessing the proposed VV3 station site would use the northern I-15 /Dale Evans 

Parkway interchange. Figure S-3.5-3 shows the overall trip distribution for the station 

area. These distributions were incorporated into the traffic forecasts for the 2013 and 

2030 conditions at the I-15 on and off ramps at Dale Evens Parkway. 

Table S-3.5-3 summarizes the 2013 conditions at the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway ramp 

junctions under both baseline (No Project) and with project conditions (Both DEMU and 

EMU technology options). Under the 2013 Baseline Conditions, all ramp junctions are 

expected to operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better). 

Implementation of the project with the proposed VV3 station site would worsen delays at 

the I-15 and Dale Evans Parkway ramp junctions in year 2013 under both technology 

options. However, the LOS would remain acceptable at all ramp junctions under both 

technology options. 

Table S-3.5-4 summarizes the 2030 conditions at the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway ramp 

junctions. Under the 2030 Baseline Conditions, NB ramp junctions are expected to 

operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D), while SB ramp junctions would operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E and F). When compared to the 2030 Baseline 

Conditions, the SB ramp junctions would continue to operate at unacceptable conditions 

with implementation of VV3 under both the DEMU and EMU options, while the NB ramp 

junctions would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D. 

OMSF2, Relocated Sloan MSF, and Wigwam MSF Modification 

As previously stated, the revised OMSF2 site, RSMSF site, and the Wigwam MSF 

Modification would not result in changes to the anticipated number of workers at the 

MSF/OMSF facilities considered in the Draft EIS. Therefore these project modifications 

would not change the conclusion in Section 3.5.4 of the Draft EIS that these facilities 

would not result in adverse traffic effects on nearby local roadways. 

Segment 2C, Segment 4C, Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Profile 

Modification 

As previously stated, Segment 2C, Segment 4C, and AAAs would not include any interface 

with passengers or employees (e.g. station or maintenance facility) nor create any at-grade 

crossings or require modification or changes to existing local roadways. Therefore, there 

are no traffic effects related to these features. 

Frias Substation 

The Frias substation would be unmanned and therefore would not generate any new 

vehicle trips during project operations. As a result, the Frias Substation would not result 

in any traffic related effects. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-10 

3.5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The addition of project traffic to future projected traffic in 2013 and 2030 would 

contribute to unacceptable delays at the affected intersections. Table S-3.5-7 lists 

mitigation requirements for VV3 under the DEMU technology option. Table S-3.5-8

lists mitigation requirements for VV3 under the EMU technology option. The project 

Applicant would be responsible to contribute to these mitigations equal to their fair-share 

of the adverse effect as determined by the appropriate jurisdictional authority. 

Mitigation Measures TRAF-25 and TRAF-26 would avoid or reduce the adverse 

traffic effects associated with the proposed VV3 station site. Appendix S-B, the 

Supplemental TIA for VV3, provides LOS calculations at intersections after 

implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-25 and TRAF-26. These calculations 

show that mitigation measures would improve the level of service (LOS) to acceptable 

(LOS D or better) conditions at all study intersections. 

Table S-3.5-7 VV3 Mitigation Measures – DEMU Technology Option 

Station Site 

Option 

Intersection Existing 2013 2030 

Mitigation 

TRAF-25: 

Victorville Site 

Option 3 – 

Project 

Mitigation 

The project 

Applicant would 

be responsible 

to contribute to 

these 

mitigations 

equal to their 

fair-share of the 

adverse effect 

as determined 

by the 

appropriate 

jurisdictional 

authority. 

1. I-15 

Northbound 

Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

 Signalize  Add northbound 

left turn lane 

 Add second 

northbound left 

turn lane 

2. I-15 

Southbound 

Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

 Signalize  Add eastbound 

right turn lane 

 Add westbound 

left turn lane 

 Optimize signal 

timing 

5. Future 

Street/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

N/A  Signalize  Optimize signal 

timing 

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Note: The number of each improvement needed corresponds with the intersection numbers as discussed in the rest of 

this section. 
DesertXpress 3.5 Traffic and Transportation 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.5-11 

Table S-3.5-8 VV 3 Mitigation Measures – EMU Technology Option 

Station Site 

Option 

Intersection Existing 2013 2030 

Mitigation 

TRAF-26: 

Victorville Site 

Option 3 – 

Project 

Mitigation 

The project 

Applicant 

would be 

responsible to 

contribute to 

these 

mitigations 

equal to their 

fair-share of 

the adverse 

effect as 

determined by 

the appropriate 

jurisdictional 

authority. 

1. I-15 

Northbound 

Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

 Signalize  Add two 

northbound left 

turn lanesa

 Add northbound 

left turn lanea

2. I-15 

Southbound 

Ramps/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

 Signalize  Add eastbound 

right turn lane 

 Add second 

westbound 

through lane 

 Add westbound 

left turn lane 

 Add second 

eastbound right 

turn lane 

3. Station 

Access #1/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

N/A  Signalize 

 Add second 

westbound left 

turn lane 

N/A 

5. Future 

Street/Dale 

Evans Parkway 

N/A  Signalize 

 Add second 

westbound left 

turn lane 

 Add third 

westbound left 

turn lane 

7. Future 

Street/Station 

Access #4 

N/A  Signalize N/A 

Source: AECOM, 2010. 

Note: The number of each improvement needed corresponds with the intersection numbers as discussed in the body 

of this section and in the referenced 2010 TIA. 

a

 The 2013 geometry at intersection 1 is assumed to be unsignalized (the same as existing geometry) and the 2013 

mitigation measure reflects what is needed to improve the intersection under these conditions. By 2030, the 

intersection geometry would change and the intersection is expected to be signalized with one left-turn lane and two 

through lanes. The 2030 mitigation reflects changes needed to the anticipated 2030 intersection geometry. 

3.5.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The mitigation identified in Tables S-3.5-7 and S-3.5-8 would reduce the delay at the 

affected intersections so that the LOS would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or 

better) at all intersections. Therefore, all potential traffic and transportation effects can be 

successfully reduced through the implementation of the mitigation measures. No residual 

impacts from the project are anticipated after implementation of mitigation. 
S-3.5-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Victorville Station Site 3

Source: AECOM, 2009.

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS

VICTORVILLE 

STATION

SITE 3
S-3.5-2 EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Victorville Station Site 3

Source: AECOM, 2009.

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS

2 Dale Evans Pkwy

1

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

I-15 NB On-Ramp

49

31

17

2

1

0

136

15

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 SB On-Ramp

2

32

 0

4

143

1

3

W

S

N

E

VICTORVILLE 

STATION

SITE 3
S-3.5-3 FUTURE YEAR 2013 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Victorville Station Site 3

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS

Source: AECOM, 2009.

2

1

Dale Evans Pkwy

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

I-15 SB On-Ramp

I-15 NB On-Ramp

3

4

5

Stop Sign

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Dale Evans Pkwy

Station

Access #4

Station

Access #5

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Site 3

Access # 3

Access # 4

Access # 5

W

S

N

E

Future Road

Future Road

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

50’

100’

100’

100’

NOTES:

Station Accesses at intersections 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 

exist under project conditions only.

Dale Evans Pkwy
S-3.5-4 FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Victorville Station Site 3

Source: AECOM, 2009.

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS

2

DALE EVANS PARKWAY

3

4

Traffic Signal

Station

Access #1

Station

Access #2

Station

Access #3

15

6

7

8

Access #5

W

S

N

E

Future Road

5

Station

Access #4

Station

1

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 NB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

I-15 SB On-Ramp

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 1

Dale Evans Pkwy

Access # 2

Dale Evans Pkwy

Future Road

Access # 3

Future Road

Access # 4

Access # 5

Future Road

Future Road

150’

225’

300’

300’

200’

200’

100’

150’

100’

100’

100’

100’

200’

100’

NOTES:

Station Accesses at intersections #3, #4, #6, #7 and #8 

exist under project conditions only.

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Site 3
S-3.5-5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Victorville Station Site 3

DesertXpress -

Supplemental Draft EIS

Source: AECOM, 2009.

VICTORVILLE 

STATION

SITE 3
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-1 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the potential impacts to the visual environment related to the 

project modifications and additions and appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to visual resources identified in Section 3.6.1 of the 

Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and remain applicable to the 

project modifications and additions. 

As noted in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIS, FRA has grouped the project corridor 

landscapes into three visual quality and sensitivity categories – low, medium, and high. 

Figures S-3.6-1 and S-3.6-5 show these visual quality and sensitivity classifications for 

the areas of the project modifications and additions. 

Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIS also describes the FHWA and BLM visual methodologies. 

The FHWA and the BLM identify the visual quality and sensitivity of visual landscapes, 

using ratings of low, medium, and high. Table S-3.6-1 identifies the FRA, FHWA, and 

BLM landscape sensitivities and summarizes the landscape types and notable visual 

resources in the areas of the project modifications and additions. 

The BLM has also established visual management land classifications, using ratings of 

Class I through Class IV. Class I and II lands are relatively undisturbed and have vistas 

towards undeveloped natural areas. Class III lands include areas with established 

transportation corridors, but which look out onto landscaped with moderate to low visual 

disruption. Class IV lands represent visually disturbed areas and look out onto other 

visually disturbed areas. 

None of the project modifications and additions would be located within a BLM 

designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). ACECs can contain sensitive 

visual resources, in addition to sensitive biological and paleontological resources. Figure 

S-3.6-3 shows the location of the designated ACECs in relation to the project 

modifications and additions. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

The VV3 site (including both parking options (VV3A and VV3B)) would be located on 

undeveloped lands with low lying shrubs and desert soils as well as overhead electric 

transmission lines. The I-15 freeway corridor is located immediately east of the proposed 

VV3 site. FRA considers the overall existing visual quality of the VV3 site and 

surroundings to be moderate. The VV3 site is located on BLM visual management Class 

III lands. Figure S-3.6-7 illustrates the existing visual conditions at the VV3 site. 
DesertXpress 3

August 2010 Suppleme

3.6-2 

Table S-3.6-1 Summary of Existing Landscape Sensitivities for Project Modifications and Add

Modifications and Additions 

Relevant Figure 

BLM Objective Class 

FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity Rating 

FRA Visual Quality Rating 

Typical Visual Resources Present 

VV3A and VV3B S-3.6-1 Class III Moderate Medium Mountains with limited vegetation in 

undeveloped lands with low lying shforeground 

OMSF 2 S-3.6-1 Class III Moderate Medium Mountains with limited vegetation in 

undeveloped lands with low lying shforeground 

Segment 2C (Side Running and Median) 

S-3.6-1 Class II-III outside 

Barstow/Lenwood; Class IV in Barstow/ Lenwood 

Low to Moderate Medium 

outside Barstow; Low within Barstow 

Outside Barstow/Lenwood: Mountamiddle ground and background, undshrubs and desert soil in foreground In Barstow/Lenwood: Urban and su

Segment 4C S-3.6-2 Class I High Low to High Mountains with limited vegetation an

lying shrubs and desert soil in foreg

Relocated Sloan MSF S-3.6-3 Class II/III Moderate Medium Undeveloped lands with low lying sh

outcroppings in foreground, rolling hmiddle ground and background 

Frias Substation S-3.6-3 Class IV Low Low Suburban development, undevelope

and desert soil 

AAAs 1 & 2 (Segment 2A/2B) 

S-3.6-2 Class II Moderate Medium Suburban development combined w

lying shrubs and desert soils; Mojav

AAAs 3 – 6 (Segment 3B) S-3.6-3 Class II Moderate Medium Undeveloped lands with low lying shAAA 7 (Segment 6B) S-3.6-4 Class II/III Moderate Medium Mountains in the background, undev

shrubs and desert soils in the foregr

AAA 8 (Segment 6B) S-3.6-5 Class IV Low Low Urban development, views of Las VeWigwam MSF Modification 

S-3.6-3 Class IV Low Low Suburban development combined w

lying shrubs and desert soil in foreg

Profile Modification S-3.6-3 Class III Moderate Medium Undeveloped lands with low lying sh

foreground, mountains with limited vbackground 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-3 

OMSF 2 

Since the location of the OMSF 2 is the same as presented in the Draft EIS, the existing 

visual character of the site remains as described in Section 3.6.2.2 of the Draft EIS. The 

existing visual environment consists of undeveloped lands with low lying shrubs and 

desert soils immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor. Views of mountains are 

also afforded from the site. Table S-3.6-1 and Figure S-3.6-1 summarize the existing 

visual quality and sensitivity of OMSF 2. 

Segment 2C 

The visual character along the Segment 2C alignment options varies by location. Between 

the transition from Segment 1 and Lenwood, the existing visual environment consists of 

undeveloped areas with low lying shrubs and desert soils. 

The presence of the I-15 corridor and interspersed manmade features (i.e., billboards) 

fragment the natural landscape south of Lenwood and Barstow, but the corridor affords 

vivid views of undeveloped areas, hillsides, and distant mountains, representing moderate 

visual quality. The Segment 2C alignment would be located on BLM visual management 

Class II-III lands outside of Barstow and Lenwood. 

Through Lenwood, Barstow, and into Yermo, the visual environment consists of urban 

and suburban development. Figure S-3.6-8 illustrates a typical view of the existing 

visual character along Segment 2C within central Barstow. The combination of the I-15 

freeway and urbanized development through Lenwood and Barstow represent an area of 

low visual quality and sensitivity. The Mojave River becomes a prominent visual feature 

in the eastern portion of Segment 2C. Though this urbanized area, Segment 2C would be 

located on BLM visual management Class IV lands. 

Segment 4C 

The existing visual character of Segment 4C is largely similar to that of Segment 4B as 

described in Section 3.6.2.2 of the Draft EIS. Figure 3.6-28 in the Draft EIS depicts 

an existing view looking from the I-15 freeway towards the area proposed for Segment 4C 

with the Clark Mountains in the background. When entering the Clark Mountain area, the 

existing visual environment is dominated by rocky mountains and undeveloped lands. 

North of the Clark Mountains, the existing visual environment is dominated by 

undeveloped lands with low lying shrubs and desert soils. Segment 4C would traverse 

lands considered to have a high level of visual quality and integrity. As with Segment 4B, 

Segment 4C would be located on BLM visual management Class I lands. Views of 

Segment 4C would be possible from higher elevation vantage points within the northern 

unit of the adjacent Mojave National Preserve. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The visual character of the RSMSF site consists of undeveloped lands with rocky 

outcroppings, low lying shrubs and hills adjacent to the I-15 freeway. Billboards and 

industrial areas are located nearby. The RSMSF site is located in an area with moderate 

visual quality and is located on BLM visual management Class II/III lands. Figure S3.6-4 shows the existing visual quality and sensitivity at the RSMSF site. 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-4 

Frias Substation 

The Frias Substation site is located in a mixed suburban and undeveloped visual 

environment immediately west of the I-15 freeway corridor. The site is undeveloped with 

desert soil and scattered shrubbery with adjacent single-family development to the north 

and west. The site is semi-disturbed due to the presence of overhead electric transmission 

lines that traverse in an east-west direction just north of the site. Dean Martin Drive 

bisects the two sites that make up the Frias Substation. The Frias Substation is located on 

BLM visual management Class IV lands, with low visual quality and sensitivity due to the 

metropolitan nature of the surround Las Vegas visual environment. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

The proposed AAAs are located in close proximity to the I-15 freeway corridor in Segment 

2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. AAAs 1 through 7 are within the same existing 

visual environment analyzed within the Draft EIS, as the adjustments would have a 

maximum horizontal shift of no more than 400 feet from the center of the rail line 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. These shifts occur in largely undeveloped areas near the I-15 

freeway corridor. The visual character of these AAAs would be similar to the areas 

described for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in Section 3.6.4.2 of the 

Draft EIS. 

AAA 8 would shift a portion of the Segment 6B rail alignment outside of the existing I-15 

freeway corridor into a local roadway. Between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue, 

this alignment adjustment would traverse through the median of Dean Martin 

Drive/Industrial Road. Figure S-3.6-9 shows the existing visual character of AAA 8 

between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue. As documented in Section 3.6.2.2 of 

the Draft EIS, the visual environment in this area is predominately urbanization, with 

residential, commercial, and industrial developments lining the I-15 freeway corridor, 

representing low visual quality. Views of the distant mountains to the north are available 

from this location. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Since the location of the Wigwam MSF site is the same as presented in the Draft EIS, the 

existing visual character of the site remains as described in Section 3.6.2.2 of the Draft 

EIS. Figure S-3.6-10 shows the existing visual environment at the Wigwam MSF site. 

The existing visual environment consists of suburban development, such as RV parks, 

single-family residential development, and large multi-story neutral colored hotels and 

casinos, immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor. The site itself is largely 

undeveloped with low lying shrubs and desert soil with two small buildings housing 

commercial/industrial uses. Table S-3.6-1 and Figure S-3.6-5 summarize the existing 

visual quality and sensitivity of the Wigwam MSF site. 

Profile Modification 

The Profile Modification would not involve any new visual environments. The existing 

visual environment along Segment 3B has not changed since the Draft EIS. As shown in 

Figure S-3.6-11, existing views include undeveloped lands with low lying shrubs and 

desert soils, distant mountains, and an existing overhead transmission line in the mid-
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-5 

range view. As with Segment 3B, the Profile Modification would traverse through lands 

considered to have a moderate level of existing visual quality and integrity. The Profile 

Modification would be located on Class III lands. Views of the Profile Modification area 

are available to the north from motorists traveling southbound on I-15. 

3.6.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology used in Section 3.6.3 of the Draft EIS is used to evaluate 

potential effects of the project modifications and additions, providing a comparison of 

existing visual character to conditions following implementation. The same blended 

methodological approach of incorporating key aspects of both BLM and FHWA visual 

guidance documents and regulations is utilized. Section 3.6.3 of the Draft EIS provides 

a discussion of the BLM visual contrast rating process and FHWA visual impact 

assessment methodologies. 

BLM visual management class assignments were based on a qualitative review of site 

photography and field reconnaissance. FHWA visual quality and visual sensitivity ratings 

were determined by assessing the vividness, intactness, unity, and adjacent character of 

the existing sites. New viewpoints or “key observation point” (KOP) consistent with BLM 

and FHWA guidance were selected for VV3, Segment 2C, and AAA 8 due to their public 

visibility from the I-15 freeway and adjacent roadways. 

3.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Victorville Station Site 3 

The VV3 site would be visible from the I-15 freeway. Figure S-3.6-7 illustrates the visual 

comparison between existing and future conditions at the VV3 site showing the VV3A 

parking option, which would have surface parking areas between the station building and 

the I-15 freeway. Under the VV3B parking option, the surface parking areas seen in 

Figure S-3.6-7 would be located on the northwestern side of the VV3 station building 

and would not be visible from this viewpoint on I-15. 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

As shown in Figure S-3.6-7, the VV3 site would somewhat dominate the middle ground, 

partially obstructing views to distant hills and open desert lands for motorists on I-15. The 

VV3 station building would be located approximately 2,000 feet from I-15, which would 

reduce the visual intensity of the station building for motorists on I-15. With the presence 

of the I-15 freeway and overhead electric transmission lines, the addition of a new rail 

station facility as an adjacent transportation facility would not substantially detract from 

the existing landscape. 

The VV3 site would also create a new source of light and glare; sunlight could reflect from 

the new station building creating a new source of glare, while overhead parking lighting 

and outdoor building lighting would introduce new sources of light during nighttime 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-6 

hours. As the parking area for VV3B would be located on the northwestern side of the VV3 

station, the lighting associated with the overhead parking lighting would be less intense 

for motorists on I-15 as compared to VV3A. 

The VV3 site would be stationary images primarily observed by passing motorists on I-15 

traveling at speeds of about 70 miles per hour (mph), representing brief viewer duration. 

VV3 would be located approximately 6 miles north of central Victorville and would not be 

visible from the City’s more developed/populated portions, resulting in very few 

stationary, non-motorist views of the station. As such, the VV3 site would not create 

significant adverse visual effects. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

Implementation of VV3 would reduce the vividness of the existing desert landscape visible 

to the west from I-15. Due to the presence of the overhead electric transmission lines and 

adjacent I-15 transportation corridor, VV3 would not result in a change to the already low 

unity of the visual environment. Development of the station building and parking areas 

and the associated light and glare would result in a less intact desert setting, thereby 

decreasing the intactness of the existing setting. Under VV3B, the surface parking areas 

would be constructed on the northwestern side of the station building and the light 

associated with the overhead parking lighting would be less intense for motorists on I-15 

as compared to VV3A, whose parking area would be under the existing overhead electric 

transmission lines. However, due to the brief viewer duration from motorists on I-15, 

visual effects from lighting would not be significantly adverse. 

OMSF 2 

The visual effects associated with the reduced footprint for OMSF 2 would be similar to 

the effects of OMSF 2 discussed in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. OMSF 2 would 

introduce a new manmade, utilitarian visual feature into the existing environment. While 

OMSF 2 would partially obstruct views of the adjacent desert mountains and open desert 

lands, OMSF 2 would not represent the dominant visual feature for motorists on I-15. In 

fact, the reduced footprint of OMSF 2 would further reduce the visual dominance of OMSF 

2. 

Additionally, the existing overhead electric transmission lines already disrupt the natural 

landscape and the viewer duration from motorists traveling on the I-15 freeway would be 

brief. Thus, no adverse visual effects would occur from OMSF 2, as previously concluded 

in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Segment 2C 

Segment 2C would traverse two distinct visual environments: 1) the undeveloped 

landscape between Segment 1 and Lenwood; and 2) the more urbanized landscape 

through Lenwood and Barstow. 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

Segment 1 to Lenwood: As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this 

Supplemental Draft EIS, Segment 2C would follow the existing I-15 freeway starting at a 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-7 

point south of Lenwood. Constructing the rail trackway, concrete pillars, and trains 

necessary for Segment 2C would contrast with the form, color, and texture of the open 

desert areas and hillsides within the BLM visual management Class II-III landscape. 

However since the I-15 freeway corridor already creates a substantial contrast in the visual 

environment, the construction of Segment 2C would not constitute a substantially new 

visual feature within the existing landscape. Passing trains would briefly block views from 

the I-15 freeway to the north or west, however, this view blockage would be for only short 

durations due to the expected train frequency and speeds, resulting in a minor effect on 

views from the freeway. 

Within Lenwood and Barstow: Through Lenwood and Barstow, the I-15 freeway 

corridor travels through an urban environment. Segment 2C would be highly visible to 

motorists on the I-15 freeway but would not be out of character within the surrounding 

urban landscape. 

As shown in Figure S-3.6-12, the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option would be 

visible in the foreground for motorists, pedestrians, and visitors near the I-15/Main Street 

interchange within Barstow. Segment 2C would be on elevated structure as it crosses over 

Main Street immediately west of the I-15 freeway. The elevated trackway would be highly 

visible in this commercial and urban landscape but would not block significant views. 

Similarly, as shown in Figure S-3.6-13, the Segment 2C Median alignment option would 

also be visible in the foreground but slightly shifted to the east within the median of the I15 freeway. No significant views would be blocked by either alignment option. The visual 

effects of the two alignment options would be similar due to their location within an 

existing transportation corridor. 

While Segment 2C would result in the construction of a new crossing of the Mojave River, 

the crossing would occur immediately adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway bridges. As 

such, the new bridge would not stand out or create a substantial new visual element in the 

immediate landscape. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

South of Lenwood and Barstow: The visual effects of the Segment 2C alignment 

options would be the same for this visual environment since both alignment options would 

be located immediately west of the I-15 freeway. The concrete barriers, trackway, and 

passing trains along the west side of the I-15 freeway would detract from the vividness, 

intactness, and unity of views from I-15 towards the open desert lands and rolling hills. 

The Segment 2C alignment options would be visible to motorists traveling in either 

direction on I-15, looking north or west. The presence of autotransformers would also 

disrupt views of the desert landscape from I-15. The Segment 2C alignment options would 

decrease visual quality in undeveloped areas as seen from I-15. However, since the 

majority of these views would remain unobstructed when a train is not present, the overall 

visual quality rating for the undeveloped portions of Segment 2C would remain moderate. 

Within Lenwood and Barstow: The Segment 2C alignment options would introduce 

railway elements such as elevated trackways and passing trains into motorists’ views from 

I-15. Although these elements would change existing views, they would not block scenic 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-8 

views or breakup the intactness of the urban landscape. Figures S-3.6-12 and S-3.6-13 

show the elevated crossing of the Segment 2C Side Running and Segment 2C Median 

alignment options at the I-15/Main Street interchange within Barstow would disrupt the 

unity of the existing visual environment, as a new overhead trackway and concrete pillars 

would be visible from motorists and pedestrians on Main Street near I-15. Through 

Barstow and Lenwood, existing views from I-15 are not highly vivid, as manmade 

development, including residential and commercial developments and billboards, 

dominate the views and there are very few natural elements present. Thus, the addition of 

the rail elements, including concrete pillars, trackways, and trains, would not substantially 

lower this already low level of visual quality. 

Segment 4C 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

Concrete trackways, pillars, and tunnel portals associated with Segment 4C would have 

the greatest potential for visual effects because they would contrast with the form, color, 

and texture of the desert mountain surroundings. Refer to Figure 3.6-28 in the Draft 

EIS for a visual simulation of a tunnel portal that would be utilized under Segment 4C 

near I-15. However, the I-15 freeway already presents a substantial linear transportation 

corridor in this area. Therefore, the introduction of Segment 4C would not be completely 

out of character within the landscape. 

In areas further north where Segment 4C diverges from the I-15 freeway corridor, the rail 

alignment would be located within BLM visual management Class I lands and would 

traverse diverse landscapes, including rocky hills, mountains, open desert terrain and a 

mesa just north of the Ivanpah dry lakebed. The rail alignment would then follow 

adjacent to an existing overhead electrical utility corridor back to the I-15 corridor near 

Primm. While the new railroad would contrast with the natural landscape of the open 

desert, the rail line would be located in a remote area and not highly visible from the I-15 

freeway. Once within the overhead electric utility corridor the new rail line would be in an 

area of highly visible manmade features. Overall, Segment 4C would contrast with the 

texture and form of the desert landscape. Although not visible from any vantage point 

readily accessible to a substantial numbers of viewers, Segment 4C could be visible from 

wilderness areas of the Mojave National Preserve to the west from the air or from the 

peaks of the Clark Mountains. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

West of Mountain Pass, prior to traversing through the Clark Mountains, Segment 4C 

would be visible to the north for motorists on I-15, representing brief viewer duration. 

The vividness of current views from I-15 to the north of the desert mountains would be 

diminished through the addition of concrete pillars and track structures. Segment 4C 

would introduce a manmade linear structure through this undeveloped landscape, thus 

detracting from the intactness and unity of the view. While the visual quality would 

decrease within this portion of Segment 4C, Segment 4C would be a co-dominate visual 

feature since views of the Clark Mountains would remain above and beyond the rail 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-9 

alignment. Once crossing into the mountains, Segment 4C would no longer be visible 

from I-15. Therefore, the overall visual quality would remain moderate. 

North of the Clark Mountains, Segment 4C would not be visible by motorists travelling on 

I-15. Although Segment 4C could be seen from wilderness areas of the Mojave National 

Preserve to the west, from aerial views, or from the peaks of the Clark Mountains, views of 

Segment 4C would be seen in the distant background and the rail alignment would be a 

distinctly subordinate visual feature in the overall landscape. The intactness, unity, and 

vividness of the existing environment would be slightly diminished. Thus, the visual 

quality in this portion would be moderate with implementation of Segment 4C. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The RSMSF would be located in close proximity and at a site with similar visual character 

as the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. As with the Sloan 

Road MSF, the RSMSF structure would be visible to motorists traveling on I-15 and would 

contrast with the adjacent undeveloped desert lands. At night, the RSMSF would be a new 

source of light in a largely undeveloped area. However, given that motorists traveling at 

freeway speeds would have brief viewer duration, adverse effects to the visual quality of 

the RSMSF area would be minimal. 

Frias Substation 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

While the Frias Substation would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor, 

views of the substation from motorists traveling on I-15 would be blocked in part by a 

concrete wall constructed along the rail alignment. As such, the Frias Substation would 

not dominate the viewshed for motorists looking west from I-15. The substation would 

introduce new overhead electric transmission lines; however, these new transmission lines 

would be immediately adjacent to existing overhead transmission lines that cross I-15 near 

West Frias Avenue. 

The Frias Substation would also be visible to motorists and/or pedestrians traveling on 

nearby residential streets, including West Frias Avenue, West Haleh Avenue, and South 

Dean Martin Drive. Views of the substation would also be available from nearby singlefamily homes. Due to the proximity to the single-family homes and lands designated for 

future commercial and residential development, the Frias Substation could create some 

limited visual incompatibility with surrounding uses. While the substation would 

introduce new utility towers, the towers would be of the same scale, form, and color as the 

existing overhead electric transmission lines that parallel West Frias Avenue and cross 

over just north of the Frias Substation site. Further, the I-15 transportation corridor is 

already visible from these locations and the addition of new substation would not 

represent a substantial contrast from the existing environment. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

As previously stated, the Frias Substation would not be seen by motorists on I-15 but 

would be seen by motorists on surrounding roadways. Due to the disturbed nature of 

views at this location with the presence of suburban development and overhead electric 
DesertXpress 3.6 Visual Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.6-10 

transmission lines, the addition of the Frias Substation would not introduce a new type of 

development to the area. The vividness, intactness, and unity of the visual environment 

would remain low with the addition of the substation. The Frias Substation would be a codominate element in the landscape and no adverse visual effect would occur. As 

previously stated, mitigation to reduce the visual effects of the Frias Substation would be 

applied. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

AAAs 1 through 7 would be minor in nature and would not traverse new visual 

environments nor result in new visual effects beyond those discussed in Section 3.6.4.2 

of the Draft EIS for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, or Segment 6B. 

While the visual environment of AAA 8 was previously considered with Segment 6B in 

Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS, this adjustment would shift a portion of the rail 

alignment outside of the I-15 freeway corridor and into the median of Dean Martin 

Dive/Industrial Road between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue. Therefore, this 

evaluation focuses only on AAA 8. 

Evaluation under BLM Criteria 

Portions of AAA 8 Within I-15 Freeway Corridor: Although implementation of 

AAA 8 would shift portions of Segment 6B to the west, much of the rail alignment would 

remain within the existing I-15 freeway corridor (immediately adjacent to I-15 southbound 

travel lanes). The rail alignment shift in this area would not result in new visual effects 

beyond those previously considered for Segment 6B in Section 3.6.4.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Although passing trains in this area would temporarily block views from the freeway, this 

effect would be temporary and AAA 8 would not dominate views for motorists on I-15. 

Since greater visual change is allowed by BLM Class IV lands, the portions of AAA 8 within 

the I-15 freeway corridor would not be inconsistent with the existing urban visual 

landscape. 

Portions of AAA 8 Outside of I-15 Freeway Corridor: Figure S-3.6-9 shows a 

visual simulation of a portion of AAA 8 that has been shifted 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 elevated rail alignment would dominate 

views from motorists on Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road, as the elevated alignment 

and concrete pillars would be placed within the median of the roadway. Shifting the rail 

alignment outside of the freeway corridor and into this local roadway would alter the scale 

of the rail alignment for viewers on Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road and at the 

adjacent industrial, commercial, and hotel uses. This portion of the elevated structure 

would intensify the transportation use of the local roadway. However, given the urban 

and developed nature of the area, the elevated alignment would not conflict or 

substantially contrast with the existing urban visual landscape. 

Evaluation under FHWA Criteria 

Portions of AAA 8 Within I-15 Freeway Corridor: Within the I-15 freeway 

corridor, AAA 8 would traverse through an area of low visual quality due to the